Bill C-20 (Historical)

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

Criminal Code

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

One of my colleagues says it sounds like Lightning. Actually, it sounds also like the government. I believe the government is stumbling. We see it in almost every aspect of the government today. We saw it during question period and afterward in a number of different areas. We see it in areas such as the gun registry and the fact that the minister himself has gone outside and has paid a company to produce a report that he hopes will be favourable to his department.

We saw it in discussions about GST fraud. This is a government that for 10 years has been unable and unwilling to even deal with the issue of people defrauding the general public of taxpayer dollars.

We saw it during the last week or so with the government's inability to take a position on Iraq that anyone could possibly understand.

We see it in agriculture with the APF and an agriculture minister and a department. It is within two months of a new seeding season and they do not have the programs in place. They have had two years to put those programs in place.

We see it with a public works minister who is busy appointing committees and getting MPs to delay the release of reports, trying to delay as long as possible an inquiry into the government's contracting and its actions there.

We also see it for the one who would be the leader, the member for LaSalle—Émard, who was in Alberta this past weekend. I thought it was the height of hypocrisy to hear him speak about how he wanted to put money into the military after he gut it for 10 years. He wanted to call the government to accountability on the gun registry, when he was the one who had been funding it to the tune of a billion dollars over the last 10 years.

In Bill C-20 we see another example of a government that is completely disinterested and unable to come up with good legislation. Today we have heard from perhaps two members out of 170 on the government side. They do not seem to even be interested in coming to discuss the issue and debating it with us.

I guess the government's best response today, and I do not even know if I should go there, was from the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot. He said that his biggest fear was that this law would somehow interfere with freedom of speech.

I found it interesting that the best example he could use was Romeo and Juliet . I find it typical of small “l” Liberals. They take an extreme example and then try to make a rule from it. In this situation we have heard someone talk about child pornography, then equate that somehow Romeo and Juliet is tied to that.

Police officers who came and spoke to us did not talk about Romeo and Juliet . They talked about small children and babies that were forced to have oral sex with adults. They did not talk about Romeo and Juliet . They talked about small children who were being raped by adults. They did not talk about Romeo and Juliet . They talked about small children being held down while adults masturbate on them.

It makes me very angry when I hear someone say that the issue in this legislation is freedom of speech. It is not. It is child abuse and child exploitation. There is no excuse. What do we have to do? How long do we have to talk about this? How long does it have to go on before there is action on this issue?

We try to keep this as clinical as possible and keep it as far away as possible. However, when the police come here and show us that material, we know that something needs to be done. Perhaps that material needs to be shown at a Liberal caucus meeting some Wednesday. Maybe then they will realize these are real kids who are being destroyed by these people.

What is wanted? When we go to Canadians, the first thing we hear is that they want a clear definition of pornography. We are the people who are supposed to legislate the law in the land.

It is good to ban child pornography but we need to do something with it. What is it? I will read the past definition of what child pornography, the defence for it and how it changes.

The previous version of child pornography, as found in subsection 163.1 of the Criminal Code, reads:

--(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or

(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

The condition is it has to be an offence under this act.

The defence, which everyone is getting more familiar with all the time, is that where the accused is charged with an offence under the subsections, the courts shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has, those famous words, “artistic merit”, or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

The changes are actually fairly small in terms of the definition. We are just adding a part to it. At the end of the section, we will simply add that it also includes:

any written material the dominant characteristic of which is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

I want to point that out because it does not say that it has to be just anything that involves this.

The defence is changed to:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence, or if the material related to those acts that is alleged to contain child pornography serve the public good or do not extend beyond what serves the public good...

My colleague, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, said this earlier. There is no definition of public good in the legislation. We need to talk about that. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. It has extended the definition of public good beyond the old definition. The public good includes issues that deal with religion, administration of justice, administration of science, literature, works of art, or other objects of general interest. It looks to me like the government has actually broadened what will be included in the definition of child pornography, not narrowed it.

We have asked the government time and again to ban this stuff and get rid of it. We do not need it around. Then it comes back with a bill that, according to a five to two Supreme Court decision, will broaden the definition of what will be allowed and broadens the number of exemptions for this material. Canadians want a clear definition. They do not want to be fooling around, they want this stuff banned.

