Bill C-15 (Historical)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

Criminal Code

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in the debate on Bill C-15B. The bill deals with cruelty to animals and the firearms amendments.

We in the Canadian Alliance in no way condone intentional acts of cruelty toward animals. We support increased penalties. However concerns have been raised that Bill C-15B would make it possible for the courts to interpret some offences in a different light. Concerns have been raised by farmers, hunters and other agricultural producers who depend on animals for their livelihoods that moving the animal cruelty provisions from property offences to a separate section would elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. It is arguable that this is not the intent of the legislation but these concerns have been raised.

I support the firearms section of Bill C-15B although I am opposed to the firearms registry. The section would remove long firearms such as BB guns and pellet guns which are required to be registered under our present firearms legislation. This exemplifies what an unmitigated disaster Bill C-68 has been. The government originally said the legislation would cost tens of millions of dollars. The firearms registry has cost Canadians some half a billion dollars. It has had no impact at all on reducing crime. It is a tax on law abiding citizens.

Bill C-15B is another example of the government completely missing the boat. The government is bringing forward amendments because it realizes how ridiculous it is that BB guns need to be registered. The whole firearms registry is fraught with problems. The government will have to come back and amend the legislation over and over again. Instead of trying to tinker with the bill after spending hundreds of millions of dollars, the best thing the government could have done was repeal the entire long gun registry. I understand why the government is bringing forward the amendments. I only wish it had repealed the entire legislation with respect to the gun registry.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I am pleased to take part in this important debate. I want to commend my friend from Palliser for his remarks, which I think were very apt and timely.

The debate deals with an issue that has plagued Canadians particularly in recent days and months in the aftermath of what is now known as the Sharpe decision coming out of the British Columbia court of appeal, which in essence creates an exemption for types of child pornography on the basis that they might in some fashion have artistic merit.

I think that on its merits that decision has left Canadians with a great sense of ill ease and abhorrence for child pornography, which is so detrimental to the development of a child and exploits children in a way that has long term and lasting effects on their development.

This decision, if nothing else, has exposed some of the shortcomings in our criminal justice in the way in which we deal with child pornography. Bill C-15A and the amendments which form the subject of this debate touch directly on some of these issues. Yet one could argue that the wording of the amendment that is before us dealing with artistic merit reinforces the Sharpe decision, which is the very reason that we have seen such passionate speeches against the use of the words artistic merit in describing anything that deals with child pornography and has such a detrimental effect.

I can indicate at the outset that the amendment, which proliferates or continues this use of artistic merit to describe either written, photographic or computer generated images giving them some value as artistic merit, must be brought back, as referred to by my friend from Manitoba, to either the justice committee or the House itself. The justice department should make a very indepth effort into defining, within strict parameters, what artistic merit might encompass, perhaps excluding anything to do with child pornography.

Not unlike other pieces of legislation that we have seen come before the House, there were flaws in this bill. Bill C-15A in its origin was an omnibus package that required splitting. It required taking portions of it out and putting it in another bill. There have been ongoing changes and attempts to reconfigure the legislation as it now appears before us.

The government has agreed with a number of the recommended changes from the other Chamber and yet has not agreed with the one which deals with the elimination of the threat of prosecution for Internet service providers and cable companies. That amendment to the legislation is one which is somewhat difficult for many to understand. What it says in essence is that we cannot hold culpable or criminally responsible the Internet provider for the mere transmission of what would be deemed offensive pornographic material.

It follows previous precedent cases involving telephone companies or even the postal service. A supreme court ruling in The Electric Dispatch Company of Toronto v The Bell Telephone Company of Canada, which goes back over 100 years, found that the notion of transmission encompassing the person sending the message and the person receiving it but not the intermediary providing the technical wherewithal for the communication. This was referenced by Pierre Claude Nolin in the other place. One could say that this same argument would apply to the Internet service providers.

If all that companies do that are only acting as intermediaries between two or more persons is provide the means for storing or transmitting digital data for a third party, they might be innocently caught up in the transmission of smut or any offensive material. In this context one would expect there would be the recognition on the part of a trier of fact that the person who transmitted the child pornography without knowledge would not be held liable. However, where the issue is so serious and detrimental to the development of a child and to the spinoff effect there has to again be ironclad wording, very precise and clear language used in reference to that.

An amendment has been moved that essentially would negate the amendment brought forward by the Senate and would send it back for further study, which is perhaps what should happen. It appears that the issue, in the first instance, did not receive the attention it needed.

As we have seen with other bills, the Senate in its wisdom did good work but, because of the broad implications of this, we should take the time to ensure we have it right. For that reason, we in the Progressive Conservative Party feel that we cannot support the Senate amendment with the new and expanding forms of communication over the Internet. It is absolutely pivotal and critical that the legislation be precise and clear. It is meant to update the old sections which were aimed at the same sort of nefarious activity: the spreading of pornographic material that exploits children.

A number of Internet service providers that testified before the justice committee, providers such as AOL Canada, strongly supported the government's effort to limit the existence of child pornography and the proliferation online, and to capture the wrongdoers.

I think it is fair to say that within the industry there is a clear recognition and an acknowledgment that they must co-operate and do everything they can to monitor the service they provide and co-operate with law enforcement in preserving and, in many cases, turning over evidence to the police and to the law enforcement community.

I do not feel the bill captures the necessary tightness to ensure that both Internet service providers and this omnipresent, ever valuable effort to protect children is properly balanced. The possibility of liability attached to the stakeholders who participate in the blocking or the removal of material is still in the current wording and yet by virtue of this amendment we feel there is still some jeopardy that could exist for children.

I would suggest that most Internet service providers are being extremely diligent in their efforts to self-police their systems yet there is concern that by virtue of the wording of the legislation they could get caught in the net or the crackdown on individuals who bring pornography online.

Let us be clear, there is no property in good ideas and no political hay to be made on this issue. There is a very real intent and a very real spirit of co-operation on all sides of the House to ensure that we get this right for the protection of our most vulnerable, our most valued citizens, our children.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, in that vein, acknowledges the spirit and intent of the legislation. My colleague made reference of Rose Dyson, a very distinguished Canadian who has taken upon herself the role of championing the protection of children and Canadians generally from images and acts of sexual violence and violence.

In our last election platform my party brought forward a national strategy to combat child pornography and child abuse. The package included references to Internet safety education for children as well as measures to ensure adequate training for police involved in the tracking of pornography. Extraordinary efforts are underway today throughout the land on behalf of municipalities, provinces and the RCMP to address this ever expanding and very harmful issue that takes place within many communities.

The legislation today deals with a number of elements for protecting society. It also has references to protecting and expanding the sentence range for those who stalk individuals or disarm a police officer.

There is also a very important amendment which touches upon the subject matter of the wrongfully convicted and those who have an opportunity then to bring forward their case when new evidence comes to light or when there has been a miscarriage of justice.

On a number of occasions we have seen instances where new science, such as the use of DNA particularly, has exonerated individuals who were convicted. There is one case that I would suggest has long been a festering sore on the Canadian justice system. That is the case involving Steven Truscott. A book has been written quite recently by a very renowned author, Julian Sher, entitled Until You are Dead , which references the sentence which was handed down to Mr. Truscott as a 14 year old upon being convicted of a murder.

There is a 690 application that has been brought forward on his behalf by a well-known lawyer and defender of the wrongfully accused, James Lockyer. This is before the justice minister as it currently stands. However this new legislation will not impact on that. We implore the justice minister to act with haste, with prudence and with diligence to ensure that the miscarriage of justice is corrected in the very near future.

The way this legislation currently reads, there are concerns particularly given the creation of this loophole that comes from the Sharpe decision that many members have already enunciated. There are a number of ways in which we can improve the child protection measures within the criminal code but many of those efforts and amendments will be in vain if police are not given the support and the necessary tools and resources to address the issue.

There is very much a fiduciary duty on not only the law enforcement community but also on members of parliament, members of the defence bar and members of children's aid to do everything within their means to respond to the issues of child pornography and images and to the written word being used to disparage and degrade children within communities.

The legislation is a step and a move in the right direction. It is very much aimed at expanding the current efforts that are available and the current elements of the criminal code which reference child pornography. Yet the act itself is something that is not directly addressed in such a way that would allow for the eradication of such and allow for police officers to go to the lengths needed to direct all of their attention and resources to the issue itself.

Much of this issue is one of common sense. In terms of clarifying, the amendment of the legislation itself should put greater emphasis on the protection of children. The bill, as it is brought forward, groups a number of criminal code amendments in one and this suggests to me that the proper emphasis is not there. This legislation aimed at child pornography should be standalone, particularly underscored by the decision in Sharpe. I would suggest that there is now an opportunity on the part of the Minister of Justice and the legion of lawyers that he has in his department to pick up this issue and come back with legislation that defines narrowly and strictly when artistic merit might be brought into play as a defence for using and proliferating child pornography.

There is also an important timeline to keep in mind. The clock is running with respect to the appeal itself in British Columbia. That time period expires this week. We are yet to hear a public commitment from the Minister of Justice to put pressure on the attorney general of British Columbia to clearly state that not only will the Government of Canada be pushing for this appeal to be taken but will also join in that appeal as an intervener. As has happened in the past, this should clearly happen and should happen immediately. It is surprising and disheartening I think for most Canadians to know that the government has responded in a very lackadaisical way.

Individuals who are convicted of the heinous crime of pornography against children should be punished and should definitely receive the full extent of the law. There has to be a higher element of deterrent and public example of those who engage in this sort of activity.

The other day there was a private member's bill which looked directly at increasing the sentence for those convicted under sections 152, 153 and 151 of the criminal code. The Progressive Conservative Party certainly agrees and supports the intent of those bills, but recognizes, as most Canadians would recognize, the need for very clear definitions when dealing with the law.

Amendments that are put forward at any time are meant to strip away some of the confusion. My grandfather used to speak about how confusing the law could be. He said “If you are putting a new roof on your house, you do not put the shingles on top. You have to strip some of the old shingles away”. That metaphor is very true of how we draft and craft law in this place.

It seems that far too often we are piling legislation on top of legislation, instead of in some instances removing some of the provisions that simply muddy the waters. Particularly when it deals with issues so fundamental, so clear I think in the minds of Canadians, we certainly should draft legislation that mirrors that and reflects the same clarity of thought and clarity of purpose.

The bill as it stands currently, which deals with the numerous issues I have talked about including the miscarriage of justice, is still in my view somewhat unclear. The one amendment which we support wholeheartedly deals with the miscarriages of justice and calls upon the minister to put certain criteria in place for those who would be involved in the panel and the review of those miscarriages. They have some basic understanding of the criminal justice system and the system itself, be they retired judges, lawyers, defence or crown lawyers in good standing with their provincial bar, or they have had some experience that would lend credibility and a greater understanding to the hearing process. This we see as a very good step toward ensuring that there is no further miscarriage of justice when that panel undertakes its review of the evidence itself.

Again I very much associate myself with the remarks made by previous members that legislation which is clear and which responds to this gaping hole left by the Sharpe decision is necessary. There were old sections in place that dealt with this nefarious activity, but because of changes in technology, changes in the way in which we can communicate images and the written word, this is a modernization attempt. It is an attempt by legislators, by parliament, to respond. Certainly the spreading of pornographic material of children, exploiting children, is perhaps that issue which is most offensive and which most binds Canadians together against some common enemy or some purpose in which we can all agree that there has to be more.

What on earth could be more fundamental than that issue and more fundamental to the role of parliamentarians to respond? Certainly heightened awareness itself is not enough. Families recognize that their children have to be protected. They recognize that the world has changed, that there are in fact greater dangers afoot around every corner. This type of legislation with which we have been charged, to improve and examine, gives us that opportunity.

Two of the three amendments come up short in terms of reaching that standard of clarity and standard of purpose. The average Canadian would expect more and we cannot shy away from it. We should take every opportunity to get it right on an issue such as this.

The transmitting and the making available of this type of material, whether it be to sell or exploit, should be a criminal offence. There should be an effort made to ensure that no person is wrongfully convicted. There is some irony that we find elements of the wrongfully convicted in this very same bill. It is certainly something that undermines the justice system further when a person is wrongfully convicted.

I will close on that note. The Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation generally, but not the amendments which we feel work contrary to the express purpose of this legislation.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning and speak to a group of Senate amendments to the child protection provisions contained in Bill C-15A.

The new legislation would create the offence of luring a child by mean of a computer system. It would define child using the same ages set out in the Criminal Code of Canada. Accordingly, it would be a crime with a maximum penalty of five years to use the Internet to lure persons under the age of 18 for prostitution, child pornography, sexual assault, incest or sexual touching where the accused is in a position of trust. The age would be 16 for abducting an unmarried child from his or her parents. The age would be 14 for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, bestiality in a person's presence, exposure or harbouring.

The bill would create the offences of transmitting, making available or exporting child pornography through a computer system, offences which would carry a maximum penalty of ten years. The new legislation would also prohibit persons from intentionally accessing child pornography on the Internet, an offence which would carry a maximum penalty of five years. The material would be liable to forfeiture if deemed by the court to be child pornography.

We in our party have a couple of problems with the Senate amendments. First, we have a problem regarding the Internet. As my hon. colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands pointed out, the amendment is far too broad to effectively hit the target. Because of the amendment's broadness legal minds would be searching for loopholes in it. The amendment would be an open invitation for people intent on using a computer to export, access or sell child pornography. It would be an open invitation for them to go running to the legal minds of the country who want to deal with the issue and find loopholes to challenge the amendments in a court of law.

We are dealing with people who possess, distribute and create child pornography. We are dealing with the lowest form of humanity: people who seek to draw children into a position to make and proliferate this type of material. If we are to target these people, and indeed we must because they are ruining the lives of countless thousands of people, we must have legislation that does not go out like a shotgun spatter and miss the target. We must set our sights on these people with legislation that is 99.9% loophole free.

I know how the law works in Canada. One can take almost any law and find a way around it if one has a devious mind. A lawyer who is able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear in a court of law can set some sort of precedent through a loophole. The amendment dealing with the Internet is far too broad in its application and would create loopholes. We need a more targeted approach.

Second, we have a problem with artistic merit. I roll my eyes when I think about the Sharpe decision and the so-called artistic exhibits we have seen in the National Gallery. Since I have been in Ottawa I have seen exhibits with a sexual attachment to them that the vast majority of Canadians would find absolutely disgusting. Yet somehow the artists were able to convince whoever they needed to convince that the works had artistic merit. There are dozens of examples here in Ottawa and at the National Gallery.

As for the judges who argued Sharpe's material has artistic merit, a board of inquiry should look at their competency to sit on the bench. If they were politicians their competency to sit in the House of Commons would be questioned. The lawyers who found a way to create the so-called artistic merit defence are an absolute disgrace to the legal profession. That is my opinion but I believe it is shared by many Canadians.

I will finish because I have said enough about the issue. However I will move a motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word that and substituting the following:

“the amendment numbered 2 made by the Senate to Bill C-15A, An act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, be now read a second time and concurred in; and

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendment numbered 1(b) because the amendment applies the artistic merit defence to the new offences introduced by this act which could impact negatively in child pornography cases and this House disagrees with the amendment numbered 1(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-15A, An act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, because the amendment could exempt offenders from criminal liability even in cases where they knowingly transmit or make available child pornography.”

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker I am very pleased to rise on this Senate amendment. I would like to say at this time, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince George--Bulkley Valley?

I am opposed to the amendment. Basically it does two things. First, it deals people who innocently have computers systems which have been used for a criminal offence or for child pornography. They would not be convicted of an offence or be charged with an offence.

The problem with the Senate amendment is that while it tries to protect an innocent third party from prosecution if that person did have the criminal intent to commit the crime, it also creates some loopholes for those people who intentionally intend to use the Internet for child pornography. These people could slip through the cracks by having a defence and therefore might not be charged.

Some people have argued the other side. People using other forms of communication other than the Internet could also be innocent. I would argue that with charges related to child pornography, there has to be the mens rea element or intent to commit the offence. We do not need to write that into the statute. The danger of doing that is we could be creating loopholes for those people who intended to use the Internet for child pornography and could use this section in their defence.

Again, we in the Canadian Alliance are opposed to this for that reason. The sections under the criminal code already have the mens rea element, and this does not have to be put into statute.

The second aspect in the Senate amendment is where the accused is charged with an offence where the written material is alleged not to constitute child pornography. It all comes down to artistic merit. This area has huge problems as we have witnessed when the Supreme Court of Canada sent the Robin Sharpe case back to the B.C. supreme court. The court ruled that in certain areas when Robin Sharpe dealt with child pornography, he could not be prosecuted for his violent writings because they were found to have “artistic merit”.

I have a very difficult time with this. They are going down a very dangerous, slippery road. Robin Sharpe originally argued that this was a charter issue and a violation of his freedom of expression to use it for his own personal use. When it went back to the B.C. supreme court, it took one step further, and that was artistic merit.

This is an area where we have to put the rights of society against a possible right, and I do not even argue that it is a right, of an individual. Child pornography deals with the most innocent and vulnerable in our society, and that is our children. We have to use every bit of due diligence to ensure that we as parliamentarians have the correct legislation to protect our children.

In light of the recent B.C. supreme court decision which acquitted Mr. Sharpe in certain cases because of “artistic merit”, we as legislators should focus on that and say no, we will draw clear legislation that makes the use of child pornography a serious crime. The excuse, and I will call it an excuse, of artistic merit will not be tolerated in any way, shape or form.

We have a duty and an obligation as legislators to ensure we protect our children from sexual predators. As we have seen in the past, artistic merit can be interpreted broadly. The people put at risk because of these interpretations, our children, have no way to defend themselves.

I will say on the record that I hope the attorney general in British Columbia will appeal the recent decision of the B.C. supreme court which cited artistic merit as a reason for acquitting Mr. Sharpe. These are the areas we need to focus on.

The Senate has brought back a sub-amendment to ensure the legislation would protect innocent third parties. What it would really do is create loopholes for people who would find a way to use them. People could claim they were innocent third parties while using the Internet to exploit the most vulnerable in society.

For these reasons I will be voting against the Senate sub-amendments on Bill C-15A that are back before the House.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to speak today to Bill C-15A regarding the Senate amendments and to the larger picture with which we have to deal, child pornography.

This is an issue that is very close to my heart. I have a daughter whose career is counselling people who have gone through severe sexual abuse from quite early ages. I have heard some of the horrific stories from her of the results of that abuse and the life changing experience that causes. As my hon. colleagues have pointed out, there is no healing from that.

I certainly appreciate the comments that were made about the need to write the laws in parliament and to see our judiciary back them and enforce them rather than write them. We need to address these issues because of the tremendous, traumatic experience it is for those who are allowed to slip through the cracks.

I thank my hon. colleagues for their presentations and their willingness to stand up and speak to these things.

The bill does do some good. There is new legislation that creates the offence of luring a child by means of a computer system and it uses the same ages that the criminal code already sets out for determining the ages that make using the Internet to lure a child a crime. Accordingly, it is a crime with a maximum punishment of five years to use the Internet in these cases. The age is 18 for prostitution, child pornography, sexual assault, sexual touching or incest where the accused is in a position of trust. It is 16 for abducting an unmarried child from his or her parents and 14 for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and some other things.

I am not a lawyer but I know enough to know that the term luring is open to interpretation. I know what luring is when I am at the trout stream and I am tossing out the lure to draw the fish to my hook but I am not so sure that we can clearly define luring when it comes to sexual predators.

I recently heard about an incident that happened here in Ottawa a number of months ago where a person from another jurisdiction, where the age of consent was higher than in Canada, became acquainted with a 14 year old. He developed a relationship with the 14 year old and invited her to meet him. He came to Ottawa, set up in a hotel and the 14 year old met him. I am sure it could be argued that was the cultivation of a relationship. The distraught mother, having found out something of what was going on, sent the police. Although they found numerous sex toys in the room, they could do nothing because the 14 year old had gone to the hotel to meet this man of her own free will.

Luring was a crime then and it is now but how do we define luring? There are weaknesses here in some of the things we do. We get into the habit of saying things in legalese and it sometimes is more confusese than legalese. We should be able to use common sense and understand that the girl was lured for sexual purposes. It was a tremendous travesty of justice and of the law breaking down and not really protecting her like she should have been protected.