Canadians also are asking for a ban on child pornography. Every member in the House who has been paying attention to their constituents has probably brought one of these petitions forward. It clearly states, “Your petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed”. We have seen hundreds and hundreds of these petitions and tens of thousands of signatures. The government must at some point begin to listen to its people.

The public demand, brought about partially through the Sharpe case and through widespread public revulsion, is that people want this material banned. They are not interested in artistic merit or anything else with regard to this material. The average person just wants rid of it.

We also hear that police officers need help. We heard it in the media and we heard it when they came here to talk to us. They brought some of this material for us to see, and they need help in a couple of areas.

First, they need help in dealing with the evidence. Presently they have to go through every image they confiscate. Some of these collections, from what we are told, have 200,000, 500,000 or 750,000 images. Police have to take the manpower to sit and go through every one of the images, detail them and ensure that every one of them fits the criteria that the government set out. We say they need some help with this. They need a situation where they do not have to go through this material ad nauseam.

Presently when police seize a huge quantity of drugs, they take one packet of it and that constitutes a fact in which people believe that the rest of the shipment contained the same material. We need that sort of thing for our police.

Second, and I will have more to say on this later, is Internet issues must be addressed for the police. This material is international in nature. There needs to be an international initiative taken to get some control of it. Russia, I am told, is one of the conduits for it, but this is just a banquet table for perverse appetites and something needs to be done about that.

What people really want is protection for their kids in what is seen as a crazy world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and contribute to this important debate on Bill C-20. As one of the few mothers in the House I can say that the protection of our children is partly professional but mostly maternal.

I have recently been communicating via mail with my constituents on related issues, such as sexual predators and child pornography. It is clear from their responses that they think that the government is not doing all it can to protect our children. In fact, 83% said the Liberals were doing a poor job. Unlike the government, they have made their intentions clear. They have not made the simple issue of child protection complex, bureaucratic and ineffective.

I will read to members and all Canadians some of the comments from my constituents on these issues. In many ways they say it better than any of us can. Before I read their comments I would like to share the survey results. Their sentiments on the issues are often close to unanimous. Some 81% think 20 years is a good minimum sentence for a pedophilia conviction; 86%, or almost 9 out of 10, think the age of consent should be raised to 16 years of age from 14 years of age; 89% say Internet pornography raises the risk of child exploitation; 87% say those caught with child pornography should be included in a national sex offenders registry; and 62% think the age of two people engaged in sex is an issue even if they are both consenting.

If members think my constituents are tough on crime, they are right. Members should see what they think of the justice system that coddles the people who commit crimes. Close to 98%, that is almost unanimous, think prisoners should not be allowed to vote; 88% think voting is a privilege, not a right; 94% think our current prison system gives prisoners too many freedoms; and 72% think increased prison privileges do not decrease the chance of reoffending.

I am not sure my constituents could be any clearer in their opinions. If they are so clear, why is the government being so vague? The government has watched for nine years as Canadian children go through another generation of abuse. We never heard about that achievement in the throne speech, did we? Children rely on adults around them to teach them, nurture and protect them. Unfortunately, not all adults provide our kids with safety and security. How we deal with those offenders is directly correlated to the priority we place on our children and their safety. I received many comments from my constituents on these issues.

Nancy said:

The 20 years is a lot of tax money spent on housing and caring for the criminal. The death penalty may be a more economical solution. Morally, it may be harsh, but I'm sure this would be a great deterrent”.

Anne Marie said:

We need to get pedophiles off the streets and start getting serious about protecting our children”.

Another wrote saying that the age of sexual consent would be better at 18. A Saskatoon resident wrote:

If we do not protect our children from predators, then what kind of parent...government...society are we? I have very strong opinions in this area...to that of bringing “capital punishment” to those who prey on children”.