The amendment coming from the Senate adds the following to the legislation:

A custodian of a computer system who merely provides the means or facilities of telecommunication used by another person to commit an offence under subsection 163.1(3) does not commit an offence.

We certainly agree with the protection of those who are innocent third party people who become involved in an offence in an innocent way. In fact, this is the one thing we can commend. We wish that this kind of principle was followed in some other bills like the species at risk act and even in the cruelty to animals act. We believe there needs to be a certain level of knowledge and a certain level of intent before a criminal act is actually performed. Therefore we have no problem with that and we are glad it is there.

Then we move on to this great mysterious line which includes some other words. It goes like this:

Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3), (4), or (4.1), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

What do some of those words mean? First, perhaps the most innocent of those words it would seem would be “educational”. However, in a meeting on the Hill this week where the material was presented to us by some of the members of the Ontario police and the porno unit from Toronto, we were shown copies of the drawings that were done by Mr. John Robin Sharpe. The judge referred to those drawings as having some merit because by watching the sequence of drawings in sort of cartoon form he said that one could notice there was a tremendous ability for the victims to survive and therefore there was some kind of artistic merit. Perhaps he could have said that there was some kind of educational merit to those drawings because they in fact demonstrated that the victims could survive.

I believe that is stretching it way too far. I believe that is stretching the term educational too far. I believe it is stretching artistic merit too far. I would ask the judge, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there would be, for instance, any artistic merit in a sign being carried by a demonstrator on the front lawn of parliament that promoted hate toward, let us say, Muslims, Jews, parliamentarians? If the sign being carried promoted the aspect of killing, hating, wounding or abusing other members of society would the judge say that it was such a beautiful sign, done in such magnificent colours, that it was the most beautiful, colourful sign he or she had ever seen, and that it had such artistic merit that he or she would allow the protestor to carry it? I do not think so. I do not think that would happen.

Yet in that court, looking at those repulsive drawings, a panel of judges of this land could actually say that there was artistic merit. Why would the Senate want to send an amendment sticking those undefined, undetermined words and qualifications back into this legislation? Why would we do that?

I would suggest when it comes to artistic merit, when it comes to educational, scientific or medical purposes, perhaps there are some higher standards on which we should judge whether or not it is right to allow it.

For instance, the supreme court decision in the John Robin Sharpe case, when it defined or allowed for artistic merit, did not take into account the true and accurate reflection of community standards. Yes, I understand that the judge even wrote in his decision that there was no moral standard or community standard that could be applied. Again it is part of the abominable process that allows us to ignore the decency of common people.

Why can we have such laws and judgments that in themselves degrade, depress, demoralize and destroy our own country? Why is that? Why would we again write them in Bill C-15A? What is wrong with applying some community standards?

I would suggest that the court's application of artistic merit did not put a priority on the protection and the rights of children. How can we do that? How can we allow some artist, and I do not care if he is Michelangelo, to come up with material whose sole purpose is to promote the abuse of children?

Let us face it. That kind of pornographic material, especially kiddy porn, is designed to desensitize not only the predator but it is used to slowly expose the children who are targets and victims to the pictures and to the idea of being involved with adults in sexual activity until the children's minds are desensitized to that activity, so that they will be receptive and can be brought in to participate.

These children do not have the ability to weigh out and think the way an adult is supposed to think, although some question of that ability is being pointed out at some levels of our government. We must protect the children. They have no way of knowing where they are going once they start down that path. Those drawings are designed to draw them aside. The Internet is filled with that kind of stuff and if I have time, I will mention more on that.

The supreme court decision did not reflect the spirit of intent of even the term artistic merit. I can understand allowing room for the artists to do things. I do a little artwork myself. I have paintings hanging in my own house that I have painted, but there is nothing like that hanging on my wall. Perhaps I might have a hard time getting someone to judge my paintings as worthy of artistic merit. I am not a great artist but I am kind of proud of what I do. May I say that even my wife likes it, so that makes it pretty good.

There is an understanding here that some room needs to be given for artistic merit. There are some cases where examples need to be depicted for medical or educational purposes. I understand that wholeheartedly. However, to push it out and over the precipice to such an extent that we have done with artistic merit is absolutely absurd. Why would we stick that back into the legislation we are writing to try to protect children over the Internet?

A moment ago my hon. colleague across the way referred to the statistic that was given to us this week by the Toronto child pornography unit. My ears heard its statement this way, that it was so bound up with one case in the courts that it was frozen from examining the 400 others just in Toronto that the unit needed to examine. In the case the unit is working on now, it has confiscated 400,000 images.

Do members know what has to happen in order to prosecute the case? Do members realize that every one of those 400,000 images has to be viewed by the prosecutor's staff, classified, categorized and listed? Then in court, the 400,000 pictures have to be shown to the defence and the defence has to go through them.

We were told that the department was absolutely paralyzed for five to six months because it was using its entire staff simply to categorize these pictures. We are talking about something voluminous, something huge. We are not talking about if, maybe and perhaps these things might happen. The Toronto unit alone has confiscated 750,000 pictures since January 1.

There is a terrible problem out there. We certainly do not need to reinforce the opportunity for this to happen by allowing artistic merit or a lack of the definition of “luring”, little things like that, to give an opening to those who would traffic in child pornography. We do not need to do that.

Mr. David Griffin of the Canadian Police Association said these words, to the best of my being able to write them down, “If you hear the kind of sentences given out by judges to people guilty of these crimes, it would make you sicker than the pictures”. That is where I am coming from. I am sick of the lack of proper treatment of those who are ruining and destroying the lives of our young people by involving them in the production of pornography by feeding them pornography in order to use them in other ways.

We have to tighten this up. This is not yet enough. We need to go much further than this legislation goes. We owe it to the children, to the parents, to the future of this nation to put out legislation that would demonstrate some sort of backbone in parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to a bill referred to the House of Commons by the Senate, Bill C-15A.

At the risk of being extemporaneous, I may have to basically confine my comments to my rudimentary knowledge of the bill, but it is important for us to understand that the context of the bill is a very laudable attempt by the House of Commons to modernize its thinking on the fundamentals of child pornography as it is transmitted and disseminated through the Internet.

It is also equally a bill that has come as a result of a compromise, as has been mentioned earlier by previous members. It is a question of dealing with matters more specifically in a way that would divide this omnibus bill into two areas so that parliament could deal with this very weighty and laudable issue.

I had no idea that the bill was coming up. During the intervention of the member for Provencher, he mentioned a document which I circulated. It is basically an agreement among the 37 members of parliament who attended a meeting which I scheduled in light of the decision, the second round of Sharpe, by Justice Shaw of the B.C. supreme court some three weeks ago. The decision of course, in light of the supreme court decision of the previous year, upheld the validity of the more questionable sections dealing with possession of written material.

This clearly sounded alarm bells for all members of parliament. I want to assure members that the issue of child pornography, and by implication the issue of child pornography for all Canadians, is one that we in our totality do not accept. There is no doubt in the minds of 85% to 90% of Canadians that no amount of the benefit of the doubt should be given to anything other than the protection of children.

It is for this reason that the decision taken by the supreme court, and more recently by Justice Shaw, triggered the need for parliament to act in a way that it was not prepared to do some two and a half years ago. The genesis on this is very clear. Yes, indeed, the hon. member for Provencher mentioned that his side of the House had proposed a motion dealing with the notwithstanding clause. I think there are a panoply of options available to this parliament to address what is for most Canadians a very serious wrong, and I say so respectfully to the supreme court and to the justices with respect to the recent decision.

One of them of course is the notwithstanding issue and the ability of the House to consider in instances where it believes, as it should in this case, that the fundamental right of the protection of children must be paramount.

There is obviously a question that deals with whether or not the Supreme Court of Canada made a correct decision. I will go to section 163 of the SCC decision in January 2001 in which the issue is the defence of artistic merit, which incidentally is contained in the bill but is not amended in the bill proposed through the Senate. It says that where a court finds artistic merit, that it will adjudge that to be a sufficient defence against the prosecutorial powers and the weight of the criminal code as it deals with child pornography.

In essence, the qualification was of such a low threshold that justices in the majority said that artistic merit, however small, would be a sufficient defence to allow somebody who was in possession of written material to provide an excuse or not to be prosecuted. This of course was part and parcel of the decision made just some weeks ago in British Columbia by the same supreme court that earlier referred the issue and referred the child pornography section 163, inter alia, to the Supreme Court of Canada by striking them down.

This has clearly left a vacuum. One can talk of a moral vacuum. One can also speak of a legal vacuum. The reality however is that there is more than just the question of artistic merit. There is also the question of advocacy and counselling, which is really the basis on which the decision was made to allow, in this case, Mr. Sharpe to get off free or receive a get out of jail free card as it relates to written material.

Bill C-15A is an excellent attempt at modernizing parliament's view of child pornography as it is disseminated around the world, but I see two problems.

First, law enforcement agencies across the world and in Canada have readily identified the need for Internet service providers not just to bear some responsibility, but more important, to ensure that the images which they are storing and providing on behalf of clients are also kept for a period of time. The 37 members of parliament who attended the round table function two nights ago know exactly how it is done. There is a technical and serious problem if we do not hold ISP Internet service providers accountable for the undertakings of their accounts. If there is a dissemination of this harmful, deleterious information, then it may be lost forever. That would be the destruction of evidence even if the police and peace officers were able to obtain by warrant or other means the necessary information to provide a conviction.

Bill C-15A also speaks to the shortcomings of resources that can be handled at the House of Commons. This is not a provincial matter, but rather a federal matter that can be dealt with right now in a very timely fashion.

The second concern, which I hope will also be subject to more debate by members of parliament, is the consideration of the much wider impact of artistic merit, which I suspect will create an inordinate amount of controversy over the next few weeks. Parliament has the unique opportunity to begin tackling that. This could be done perhaps with the wisdom of our justice department, the Minister of Justice and his very capable parliamentary secretary who is just a few ridings over from me and a very able member of parliament for the Port Hope and Cobourg area. I am speaking about the member for Northumberland.

I want to talk more broadly about the issue of child pornography because it has been raised in this case.

The hon. member for Provencher talked about my region of Toronto. Many of us were astounded, shocked and probably are still recovering from the idea that there may be as many as 400 pedophiles using the Internet to disseminate material that is directed against children. Our law enforcement agencies are unable to detect these individuals. There is a problem of enforcement. The problem of enforcement is further complicated by the needs, as I was told recently, since January 1.