One person wrote in with comments telling me that we still have much work to do. That person wrote:

This attack on pedophiles is the modern equivalent of the medieval witch hunt. You shouldn't be fuelling the fires of hysteria. In my opinion, the age of sexual consent should be lowered from 14 to 12 years. Once a girl starts to menstruate, she is biologically an adult. She should know it and act as though she knows it. Do you believe that there is some magic age at which a female suddenly starts to act responsibly? Stop treating teenagers as children, I say”.

That was one of my constituents and I think those statements need no further comment. Thankfully, the majority of those in our communities are of the opinion that children deserve protection.

I would like to address what I feel is this bill's largest fault.

Those who threaten our children are often seizing opportunities afforded to them by their proximity to the environments of our kids. Thus, one would think that removing that access would be the first priority in protection. Unfortunately, the bill still allows for conditional sentences.

Conditional sentences are a joke. Criminals, especially the ones who prey on children, should serve their sentences in prison, not in the community. There are criminals like Karl Toft, whose list of victims numbers in the hundreds. Today, he happily cruises the streets of suburban Edmonton. Do not worry, he has promised not to do it again.

Sex crimes invade one's personal security unlike any other crime. Those who commit these types of crimes are shunned, even within the prisons. They cannot even get respect among thieves and murderers.

There is a good cause for minimum sentences. Sex offenders are among the highest reoffenders we have. They are often quite intelligent, and this makes them more dangerous. They do not tend to make silly mistakes as often, and this makes catching and prosecuting them even harder.

This bill is a timid first step for Canadian children. It is complex, with cumbersome provisions that will not make it easier to prosecute sexual predators or keep them off the streets. Law enforcement still does not have the tools to deal with child pornography cases effectively or efficiently. Children must be protected from abuse. The failure of the Liberals to prohibit all adult-child sex leaves children at risk.

The Canadian Alliance has demanded the elimination of the artistic merit defence. The Liberals have finally recognized its danger. Unfortunately, the Liberals have replaced the existing defences with a single defence of the public good. There is no substantial difference between this defence and a previous defence that was rendered ineffective in a 1992 Supreme Court ruling. Higher maximum sentences for child pornography and predation will not be effective unless the courts enforce them.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to sit in the House all day and listen to the debate on Bill C-20. I have heard the debate, mainly from our side, but I have also heard some of the concerns from members on the other side.

Bill C-20 is very complex. None of the provisions in the bill would make it easier to prosecute sexual predators.

There is something I want to get straight here. I hear from the other side the words common good and how this bill outlines the common good defence. Perhaps members have short memories. There is no substantial difference between the defence called the common good and the previous defence called the community standards test which was rendered ineffective by the Supreme Court in 1992. All the government has done is recycled it and tried to shove it down our throats as a bill that shows it cares about our children. I take exception to this. I find it disgusting that it would use this method to do it.

One of the main concerns expressed by everybody in the House since 1993 has been the safety and well-being of our children. We have heard time after time in throne speeches that the government's number one priority was the safety of our children. Yet it has done absolutely nothing.

The Sharpe case was in 2001. I listened to the minister stand in the House and say that we were fearmongering, and that we should not worry as the government would address this. The government said it would do it before the summer was over and for us not to be concerned, that the minister was on top of it. That was in 2001. That was when the minister made his promise in the House and here we stand today.

The government told us to have faith in it. It said that it would tighten this piece of legislation up, take it to committee and study it. It has done that for months and nothing has been done. It will do nothing to protect our children.

I am not a father and I am not a parent. However, I have spent a lot of time in the bush and I know that animals in the bush look after their young far better than the government looks after the youth of Canada. That is a disgrace. The animals will stand up for their young. They will not throw them in front of us. That is what this country has come to. We now throw our children in front of us. That is a shame.

I stop to think about how great the country was, where all young people had the right to grow up safely and we have taken that right away from them. They now walk in fear. Parents now take our children to and from schools. They are not allowed to play in playgrounds and so on. The government comes up with a piece of legislation like this saying that it will address these issues.

This will address these issues all right: the government knows full well that this will be challenged time and time again in court. However, it is easier for members on the other side to sit and blame the judges and to say that the judges should not have interpreted it that way, knowing full well when the piece of legislation was passed that they were leaving it to interpretation.