I pointed out to many colleagues in a letter sent to them some weeks ago that some 750,000 images of over 10,000 different children, some as young as three days old, have been portrayed in pictures seized by police. That is a very small number the police and enforcement agencies have been able to impact. We have a very serious problem that knows no bounds, but for which there must be the blunt instrument and determination of parliament to understand and apply appropriate language.

Most members of parliament should expect to receive within the next 24 hours a copy of proposals and options as well as the issues surrounding child pornography. This material will not just assist this side of the House but will assist all parties to come together on an issue that must not be divided on party lines. I was heartened to hear members of the opposition say that they were not looking to score political points on this. I think they too, as we on this side, recognize the value and importance of getting the wording in the legislation right.

I want to be very careful here. I do not think we should use the notwithstanding clause to protect children until such times as we have exhausted the wording that we think is necessary to protect children. I do not want this House of Commons or parliament to fall or be divided on the basis of semantics, words and language. The irony about words being such an important consideration for the protection of children is that it is simply trivialized by those who say the written word means nothing.

There is an obvious dichotomy that the words have to be written legislatively to protect children against pedophiles. At the same time, the words mean absolutely nothing, particularly when it comes to being in the hands of those who create or possess this information or worse, disseminate it. There is an obvious contradiction there. The House of Commons will have to try to resolve that. It will have to resolve that as quickly as it humanly and possibly can.

I have been challenged by the belief that somehow those who have written information which leads in many cases to the rape, torture and masochism of young children might in some way have some artistic merit and that the merit is somehow subjective.

A child molester and a pedophile are people who have a sickness. These people can never be cured of that sickness. It is a disease. It requires therapy, not obtuse legal reasoning. I cannot give a much better display of where we have surrendered our obligation to posterity than in the case where parliament does not act to fill the void.

I am convinced that the Minister of Justice and parliament are of one mind, that all issues must be put aside until we can deliberate on this issue to ensure the maximum penalties and force of law and to ensure that the charter of rights and freedoms brought forth by the hon. prime minister of many generations ago, Pierre Trudeau, is not intended in any way, shape or form to undermine the rights of children. I point out that while there are those who talk about fundamental freedoms, particularly section 2(b), freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, they certainly would not have precluded the life, the liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The constituency which we are speaking of is a constituency that pervades our society and thankfully so. For if it were not for children we probably would not have a future generation.

Let us understand something about child pornography. When minors are involved in a situation where their names or identities are reproduced around the world and are reproduced permanently, that puts those children in a position of victimization.

The House was in an uproar a few years ago about Martin Cruz, an individual who had been molested by pedophiles. We know what happened to poor Martin after his plea and his passionate coming out to talk to people about this issue. He took his own life because he was tormented by what had happened to him over generations. No human being should suffer that kind of indignity. Whether we talk about the issue of consent, human beings should be put in the position where a person in a position of trust can take advantage of them and forever inflict a wound which can never ever be healed.

I share the frustrations of members of parliament, but I also know that many members of the House have worked diligently and have a pretty good idea of those things that need to be done. We need one important element. This parliament must decide the laws of this land. This parliament must be the vanguard of the rights, the liberties and aspirations of human beings and of Canadian citizens who enjoy benefits and rights thereof.

We need to ensure that the role of the supreme court and the courts are there to interpret the limits of law, not to write in the law. I respectfully submit that in the case of the Supreme Court of Canada on Sharpe, they got it wrong. Parliament must now get it right.

To that end, it is fortuitous that the minister has brought forth through the Senate Bill C-15A.

Its timeliness is not to be gainsaid but it also means that there are opportunities here for us to use this as a model of what we plan to do in the not too distant future.

I know the appeal period for the decision in British Columbia is about to expire. It may be as soon as April 25. On behalf of members of parliament I would like to encourage the attorney general of the province of British Columbia, and by saying encourage I do not to tell him what to do but simply to urge to encourage him to seek the appeal.

Like the hon. member for Provencher, I think there were a number of errors in law. They are too weighty and would probably take me over 10 or 15 minutes to deliberate. I understand, in the interest of time, that what we can do here as a House of Commons is to work diligently, ensure that the amendments reflect the expectations of the public and that we do not get caught in dilatory or nonsensical defences or excuses that somehow obfuscate and derogate our understanding of the importance of protection of people within society who must have the life, liberty and security of person to be able to benefit from the things that make us unique as Canadians.

Parliament had to rush in 1993 to use certain wording. The intent may have been right, the wording may have been wrong but the intent to protect children must always be paramount whether that be a decision of the House of Commons or that supreme court.

We cannot allow people to undertake fishing expeditions at the expense of people who happen to be the most vulnerable in society but who happen to be the most precious constituency that we have in this country.

I boldly commend the Minister of Justice for having the courage to bring this forward. I look forward to working with members of parliament, to look at the number of options that they and experts have raised and to make this parliament not just relevant in our time but relevant for future generations to come.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which deals with child pornography.

I will begin by giving a brief background to Bill C-15. The opposition parties and the Bloc Quebecois asked the government to split this bill, because it addressed a lot of unrelated issues.

We asked the government to split Bill C-15 in two distinct pieces of legislation, Bill C-15A, to deal with child pornography, and Bill C-15B, to address firearms and cruelty to animals.

The government agreed. So, I am very pleased to speak, on behalf of my hon. colleague from Berthier--Montcalm, to the amendments made by the Senate. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague for his remarkable work on the issue of justice.

Last week, I attended an event in his riding which brought together over 300 people. It gave me the chance to realize how much his constituents appreciate his excellent work on justice.

I would like to state the Bloc Quebecois' position with regard to the first amendment proposed by the Senate. We are, as is the government, against this amendment. It was aimed at ensuring that people whose equipment is used for illegal purposes, probably without their knowledge, would not be prosecuted. But it opens a door that is wider than the one it is trying to close. This amendment is totally useless. It is even dangerous.

The concept of mens rea is implicit in the criminal code. Therefore, the custodian of a computer that would be used by a third party for illegal purposes cannot be prosecuted if there was no criminal intent, which is required for any criminal offence.

However, with the amendment proposed by the Senate, the custodian would be protected against prosecution even if he or she was fully aware of the purpose for which the equipment was used. The concept of intent is no longer important. Whether that person was aware or not of what was going on, he or she cannot be prosecuted and can therefore facilitate pedophilia with total impunity.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois is against this amendment to Bill C-15A. It is totally useless and even dangerous.

As for the second amendment proposed by the Senate, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of that amendment. It is simply aimed at correcting what was probably an oversight resulting from the creation of a new offence related to juvenile pornography.

Obviously, if we protect from prosecution any person who produces, distributes, sells or possesses juvenile pornography for educational, scientific or medical purposes or in cases where such material has artistic merit, then we must afford the same protection to those who access it. Through this amendment, the senators have shown a lot of imagination in finally clarifying that clause of the bill.

As for the third amendment, we are in favour of it because it specifies those to whom the powers of the Minister of Justice can be delegated.

The old wording read “any individual”. The new wording specifies that the suitable people will be, and I quote:

—any member in good standing of the bar of a province, retired judge or any other individual who, in the opinion of the Minister, has similar background or experience—

With this amendment proposed by the Senate, the minister's powers to act cannot be delegated to just anyone. This is comforting, because we are talking about child pornography, and those to whom the powers of the minister are delegated must at least be competent people who are able to identify the issues involved.

I would have appreciated it if the government had demonstrated as much openness toward the bill that I introduced last week regarding sexual offences, more specifically pedophilia, as it has demonstrated toward Bill C-15A.

My colleague from the Canadian Alliance said earlier that we have the moral right to pass legislation to protect our young people, the children of this country. We, as legislators, must do so, given that young people are not able to.

The issue that my bill dealt with was no bigger than that of child pornography, in Bill C-15A. However, it was a current issue.

Why are these amendments being proposed to the criminal code regarding child pornography on the Internet? Because the criminal code needed updating, and today, 20 years later, we are in the age of the Internet.

This bill allows us to deal with the age of the Internet. Everything that our friend from the Canadian Alliance described, in referring to the meeting that he attended, is true. We can no longer hide our heads in the sand about what is happening on the Internet. It was time to act.

This same openness should have been demonstrated when it comes to criminal acts committed by pedophiles against youth under the age of 14. This is also a current issue.

Last week, instead of being open-minded and acknowledging the problem, instead of realizing that it was no longer an option to keep one's head in the sand about all the sexual offences being perpetrated against our children these days, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice should have demonstrated the same open-mindedness and given some thought to a problem which all members on both sides of the House have been lobbied about at their riding offices or here in the House of Commons. Increasingly, we are talking about pedophilia.

In my riding, and in Quebec, 40,000 people signed a petition calling on the government to take action with respect to pedophilia against young people under the age of 14. This was not just something I dreamed up.

Over 40,000 people signed a petition, which I tabled in the House, calling on the government to amend the criminal code for this offence.

After I spoke last week, I received many calls in my riding, as did other colleagues. People did not understand the government's refusal to take action on this problem, which is just as serious as child pornography.

I am still very moved. I remember all the young people who came to talk to me about this issue in my riding office. They told me “The government must give us some means, it must help us. We cannot act. We are the victims. We do not have the means to overcome this psychological, physical and mental ordeal”.

The purpose of my bill was to open the door a little bit to allow these young people to come and express themselves, to see a ray of light. Indeed, when one opens the door and there is a bright sunshine, a little ray of light brightens up the house. I wanted to help them have that.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice only talked about big money. He said that it would cost too much, that it did not make sense, that the answer was no. He only talked about big money. He did not put himself in the place of the young people who are the victims of these criminal acts. He did not want to do that. He did not even recognize that the problem existed.

I only asked him to allow these young people and their parents to come and tell their story. They could have come to a committee sitting and explained to parliamentarians what they and their parents are going through. We could have finally opened the door a crack and taken a close look at this issue, as we are doing with child pornography on the Internet. My request was rejected. Both times I asked for the unanimous consent of the House, two female government members refused to give that consent. This hurt even more. Us women are confronted with this issue.