These laws should not be open to interpretation. They should not be based on judge made laws, for it is the members who are held accountable, not the judges. It is time government members did what they were sent to do and that is to correct these issues. But no, instead, they will march to the dictatorial demands of the front bench and of their supreme dictatorial ruler. They will vote in accordance with that and not protect our children, but rather protect their minister who has failed in every measure.

The government has been found wanting in the public eye and it has been found guilty. The government, in our eyes, been found useless when it comes to issues such as this.

This will be a major issue in the next campaign because people are fed up. We have been in the House and seen the thousands and thousands of petitions on this issue, yet where is the government? It comes in with a piece of legislation called Bill C-20 that does absolutely nothing.

I want to give some examples of what I am talking about. James Paul Wilson, charged with possession of child pornography, assault and obstruction of justice received a one year suspended sentence. He was in custody for nine months prior to sentencing so that was taken into consideration.

Leonard George Elder was convicted of sending hundreds of pornographic photos of children across the Internet. The Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned the nine month sentence and said that Elder should instead serve a 15 month conditional sentence. A slap on the wrist, that is what we are talking about.

While this was going on, Kevin Hudec downloaded hundreds of images over several months showing sex between adult men and girls aged five to nine years. He received a one year conditional sentence that he can serve at home. At the same time, our caring, sharing government was jailing farmers for selling their own products. Yes, I know where its priorities lie and it certainly is not in the protection of our children.

I do not know how much more a person can say without getting ticked off around here. Police forces have come here from all over Canada with concerns. Liberal members cannot sit over on the other side and say that they have not heard from them because they have. The police have told them that they are handcuffed with this type of legislation, that they need money to fight what is going on, particularly in regard to child pornography, and they go away empty-handed.

I know that some of the members from the other side have seen the videos that the officers showed us. They were sickening. They were perversion at its height, yet still the Liberal members do nothing. Why? Because they are told not to make it an issue. They are told not to take a stand that is not the same stand as the minister. I find this unacceptable.

I do not understand why the people in the members' constituencies do not get up in arms over this. These are children we are talking about. We are not talking about 14 and 15 year olds. The videos we saw showed two and three year olds, yet the government members do nothing. I do not know what has to be done to light a fire under their feet. Maybe they have to get fired, then they will finally wake up and say they have seen the light. No, they will go back at the next election and ask for forgiveness. They will say that they made a mistake, they will not do it again, and to please elect them, but by then it will be too late.

They must remember these children. As another hon. member said in the House today, they are victims for life. Their sentences are for life. It will impact upon their marriages and education. It could impact upon whether they will be drug addicts or not, whether they will be prostitutes or not. It will be an ongoing problem until we stamp it out. If this is not a good enough reason to stamp out child pornography then God help Canada because I am certain the Liberal government sure as hell will not.

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

Mr. Speaker, as someone has mentioned, it is a sad day when we have to stand to debate this kind of issue in this nation of ours. It is sad because there are the defenders of pornography and child pornography. We as legislators need to have the starch in our bones to make a strong stand against it.

I want to talk for a minute about what pornography really is. I have not heard that discussed and the definition is not in the legislation. In fact, what I am going to talk about is not a legal definition, and I do not suggest that it should be considered as a legal definition, but I want to talk about what it really is because we sometimes fail to recognize that.

Pornography is visual or verbal exploitation of the decency, privacy and well-being of a human body, soul, mind and spirit. It is exploitation of a human being, whether it be a child or an adult.

What is child pornography? I have here a quote from Hansard , in which the member for Palliser said earlier in the debate at another time that:

--the position that I take, and I believe would be shared by a majority if not all of my caucus colleagues, is that if it has not specifically hurt a minor in the production of it, if it is created by people's visual imaginations and if the main purpose of it is not simply about pornography and sexual exploitation, then under the laws people do have a right to their own imaginations and thoughts, however perverse the member and I might think they are.

Let me say one more thing in addition to that. Every crime and every action starts in the mind but is not contained or ended there.

I am concerned that this is the extent to which many people will look at pornography, as in fact has happened in the John Robin Sharpe case. The right to produce and to have was defended, but that is because they do not understand that it is never ever the case with child pornography.