It is the same thing with this bill. Yes, the Bloc Quebecois supports amendments Nos. 2 and 3 from the Senate, but it is opposed to amendment No. 1. We had to take action, and this government allowed us to do so. As the Canadian Alliance member said, it designed tools to deal with abnormal things that can be seen on Internet sites involved in child pornography.

Let us face it: there is a growing number of perverts. We are not immune to everything that relates to perversity. We cannot think about all the things that these people can imagine. But today, with these amendments, we can give some powers to people in positions of authority, so that, at last, child pornography on the Internet can be monitored more closely.

There are other problems affecting our young people. The Canadian Alliance member was telling us about assaults on children younger than six, about dreadful photos on the Internet. Everything connected with pedophilia is dreadful. It affects the child's soul as well as his body. His inner being is violated. The member spoke to us of photos on the Net. These young people have been violated to their very core.

I trust that this government, which has shown open-mindedness concerning this problem, will note that in future I will not give up.

I will continue my crusade against pedophilia and will introduce a new bill that will focus even more clearly on sexual acts relating to pedophilia.

We can keep our heads in the sand no longer. As the Canadian Alliance member has said, and I would like to repeat his words, parliament has the moral right to pass legislation to help and protect our children. Our children are our future and they are the ones who will be responsible for the development of this country. If we act, our young people will be able to have a healthy future, psychologically, physically and mentally.

I congratulate the senators for their open-mindedness; their two amendments clarify the issues. We can finally say that they have been able to be of use as far as this bill is concerned.

Child pornography is a major problem. I beg this government not to stop any of its efforts relating to the sexual abuse of children.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise with respect to the issue.

I remind members in the House that in the fall all opposition parties agreed to pass Bill C-15A as quickly as possible if the justice minister would agree to split the omnibus Bill C-15 into two parts. That did occur. Bill C-15 became Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B so we could move ahead as quickly as possible on Bill C-15A as a whole. However in view not only of the comments raised today but of other issues, events have overtaken the legislation. In particular, the decision of the British Columbia supreme court in the Sharpe case has raised new and troubling concerns hon. members will need to address.

Bill C-15A would create the offence of luring a child by means of a computer system. Under this offence a child would be defined by the ages already set out in the criminal code. Accordingly, it would be a crime with a maximum punishment of five years to use the Internet to lure a person under the age of 18 for purposes of prostitution, child pornography, sexual assault, incest or, where the accused is in a position of trust, sexual touching. It would prohibit the use of the Internet for luring persons under the age of 16 for abduction from his or her parents and for luring persons under the age of 14 for sexual interference.

Under Bill C-15A transmitting, making available or exporting child pornography through a computer system would be an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years. The bill would prohibit persons from intentionally accessing child pornography on the Internet. The maximum penalty would be five years and the material could be liable to forfeiture.

A motion has been brought forward to ask that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House disagrees with the amendment. I too have concerns about the clause. Generally speaking we support the intent of the Senate to protect innocent third parties from prosecution without an appropriate level of mens rea. I will not get into the legal discussion because the parliamentary secretary has gone into it in some detail. I agree with many of the parliamentary secretary's comments in that respect.

I will address the concern of mens rea. The government's concern that the protection is too broad and may exempt some offenders is valid. There should be an amendment to require criminal intent or state that there must be a clear expression of criminal intent. I noted with interest the government's position with respect to mens rea. It indicated there is some clarity but has not proceeded in the same fashion with respect to Bill C-5, which has been the subject of substantive and fruitful debate with respect to a number of issues.

Lately it has been more about the protection of property rights. The government should not have the ability to take away people's property without fair and reasonable compensation being determined by the courts or some other objective tribunal. Compensation should never be left solely in the hands of the government. Property is far too important an instrument in our society to be left at the free disposal of government.

Not only did we in my party have concerns with respect to property rights in Bill C-5. We were concerned the bill would not accept one of the most important legal principles in a just and democratic society: that where one is charged with a criminal offence there be an appropriate level of mens rea. We must examine this statute closely to ensure it is there. We do not want to see innocent third parties, whether Internet providers, couriers, truck drivers or anyone, prosecuted for a criminal offence where there is no appropriate level of mens rea.

While the Senate amendment was a valid concern, the response the Senate has provided to the House is not satisfactory in ensuring that while innocent people would be safe from prosecution the guilty would be appropriately convicted where an appropriate level of mens rea was demonstrated in the context of the prosecution.

The second issue I will deal with is much more troubling. The amendment would replace subsections 163.1(6) and (7) of the act with:

(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3), (4), or (4.1), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

I emphasize the words artistic merit.

The amendment would apply existing defences for child pornography to child pornography on the Internet to ensure consistency. This must be carefully considered in light of the March 26, 2002 B.C. supreme court decision on the child pornography case involving Mr. Sharpe. It was ruled that he could not be convicted for his violent writings because they had artistic merit despite being sadomasochistic in nature and glorifying these types of acts by adults in relation to children.

Members on this side of the House and we in the Canadian Alliance believe the decision does not properly reflect society's interest in protecting children from sexual predators. In protecting Mr. Sharpe's violent writings which target vulnerable children the court's interpretation of artistic merit has been too broad.

We urge the British Columbia attorney general to review the case carefully. He has the power to do so. In British Columbia if the attorney general instructs an appeal he must set it out in writing. Whatever the mechanism, whether he personally instructs the appeal or whether it is done by crown prosecutors acting on his behalf, I urge the B.C attorney general to appeal the Sharpe case.

There are a number of other concerns. I will take time to examine a proposal and give credit to the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge. Yes, he is on the other side of the House but I commend him for taking a proactive role in bringing together members of the House with members of the police and other communities to deal with the troubling decision of the B.C. supreme court.

On Tuesday, April 16 almost 30 members of parliament met with police officials, psychiatrists and others related to this important issue who work with the police in prosecuting these matters. We had a profitable discussion. The hon. member for Calgary Southeast was there and contributed in a positive way to the discussion. We saw things that absolutely horrified members of parliament. We heard the anxiety of police and other professionals regarding the problematic issue of child pornography.

The police showed us pictures. They were run of the mill pictures in the context of this horrible activity which showed physical and sexual assaults on children. I am not a good estimator of age but they were very young children. The police told us children as young as six months or younger are subjected to this kind of abuse in Canada and pictures and other materials depicting the abuse are circulated on the Internet or through written documentation.

I can only imagine what it must be like to be a police officer on the front lines trying to protect our society against this filth. They have to examine it on a daily basis to present cases to court and achieve convictions. It is a difficult situation. In one case police seized 400,000 pictures. Can we even imagine 400,000 pictures? The police must go through each and every picture and categorize it to present a brief to defence counsel for the purposes of the defence. One case in Toronto has virtually overwhelmed the unit in charge of these investigations.

The police need our assistance. The children of Canada need our assistance. I examined the provisions of the criminal code this morning. I looked at the defences available with respect to advocating genocide and hate literature. I did not see anything in the criminal code that said people were allowed to advocate the killing of another human being and have an exception of artistic merit.

Can members imagine me standing and arguing in the House that butchers who advocate hate and the murder of human beings should have the defence of artistic merit? It is inconceivable. Yet for some reason parliament has said this when talking about the sexual and violent abuse of children as young as six months and even younger.

There were some horrifying things that were taught to us that evening, sexual assault on children where the umbilical cord was still present. I cannot even imagine it.

When I was a prosecutor I prosecuted pornography cases. I was involved on behalf of the government of Manitoba in the Butler case. This involved so-called adult pornography. I was horrified by some of things I saw. The deterioration of the ability of our law not only to protect adult human beings but now children is very troubling.

In the Butler case the supreme court clearly said that the combination of harm and sexual exploitation was not acceptable. It is sufficient for parliament to prohibit that. We have clear direction from the supreme court in the Butler case that says the combination of those two, the exploitation of sex in conjunction with violence, is wrong and parliament has the legal and moral right to pass laws that prohibit that in respect of adults.

What do we say about children? We say that, yes, we can abuse or depict pictures of children as young as six months old being violently abused. Yet we are worried about the defence of artistic merit. How can there possibly be, in a free, just and democratic society, an ability to ever tolerate that kind of abuse of children? How can the weighing of the interests of freedom of expression against that kind of harm ever come out to that conclusion? Then that kind of material must be banned.

I was troubled by a number of supreme court decisions. I took a position on behalf of the government of Manitoba against it, to see the expansion of freedom of expression to include things beyond our traditional British and Canadian understanding of free expression as relating to the exchange of political ideas and other types of ideas. That was certainly the understanding that most had when we enacted the charter.

I appeared before the supreme court on behalf of the government of Manitoba in the reference to subsection 193.1(1)(c) of the criminal code relating to the communication of prostitution or prostitution-related messages. The Supreme Court of Canada said the communication for sexual purposes on a public street corner was protected by free speech.

It upheld the legislation itself, the prohibition against that, on the basis of subsection 1. As a result the prohibition stood in that case. In the Butler case, it said that pornographic materials fell within subsection 2(b) of the charter of freedom of expression. As a result it upheld the prohibition on the basis of subsection 1. Given the result we wanted, we won the case.

If we look at the reasoning of that decision, there is the genesis of the result we see in the Sharpe decision, the breaking down of the abhorrence of this kind of activity.

The issue that is before us today is much more significant than it would have been even a month ago. When the first Sharpe decision came out members on this side said to use the notwithstanding clause. They said to get rid of that decision because it was wrong, it was perverse. We wanted the government to appeal the decision using the notwithstanding clause right away to stem the tide of this filth.

What was said by ministers on the other side, but not all members on the other side I might add, was that they had faith in the British Columbia court of appeal to do the right thing. The British Columbia court of appeal did not do the right thing. It absolutely did the wrong thing.

As politicians we should not be afraid to say that a court has made a mistake. The courts enter the political arena and make decisions on political bases, no less than members of the House do. The only difference is that if I were to stand in the House and say that freedom of expression should include the sexual exploitation of children, I would be expelled from this House, and rightly so.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we do not have the same kind of control over the judiciary because it is independent. Independence does not mean that it cannot be held accountable. Ultimately it is this House that must hold it accountable if it comes out with perverse decisions.

That is the purpose of the notwithstanding clause, to correct the serious mistakes that have been made that damage the fabric of our nation and destroy the broader societal values that hold our country together. The kind of decisions that were made by Justice Duncan Shaw tears apart the moral fabric of our nation.

We not only have the right but the obligation to move in that direction. When the British Columbia court of appeal failed to do the right thing this House should have done the right thing by passing the notwithstanding clause and appealing that court's decision in the Supreme Court of Canada. The notwithstanding clause is a five year term. It is a temporary override but we should have used it and we should not apologize for it.

Our political agenda is different than the political agenda of the courts. The political agenda of the courts is primarily to defend the individual rights of Canadians. Our responsibility is to look at that decision, weigh it and to say that through the use of the notwithstanding clause the individual rights of a child pornographer to glorify the violent sexual exploitation of children should be subject to the wishes of the people of Canada in preventing that type of activity from occurring.

I want to get back to what the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge said. He prepared an important paper for our discussion on child protection issues and options. He just presented this paper to me and I have had occasion to read some it. The ideas are good ones. They come as a result of the committee meeting that he chaired. True to his word he said he would work quickly on this issue to get something before us so we could consider this at our next meeting.

It is important for us to consider this at our next meeting. The member deserves to be commended. However it is not just the meeting of that group of 30 MPs who need to consider the recommendations that flow out of the discussions that all of us had on Tuesday, April 16.

There are numerous decisions and recommendations made in this paper. In view of the Senate motion, the Sharpe decision, and the work that has been done on this paper we need to think very clearly about what we should be doing as a House.

There are all kinds of amendments. One of the amendments that must be made which is not set out specifically in the member's paper, but which was raised by the police and other members at that meeting, is the keeping of information by Internet providers. It was stressed at the meeting of April 16 that police, in investigating these serious crimes, were met with the challenge that there was no obligation on the part of Internet providers to store information.

One might think that is a huge challenge but it is not. Other countries have laws where they require the retention and storage of this information for six months, a year or otherwise. It can be done. It is done in other countries and it can be done here. We must bear that in mind.

The recommendations, the issues identified and the options set out in this paper must not be considered by only members on this side of the House, backbench members or frontbench members across the way. The Minister of Justice must read this document. This is good work. It is the expression of the careful thought of the people present at that meeting and the expression of the hard work of the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, and it should not be discarded.

Parliamentarians and ministers stand up, throw their hands up and say what will we do about this? There is a good start here. It is not just because it corresponds with my thoughts on many of the issues. Perhaps it was a happy coincidence but this comes from years of reflection by the member on this issue and by other members on this issue.

There are issues and I want to deal with some of them because they are important. I want the record to show that there are solutions to these problems. It is not sufficient for us to say that the courts have decided and we would like to help the people of Canada but we cannot. To shrug our shoulders is an avoidance of our responsibility.

Parliamentarians, government policy advisers and government lawyers look at the charter as a barrier to social progress and programs that need to be implemented. Instead of looking at what the problem is and setting out a solution that works, often these policy advisers look at the charter, anticipate what the reaction of judges is going to be and then create the policy in that context. The result is a solution that does not work.

We have seen it in the context of the organized crime law. I can tell the House, not because I am a prophet but because I know, that legislation will fail. It will fail because the excuse that was offered consistently in refusing to follow recommendations that would have ensured effective legislation was “our charter does not allow us to do that kind of thing”.

Rather than setting it out in the legislation and addressing the problem, they concerned themselves with what the reaction of the judges would be. We should not do that. We should create solutions that address the problems and then prepare the legal arguments that justify our position. That is the nature of the political debate, or it should be the nature of political debate between the House and the judiciary in the Supreme Court of Canada.

We should not make an apology that we have genuine political differences and genuine differences of interest. We do not think consistently on all occasions. We share general principles to which we want to adhere and see enacted to strengthen our country.

The point I am getting to is the options paper that was written. This paper in a thoughtful way, mindful of constitutional parameters in a general way, suggests solutions that work and presents us with options. There are options that may affect an appropriate result. For example, issue two on page two of the options paper gets right to the Senate amendment and that is why this discussion is relevant. The member has written:

The defence of artistic merit 163.1(6) as currently expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada and interpreted by Justice Shaw exempts child pornography clearly harmful to children as the subject of criminal prosecution.

He brings forward four options, some not necessarily exclusive of each other but options that we should be considering.

The first one is to eliminate the defence of artistic merit to child pornography by repealing section 163.1(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada. People ask how we can repeal the defence of artistic merit when in the judgment of the supreme court there is a reference to artistic merit. Have we constitutionalized the defence of artistic merit in respect of child pornography? We have not done it in respect of hate literature or the advocacy of genocide. Why should children be the subject of abuse, of violent sexual attacks, and allow these sexual predators to rely on artistic merit?

If we amend the legislation to delete artistic merit completely, I want to hear the Supreme Court of Canada say “There is artistic merit in the sexual abuse and the depiction of that sexual abuse of six month old children”. If that is what the court is going to say, then the House has another responsibility and we have alternatives, but let us not anticipate what the court is going to say.

Personally I do not believe that Mr. Justice Shaw got it right. I think he got it wrong. The judiciary should be given a chance. We need to appeal this matter, but in the meantime let us look at the option of eliminating the artistic merit defence. In this respect, I have a serious problem with the motion.

The second option is to amend section 163.1(6) to apply a community standards test similar to the Butler decision. What a wonderful opportunity we have here. If in the context of adult pornography where there is a combination of violence and sex that can be prohibited on the basis of community standards, why would the same defence not be available in the context of child pornography and the abuse of children? Eliminate artistic merit and bring in the community standards test specifically. I am surprised that there is not already implicit in that offence the understanding that somehow the community cannot tolerate this kind of activity.

The third option is directly relevant to some of the comments I have been making. The member has identified the option to include the definition of child pornography as part of the hate crimes section 319, which has a different and more restrictive exemption. Again this is a very different type of exemption. There are exemptions but they are not of the nature that we have seen that allow the child pornographers to do what they do to our children and our grandchildren.

The last option under issue two is to amend section 163.1(6) to exclude material of which a prominent characteristic is not the description of a legal sexual activity involving children or which is not intended for sexual gratification. It is a little more technical but it is an option.

To the minister who might be tempted to throw up his hands and shrug his shoulders, although I have not seen him do that yet and he has not commented on the decision, I would ask him to read this paper before he does that. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to the minister to read the paper and consider our options. Let us not apologize for standing up to protect children from sexual, violent abuse.

In summary, I feel that these are issues which needed to be said. I again thank the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge for the paper. True to his word, he delivered in record time. On behalf of all the members who are in the House or were at the meeting on April 16, I thank the hon. member. This is a good start and we can conclude on a positive note if the minister and the cabinet consider these options and recommendations very seriously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-15A, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts, in short, the criminal law amendment act, 2001.

Hon. members will be aware that Bill C-15A received third reading and was passed by the Senate on March 19. After careful study and reflection, the Senate adopted three amendments to Bill C-15A. The House now has an opportunity to consider and vote on these amendments. I will briefly summarize the amendments in the order that they appear in the bill. They are as follows.

First is an amendment to clause 5 of the bill to add new subsections 163.1(3.1) and subsection 163.1(3.2) to the criminal code, the effect of which would be to exempt Internet service providers, ISPs, from criminal liability for the new offences of “transmitting”, “making available” and “exporting” child pornography, where the ISP “merely provides the means or facilities of telecommunication”. This is referred to as amendment 1(a) in the message from the Senate.

Second is an addition to clause 5 of Bill C-15A to amend subsection 163.1(6) and subsection 163.1(7) of the criminal code in order to ensure that the defences that are currently available in relation to child pornography offences apply equally to the new offence of accessing child pornography. That is referred to as amendment 1(b) in the message from the Senate.

Third is an amendment to clause 71 of the bill, that is, proposed subsection 696.2(3) of the criminal code, dealing with the process for review of allegations of wrongful conviction which would limit the minister's power to delegate the exercise of the new investigative powers to members of the bar of a province, retired judges or any other individual who, in the opinion of the minister, has similar background or experience. This is referred to as amendment 2 in the message from the Senate.

The government recognizes the important role played by the Senate in its consideration of this legislation. The government accepts the second and third amendments and acknowledges that these changes are improvements to the bill. I urge hon. members to vote in favour of these two amendments. However, the first amendment dealing with the Internet service providers is a different matter. I urge hon. members to reject this change to the bill. Let us look more closely at these amendments.

The second amendment to clause 5 of the bill is a consequential amendment that adds a cross-reference to the new offence of accessing child pornography into subsections 163.1(6) and 163.1(7) of the criminal code. As already noted, the sole effect of this amendment would be to ensure that defences that are currently available in relation to all other child pornography offences apply equally to the offence of “accessing” child pornography under subsection (4.1).

This amendment is necessary to avoid creating an unfair situation where a defence that is available to other and possibly more serious child pornography offences would not be available to a charge of “accessing child pornography”. This amendment corrects an oversight and the government supports it.

Turning to the third amendment, hon. members will be aware that the federal Minister of Justice exercises special post-appellate powers in review of criminal convictions. Proposed subsection 696.2(2) provides the minister with the investigative powers of commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act. This will provide the minister with the power to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses to provide information.

These additional powers of investigation are needed to improve the range and extent of the reviews of alleged wrongful conviction. Proposed subsection 696.2(3) as passed by the House would have allowed the minister to delegate the exercise of those investigative powers to “any individual”.

An amendment was made to subsection 696.2(3) in the Senate to specifically state that the minister may only delegate the exercise of those investigative powers to “any member in good standing of the bar of a province, retired judge or any other individual who in the opinion of the minister has similar background or experience”.

The government supports this amendment for the following reasons. It is important that those persons investigating cases on behalf of the minister have the ability to obtain the necessary information in order to thoroughly review and investigate a case so that a full report may be made to the minister as to whether or not a remedy is appropriate in a particular case.

Section 690 currently does not provide any powers to compel witnesses to give information or documents. Therefore there is no way that the information sought can be obtained if it cannot be obtained voluntarily.

For these special post-appellate powers to be exercised in a well balanced and reasonable fashion, the Minister of Justice needs to rely on sound legal advice based on good and reliable information.

The highly complex legal nature of these post-appellate conviction reviews requires that the people investigating these matters and eventually providing advice to the Minister of Justice possess a considerable knowledge of criminal law, the law of evidence, police practices and the workings of the judicial process. Therefore a legal background or substantial experience in law should be a requirement for a person to be designated as an investigator with the power to compel the production of evidence and the attendance of witnesses.