Child pornography is the most hideous form of pornography. It is usually a graphic product produced primarily by an adult, with an innocent child as its primary victim. Indirect child abuse happens because of child pornography. I would define indirect child abuse as that which is used to desensitize other children and of course recruit them. It is used to excite other pedophiles.

If we talk to those who have counselled, worked with and dedicated their lives to helping people who have lived through child pornography and child sexual abuse because of this, we will then understand that it is never produced to keep private. It might be the thought for the moment that it would remain private, but it does not end up that way. Those pictures and stories have to be passed to someone else in exchange for others because we have to keep changing the pictures in our mind to remain excited. That is the way human beings are built. They are not going to sit and look at the same catalogue of old pictures all their lives and never share them with others. That fallacy has to be shot down. It has to be understood.

It is indirect child abuse because it is used to excite those who prey on children. It is indirect child abuse because it is used to perpetuate abuse and pornography. It is indirect child abuse because it is used for the recruitment for further pornography, drugs and the sex trade. It is even direct child abuse when a child is used in its production. It is the worst form of child abuse.

There are many kinds of child abuse. There of course is the lack of providing the necessities of life and that is sort of mentioned in some of the legislation. There is abusive discipline, whether it be physical, verbal, emotional or psychological. They are abuses of a child and certainly we would speak against them. There is even, I submit to the House, what is probably one the largest categories of child abuse going on in this nation in this day and age, and that is simply the lack of discipline, when we do not teach our children how to grow up and how to mature.

Bill C-20 is about child protection at all these levels, but it is still so woefully inadequate. It is inadequate because there is no adequate definition of pornography. So without an adequate definition of pornography, I am told, there have to be certain defences put in there. What has happened here is that the government has taken the old artistic merit clause, has sort of done away with those two words and simply has replaced them with the words “the public good”.

I have a hard time imagining at any time that drawings such as those John Robin Sharpe was allowed to retain in his possession could ever be for the public good or even ever be considered to have any kind of artistic merit.

There have to be ways in which we can define what would constitute a medical use of illustrations, et cetera. If we are so worried about not being able to have educational materials, we can describe that and we can define that. We do not have to leave it to some nebulous decision on a liberal judge's bench as to whether or not it has educational, artistic or public good to it at all. We are not doing that in the bill. I think we are missing the mark by a long way.

We are missing it when we come to dealing with the sentences. The sentences have been mentioned many times, but it must be said over and over again that it does not matter if we put in maximum sentence of 100 years for child pornography, child abuse or sexual exploitation of a six month old baby. It does not matter. What really matters is what the minimum sentence is, because in this day and age, a day of full prisons and liberal wishy-washy thinking in our country, we do not give sentences worth handing out. We do not enforce what we give. We turn offenders loose. It would have been much more effective if in fact the sentences had been raised on the minimum rather than the maximum.

Then there is the refusal to address the age of consent. We have in the bill the protection in regard to an exploitative relationship by an adult, but we all know, if we are honest with ourselves at all, that there is room for both approaches and that the age of consent should have been raised to 16 so that we do not continue to allow the sexual activity between children and adults to be legal and then have to go to court to prove whether or not there was some sort of exploitive or trust relationship. This is woefully inadequate and we in the Canadian Alliance have been calling over and over for this change.

Another very major shortcoming is that the bill did not address at all the need to change the requirements for how a case is presented in court. In this day and age when a computer is filled with hundreds of thousands of images and we have to process every one of them to present them in court, how ridiculous can we get? We do not do this in any other kind of law. The bill did not address that. I will just say that the legislation needs to go back to the drawing board for some common sense and to have some teeth put into it.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on this occasion to speak to a matter that unfortunately has captured the attention of the public for a number of years and to go on the record with respect to Bill C-20, a bill that concerns a number of us.

Bill C-20, the Liberal answer to the John Robin Sharpe case, has been too long in the making and, I am fearful, does not go far enough in alleviating the inexcusable production of child pornography. I will preface the bulk of my comments by saying that there are some favourable aspects of the legislation and, under close scrutiny by the justice committee, they will no doubt prove beneficial.

When we listen to people discussing the Sharpe case quite often we hear them say that the justice system is at fault and that judges do not give harsh enough punishments.

The justice system can only implement the legislation that is made right here. We can argue interpretation and, like all of us, various judges interpret whatever they read in different ways perhaps. However, clear cut, pointed, specific legislation narrows their ability to interpret. When dealing with something like child pornography, the legislation should be specific so no judge anywhere in the land would have the ability to interpret it to ease or perhaps completely eliminate dealing with perpetrators of this offence.

With regard to sentencing and how much time somebody should get for their involvement in cases such as child pornography, anybody in Canada who realizes what this is all about will agree that the punishment has to be pointed and severe so it will be a deterrent if other things do not work.

People might say that a 10 year sentence is a long time for people who have child pornography in their possession but they should think about how long the victims suffered. It is not a 10 year sentence for some child who was involved or used. It is a lifetime sentence in most cases.

We in the House are only representatives of the people who put us here. Legislation is really developed by the people of Canada, and we in this place operate under legislation. They send us here as their representatives to do what they wish, not what we ourselves want to do in the House. Unfortunately, that happens more often than not, especially when the people sent here think they know more than the people who sent them and make laws and rules to suit themselves rather than the majority of the people in the country. Fortunately, they usually do not come back here, Unfortunately, they can do a lot of damage while they are here.

However, while we are here, we have an opportunity with this legislation, through committee and through amendments, to create the type of legislation that will deal with this horrendous problem.

As the universe changes and as the technological world expands, we understand the opportunities available to individuals to take advantage of the young and innocent in our society. We also become more conscious ourselves through such opportunities to see how often it is really happening.

When a few years ago we would hear of somebody involved with child pornography, we would think it was an isolated case and it was terrible, but when we look at the numbers of people who are charged or suspected, and when the police, whose hands are tied because they themselves do not have the ability or the numbers to do the research and the enforcement necessary in cases like these, tell us they are just scraping the surface, it is scary.

What can we do? We can argue that government has to put more resources into our police forces across the country, which is certainly true. We have to put more funding into research and we have to put more funding into justice in general. But what we can do very easily here is use our common sense to collectively develop the type of legislation that first, will deal with the problem, and second, will prevent a second Sharpe case from occurring because the legislation will be direct, so that no justice anywhere in the country can interpret it in a way that will be to the benefit of the person who is the abuser rather than the person who is abused.

We can do our part. When we have a piece of legislation as important as this, we would be remiss if we did not do so.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to enter into the debate on a subject like this one is both gratifying and frightening. It is almost repugnant because the subject matter is such that one would not want to be involved in this kind of activity.

I remember when my good colleague presented to us in caucus and to a number of members in the House some video material that had been collected by the police in Toronto. He showed us what some of the content of child pornography is. It is the most repulsive, the most repugnant stuff that anybody could ever portray.

We have here a proposed law, Bill C-20. It purports to deal with the issue of what is child pornography and what the defences are with regard to child pornography.

Much has been made today about the substitution of “public good” for the words “artistic merit”. It is almost as if something very substantive has now taken place, that we have somehow brought into being something that is much clearer to understand and much easier to defend in court than artistic merit would be. Here we have public good as being a very good thing and much clearer than anything else.

I want to draw attention to something that has happened in terms of the definition. I want to put this in the context of what the proposed law actually says. Subclause 7(2), which amends subsection 163.1(6) of the Criminal Code, states:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence, or if the material related to those acts that is alleged to contain child pornography, serve the public good and do not extend beyond what serves the public good.

Notice what happens right after that in subsection 163.1(7)(b). I want to read it into the record:

For the purposes of this section,

(b) it is a question of law whether an act or any material related to an act serves the public good and whether there is evidence that the act alleged or the material goes beyond what serves the public good--

That is a question of law. It goes on:

--but it is a question of fact whether the act or the material does or does not extend beyond what serves the public good;

I am sure all my colleagues understand the difference between those two things as does everyone listening today. We understand clearly what that means.