The Senate amendment allows the minister to appoint people the minister will trust and directs the minister's choice to persons having specialized legal experience. Again, the government accepts and supports this amendment.

Returning now to the first amendment to clause 5 of the bill, I ask hon. members to give careful consideration to this amendment as it is very problematic. It was made in an attempt to respond to concerns expressed by the Internet service providers to the effect that they could be convicted of “transmitting” or “making available” child pornography without any knowledge or intention to do so simply by virtue of the fact that they provide the “means” by which child pornography is disseminated.

These concerns are not well founded. New child pornography offences in Bill C-15A as well as the existing offences require both a guilty mind and a guilty act, a fact acknowledged by the Internet service providers. As with other criminal code offences, an offence of transmitting child pornography requires two critical components, the first component being an intention to transmit child pornography and the second component being the physical act of transmitting child pornography. Even without the Senate amendment, ISPs would not commit a child pornography offence when they do not have the knowledge of the content of the material stored on or going through their system.

Apart from being unnecessary, there is a more serious problem with the Senate amendment. The amendment exempts the ISPs from criminal liability in all cases where they merely provide the means or facilities of telecommunication. This exemption would apply even in cases where an ISP is aware that it is being used for the dissemination of child pornography because the ISP would still “merely provide the means or facilities of telecommunication”. As I mentioned earlier, ISPs who are unaware that their facilities are being used for such purpose would be insulated from criminal liability without the need for the amendment because they would not have the mental element, or the guilty mind if you will, that is necessary for committing a child pornography offence.

There is another problem with this amendment. The offences proposed by subclause 5(2) are not limited to the commission by means of the Internet. By exempting only the ISPs, the amendment ignores those who are responsible for other means or facilities that may be used for disseminating child pornography. Whether they be a courier, a taxi driver or even a trucker, they could unknowingly be used as a “conduit” or means of transmitting child pornography. Accepting an amendment to protect only one of the actors involved would cast a doubt on the legal fate of the other actors.

For all of these reasons, this amendment should be rejected by the House.

In conclusion, I strongly urge all hon. members to vote in favour of the second and third Senate amendments, amendments 1(b) and 2 in the message from the Senate, and to vote against the first amendment relating to the Internet service providers. That would be amendment 1(a) in the message from the Senate.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, for four days this week the House could have had thoughtful and fulsome debate on the report stage of Bill C-5 about species at risk. Unfortunately, the official opposition did not appear particularly interested in that.

Nevertheless, I will continue to consult with opposition House leaders to try to reach agreement on how to complete the debate on that very important legislation and I hope that there will be more interest shown than we have seen so far.

In the meantime, the House will proceed this afternoon with consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-15A, amending the criminal code. Tomorrow we will debate Bill S-34, respecting royal assent, followed by Bill S-40, respecting financial clearing houses.

On Monday we will return to any unfinished business from this week and, if there is time, we will turn to Bill C-15B, which of course is another criminal code amendment.

Later next week, if Bill C-50, the bill dealing with the WTO, and Bill C-49, dealing with excise, are in fact reported back to the House from committee in time, we will deal with their final stages as well as concluding any business left over from Monday.

As the House already knows, Tuesday, April 23 and Thursday, April 25 will be allotted days.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, we will see what will happen on the Sharpe question. Of course I cannot comment on that specific case for reasons that are obvious.

Of course the government is very committed. We are actively involved in the matter. Bill C-15A will give us another tool in order to make sure that we will keep protecting our children. As I said last week, the Department of Justice is actively looking into it with other members of parliament who are working on the file.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a notice sent out yesterday by the Standing Committee on Health. The notice misrepresented the role of the House in a way that seriously maligns parliament.

The notice sent out by the health committee indicated that its business for the day was Bill C-53. Bill C-53 was up for debate yesterday and had not yet passed second reading when the notice was sent. The committee chairman had presupposed that the House would pass Bill C-53. While that ended up being the outcome, the committee notice to study Bill C-53 should not have been sent out until the House had made the decision to refer the bill to committee.

I refer the House to a ruling from October 10, 1989. Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on a similar matter regarding an advertisement put out by parliament before parliament approved it. The Speaker quoted the then member for Windsor West, the recent Deputy Prime Minister, as saying:

--when this advertisement...says in effect there will be a new tax on January 1...the advertisement is intended to convey the idea that Parliament has acted on it because that is, I am sure, the ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this is finally adopted and comes into effect. That being the case, it is clearly contempt of Parliament because it amounts to a misrepresentation of the role of this House--.

The Speaker's comment in 1989 ruled that the effect of presupposing a decision of the House may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public.

We can draw a parallel between the 1989 case and the recent notice sent out by the health committee. If the committee gives the impression that Bill C-53 received second reading before the vote took place at second reading then its notice conveys the idea, as the former member for Windsor West argued, that the House adopted Bill C-53 at second reading since that would be Canadians' normal understanding of the process. The former Deputy Prime Minister argued that this sort of mockery of the parliamentary system amounts to contempt of parliament.

While the Speaker in 1989 did not rule a prima facie question of privilege he did say:

--I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.

Mr. Speaker Fraser was in a quandary. He was not sure on which side he should rule so he gave a warning. He warned that next time he would rule on the side of granting a prima facie question of privilege.

This sort of thing has happened many times since those words were spoken. In the last two parliaments the Speaker had a tendency to look the other way. He did so when the Minister for International Trade sent out a press release announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group when no such group existed. He did so when the government announced the appointment of the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation before there was legislation to set up the foundation.

A matter was raised by hon. member for Prince George--Peace River regarding the Canadian Wheat Board on February 3, 1998. Another matter was raised on October 28, 1997 regarding the Department of Finance. These complaints headed other warnings.

On November 6, 1997 the Speaker said:

--the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department...are of some concern...This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices...I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it.

These are strong words but such words cannot always be effective in defending the authority of this House. The fact that this behaviour continues undeterred demonstrates that the House must get serious.

Thankfully in this parliament the Speaker has taken these matters seriously. I will comment on two of those cases because they help to establish a pattern involving a particular minister.

Bill C-53 is sponsored by the same minister who was charged with contempt for leaking the contents of Bill C-15 before it was tabled in the House. When the Minister of Health was minister of justice, she was at it again with Bill C-36. Bill C-53 represents the minister's third offence, the latest tragedy to be preformed from her trilogy of contempt.

If the House is to function with authority and dignity then it must be respected, especially by its own members.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at which time I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Species at Risk Act

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating the various motions and amendments to Bill C-5, the species at risk act.

This legislation would have a dramatic impact on Canada as a whole in regard to the management of our natural resources and wildlife. It would have an impact on individual Canadians who live on the land and even those who live in the cities who want to enjoy the rural areas and the species living out in the countryside.

The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment along with endangered species. No one on God's green earth wants to see any species disappear. However, we know that over the millions of years that have passed nature itself has determined that some species would not continue to exist. We must have common sense legislation that within reason does as much as it possibly can to protect our endangered species.

The bill would not protect our endangered species in a common sense way. It may not even protect them in an effective way. The bill relies on the big stick. It relies on criminal sanctions when it should rely on some co-operation and some effort to bring Canadians totally on side.

The government has turned against the very Canadians that are most crucial in protecting species at risk, the landowners and land users where the species actually live. In the big cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, the areas where endangered species live have already been paved over so they are now gone from those areas. They may still exist in some other parts of Canada but the city people have already taken care of that. What is left now are the rural areas in Canada where we are trying to protect these endangered species. We are all in favour of that.

Today we are debating the amendments in Group No. 4. In one particular motion there is no requirement to put compensation in the regulations. This has been one of the binding points with rural people, the landowners, those people who would protect endangered species.

If a cattle rancher were to have a 640 acre square section on which there were particular endangered species or multiple endangered species, the government could come in and say that it should be set aside, fenced off and that there should be no use of that land for the raising of cattle because some species may need some heavier grass which should not be grazed down.

I do not know what the scientists may say about that. However, if that were the case there would be limited or no grazing on that land and yet there would be no compensation given to that rancher for that land which was taken out of production.

The government has asked to be trusted on this and said that it would do something for these people. If that were the case, if the minister's intent were true and believable, then what would be wrong with adding that to the legislation? That would get rid of a lot of problems. It would compensate those Canadians who might incur costs while attempting to save and protect endangered species and their habitat across Canada, which is what everyone wants. What is wrong with doing that simple thing?

It reminds me of Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation. What was required in that bill was the addition of one simple little legislative entry stating that under the criminal code the normal practices of farmers, ranchers, other livestock users and medical researchers was legally justified and would not be considered cruelty to animals.

The government could bring in good legislation but fails to do it. I do not understand why. It is like it is against farmers and ranchers. It just behooves me. The fine could be as much as $250,000. That is an awful onerous type of criminal sanction on a given farm and ranch. Many of these farms and ranches only net between $20,000 to $100,000 a year and then the government would try to fine them $250,000. That seems like an awful lot.

The government does not even have to let a landowner know that there is an endangered species on the owner's property. If the farmer or rancher were not aware that an endangered species was on the property, and the government did, the farmer or rancher could inadvertently destroy some habitat, or actually destroy the endangered species itself, and be subject to criminal sanctions because the government would not tell them. It is so ridiculous that the legislation deserves to be voted down.

We have some people in this country who are experts and have had experience with the species at risk legislation in the United States. I also have a friend High River, Alberta, David Pope. He is a lawyer and cattle rancher. I have actually seen his cattle ranch and he is a director of the Western Stock Growers' Association.

The directorship of the Western Stock Growers' Association met on April 9, 2002. The government thinks it has all the farmers onside. There are the Dairy Farmers of Canada. I know many members on the government side support the Dairy Farmers of Canada but the Dairy Farmers of Canada on April 3 wrote a letter to the government asking it not to pass the cruelty to animals amendments.

I am waiting to see that vote when it comes up in the House because I expect the Liberals to vote against the cruelty to animals provisions until we can get a decent bill brought in that takes care of our dairy farmers and does not cause them problems like the government is trying to do. Are Liberals the big protectors of farmers and agriculture? I do not think so.

David Pope said the Western Stock Growers' Association believed that the vast majority of the people involved in raising cattle in Canada would not support a law which would allow their federal government to confiscate their land without fair compensation under the guise of protecting habitat of a species at risk, as well as other issues.

Mr. Pope was born in the United States. He came to Canada and was a teacher, cattle rancher and lawyer. He is well travelled and well experienced. He said the legislation in the United States was terrible. There are many components in the legislation we are trying to pass that contain some of the same defects that were in the American legislation.

He said the federal government would have the legal authority to confiscate land without fair compensation, whether it was private land or crown provincial grazing land, under the guise of protecting the habitat.

A forced reduction of the number of cattle grazed on either private or crown land would not be fairly compensated. This backs up what I said a few minutes ago. We have an economic problem with agriculture. The cycles of prices, and commodity prices in particular, go up and down. Mr. Pope pointed out that as a result we end up with the necessity, when the government negatively impacts agriculture, that it provide some compensation for it.

The federal government is creating new crimes against landowners with fines of up to $50,000 or one year in jail. It would be double that if there was a second conviction. Any of us could easily be convicted of one of these offences without the government having to prove criminal intent.

Bill C-5 is along the lines of the Firearms Act. It would create a whole bunch of rules and regulations. They would be so many and so complex that Canadians could not possibly obey them all. With a vindictive government like this one and the present health minister who is a former justice minister, we would see that vindictiveness come forward and hurt Canadians.

I thank the House for the time to speak today. I will be trying to rise and speak to the bill later.

Pest Control Products Act

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the other vice-chair of the environment committee it is my pleasure to speak to the bill.

As we have heard from my hon. colleague across the way, I was not part of the environment committee when Bill C-53 was discussed so I am not familiar with all the work put into it during that year. However I will add a few comments that might be helpful to the health committee as it looks at the bill.

My involvement with environmental issues dates back to my reading of Silent Spring , Rachel Carson's book that pushed into the forefront the issue of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and so on and the impacts they might have. In those days a lot of mistakes were made. A lot of chemicals were developed that were effective, but no one looked at what they might do to our water and wildlife down the road. No one looked at the cumulative effects they might have for future generations.

I am pleased this piece of legislation is being revised. As the hon. member across the way mentioned, it has not been updated since 1969. An awful lot has changed in the area of chemistry regarding what works, what does not work and all the problems I mentioned.

I recognize the pressure on farmers trying to make a living who have had to deal with low commodity prices, increased input costs and so many environmental concerns. Other legislation before the House, Bill C-15B, is causing major concern regarding the definition of animal and the rights animals should have. We are all against cruelty to animals. However by taking the issue to the extreme we could put an awful lot of pressure on our agriculture community. Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, could put even more pressure on farmers as it comes through the House later this week.

Now we are discussing pesticides. A lot of farmers are afraid the government will come after them and attack the very things that constitute their way of life and means of income. We want to make sure members of the farm community understand that Bill C-53 would not target them. It would simply modernize a piece of legislation that has not been touched since 1969. I know many farmers who do not like using chemicals. They would rather not have to use them. However using various fungicides, herbicides and pesticides is a matter of survival for them.

Bill C-53 says the federal government would not interfere in the urban use of pesticides. It would leave it to the municipalities. That is a wise decision. It would allow each city to listen to its grassroots and make its own decisions. The most important emphasis for the health committee will be to look at the effect pesticides would have on children, animals and people in the community.

The new farming methods depend fairly heavily on the use of new herbicides and pesticides. Direct seeding is very common across most of western Canada. Saving fuel, reducing CO

2

and preventing erosion are all important when it comes to the new farming techniques. The downside is that farmers are fairly dependent on herbicides and pesticides to keep down weeds, insects and so on.

There is the matter of the runoff of these chemicals into our dugouts, streams and lakes and the effects it might have. We need a full study of water and the implications of pesticide and herbicide use on our water supply. The government has talked but has come forward with very little action regarding the survey of water.

We need to understand our aquifers. We need to understand the environmental implications on a much bigger scale than we now do. That is in the realm of federal concern. The federal government needs to show the provinces it wants to work together to develop a water inventory which includes the runoff of chemicals into our water supply. We have gone far too long without doing adequate studies to know what this means.

As I mentioned, the technology has improved. The modernization of chemicals and use of safer chemicals is all part of the new R and D. Chemical companies know they must have safe products. Because we have had such outdated legislation Canada has been pretty lax in the use of new chemicals. Bill C-53 would move us along those lines.

As has been mentioned before, when an OECD country says a chemical is suspect because it does not do the job it is supposed to and has other effects, Canada will start to look at that. This is a positive move. We need to register these chemicals. We need to understand their implications. These are all positive aspects of Bill C-53.

A big concern I have and that our agriculture and health critics have spoken to is that we need to put this piece of legislation into committee where we can make amendments and so on. However I am a little tainted and unhappy because that is exactly what happened to Bill C-5. Government members, opposition members, environmentalists and so on all found fault with it. It went to committee. We worked for nine months to improve it. All members of the House worked hard and co-operatively on that piece of legislation.

When the government got the legislation back from committee it decided to reverse most of the amendments we had won in committee. If that is the sort of thing that happens with Bill C-53 I will question what the committee is doing or whether it is wasting its time with the amendments. I will get over it. However when I see something sent to committee and have great hopes for amendments, I hope the government will listen to the committee. Committees listen to hundreds of witnesses before making recommendations to make better pieces of legislation.

When we talk about pesticides we should also talk about labelling. All of us have experienced difficulties with labelling. Whether we spray a chemical on our lawn or on a bug we do not want in our roses, we sometimes have difficulty reading the labelling. I have always thought that needed a lot of improvement.

The labelling sometimes talks about the mixing of quantities but talks about spraying only one rose bush. This does not mean much to the user who may not be dealing with only one rose bush. Sometimes it is very unclear what one is supposed to do to safely use a chemical. Farmers have the same difficulty when mixing batches of pesticide. Clear labelling is needed. Anything the committee can do to improve labelling for the use of pesticides would help.

We need to speed up the registration process whether for drugs or the use of pesticides. We need to learn from others. We need to look at what the EU, the Americans and other countries are doing. We need to see why they are outlawing certain chemicals and bringing in new ones. Many new chemicals are cheaper, more effective and do a much better job. We need to be able to speed up the process. Again, I hope the committee deals with the issue of registration.

As I mentioned, the mandatory review of any chemical banned by an OECD country is a good move because it means those 50 some countries have done their research. If they find a reason to ban a certain chemical it is good to evaluate the information. However we want the evaluation to be based on sound science and not the whims or lobbying of chemical companies and agricultural groups. This is something the committee could amend and improve in Bill C-53.

When we put forward a piece of legislation like this we need to recognize that farmers are in competition with members of the European Union and their American colleagues, and that the competition is real. There is an awful lot of work we can do. As long as the committee is given the freedom to bring in the witnesses it wants and put forward the recommendations it wants, and as long as the government is committed to listening, we will go a long way toward having an improved piece of legislation.

As my party's agriculture and health critics have said, we will support this piece of legislation. We will take it to committee. We look forward to getting amendments with respect to labelling, use, evaluation and so on. Provided that all comes together, we look forward to supporting Bill C-53 when it comes to report stage and third reading.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-15B, which refers to the prevention of cruelty to animals act and some aspects of the Firearms Act.

I have spoken to the bill before. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker will recall that I have spoken to the bill a couple of times. I do so from the standpoint of being a farmer for 35 years. I would like to pick up on some of the comments made by my colleague from Edmonton--Strathcona. Although he does not have experience in raising livestock he certainly has made some excellent points about animal welfare.

Some groups nowadays talk about animal rights. I have a bit of a problem with that. I have no problem, however, when we talk about animal welfare. My colleague made the point that not only it is in the farmers' and producers' best interests not to be cruel to livestock, but it is also in their interests to make sure that livestock does not even suffer any undue stress. Stress affects the way the livestock perform.

For instance, in regard to milk cows, I know there are groups in Canada who think that even the taking of milk from a milk cow is somehow a violation of the animal's rights. We can see how I would have a problem with that concept. If milk cows are not properly fed, if they do not have a high protein, fairly high fat and high energy diet, their milk production drops. After all, producing milk does two things. It supplies nutrients to a hungry nation and it supplies a livelihood to the person who does the milking. If the animal is stressed, milk production goes down, the hungry nation goes with less milk, unless more milk cows are provided, and the producer and his family make do with less income. It only follows, then, that it is in the best interests of the livestock producer, the dairy people or the poultry producers to put their animals under the least stress possible for the benefit of everybody, for the benefit of the system, for the benefit of the country, for the benefit of the economy.

I have no problem with dealing harshly with people who deliberately, maliciously and for no reason at all are cruel to animals. I have no problem with dealing severely with them. However, when the point is reached that the penalty for killing one's dog is a more severe penalty than it is for killing one's neighbour or wife, then I think we have crossed the line of common sense, and indeed, reality.

If we need to strengthen the laws to deal more harshly with cruelty to animals, I think it only follows that we need to strengthen the law so that we deal more harshly with people who are cruel to people, not only for murder but for mental cruelty. We all know people who have suffered at the hands of a parent, a sibling or people at school. There is a case in the news right now about a young person who took his own life and the possibility is that he did that as a result of the taunting and teasing received in school. That is the worst form of cruelty, cruelty to the point that it may have driven this young person to end his life at age 14 because he simply just could not bear the thought of continuing this miserable existence and being constantly teased.

If it is necessary to be more severe and have more severe penalties for those who abuse animals then let us balance the scale. Let us put something on the other side of the scale and make the penalties more severe for those people who are cruel and malicious to people.

Over the years we raised thousands of head of cattle for slaughter. According to what I read in the bill, even if one causes instantaneous death to an animal, one might be subject to these severe penalties. I cannot quite comprehend that because oftentimes in the cafeteria we are served roast beef, hamburger or fried chicken. Today the entree was fish. It is necessary to kill these animals to make meat. Someone has to kill these animals and I am sure that we do it in a humane way but under this law if the animal dies immediately it may be subject to penalty. That is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous that in committee at least 150 amendments to the bill were passed. Somehow they were dropped, lost or kicked out somewhere between the committee and the House. What kind of way is that to run the legislature? When we--