I suggest that everyone does not know what that means. It seems to me that this is the grist for judges and lawyers to be debating from now until kingdom come or until the law is changed again to define clearly what it being talked about.

It is a question of law or a question of fact and the difference between the two is so difficult. A lawyer or technocrat would look at it and say what is meant by it and another lawyer would say it meant something else. The argument would carry on until the time, the money, or both were exhausted by the defenders or the prosecutors.

Alex MacDonald, who was the attorney general for the province of British Columbia, said that Canada does not have a justice system; we have a legal system. If there was ever an example of something that was made to order for a legal system, it is that clause of the bill.

What has this bill really contributed to the understanding and the protection of children? It has confused the issue. It has not clarified anything, yet one of the purposes of the bill is to clarify both what is meant by pornography and what is meant by the defences.

As the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam said so clearly, if there is anything in terms of the general interpretation of public good, we have added more elements to the public good than would ordinarily constitute artistic merit.

What have we done? There are at least two levels on which we can debate this thing backwards and forwards and find out it is no clearer today than it was before.

There is something far more significant than the technicalities. It has to do with our responsibility as legislators, as adults, as fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters of the children around us. What is our major job? The fundamental and most significant activity we are involved with is to teach our children, the next generation, the difference between right and wrong, to give them an understanding of ethics.

Recently in Switzerland CEOs from around the world got together and talked about what will be the most significant issues in the coming years in terms of business around the world. After many days of deliberation they came to the conclusion that the fundamental concern of businesses over the next while will be ethics, the difference between what is right and what is wrong and to apply that in a practical sense in the everyday world.

If business people have recognized that ethics is important, how much more the case for us as legislators to recognize that we ought to be ethical and set the example and indicate what is right and what is wrong.

To write in the bill what is the public good and there is no understanding of what is right and what is wrong in the first instance, how could it ever be clear what the public good was all about?

Over 300,000 people have said one of the elements of the public good, one of the things that they believe is wrong is child pornography, the exploitation of children for sexual purposes by those who are older and should know better. The people of Canada have said something. They have said it very clearly. They have said it unequivocally. They have been absolutely clear.

Could it be that the government listened and said that yes, it had to do something but it really did not want to change anything substantially so it decided simply to change “artistic merit” to “public good” in order to tell the people that it did something. And the government did something. It replaced two words with two other words. What is the substantial difference? Nothing.

What has happened to our young people? What direction did they receive? What guidance has the government given to young parents who are trying to teach their youngsters between what is right and what is wrong? None.

All of us in the House need to recognize that our primary responsibility is to create laws that are clear, that are understood by all concerned and that tell clearly the difference between what is right and what is wrong. The bill falls far short of that mark.

We talked about the age of sexual consent. We on this side of the House have been advocating that it should be raised from 14 years to 16 years.

I would like to raise other questions. How is it possible that in our society we can say that one has to be at least 18 years old to make a decision about who should help run this country, but it is perfectly all right for one to determine the future of one's life in terms of being pregnant or not pregnant as far as women are concerned? How is it possible that it is all right for older men to impregnate younger women at the age of 14 if they say yes, but there is no way that they are able to vote for somebody unless they are 18 years old? What kind of logic is that? What kind of sense does that make?

I ask the government to reconsider very seriously what it has really done to help the people of Canada and particularly for the protection of young children by this piece of legislation. The government has not done anything to help us.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to speak to this issue. It is one that is very important, as the last few months have testified in the House with the tabling of literally of hundreds of thousands of names of Canadians who are concerned with this issue. We support their concern.

The government had an opportunity with Bill C-20 to address some of those concerns but unfortunately once again the government has missed the boat.

If the bill was intended to safeguard children, it certainly has not done that. It is more complex, it is more cumbersome and that is something we see as a rule of thumb with the government. Any time a bill comes forward, instead of being simple and straightforward in getting to the task at hand, it becomes more complex, more cumbersome and more open to interpretation in the wrong way.

One thing the bill does not do is give the police forces or the prosecutors the tools that they need to deal with child pornography and to bring pedophiles and child pornographers to justice.

There needs to be a national strategy to deal with this and it needs to be supported with adequate resources. Right now this is not happening. Police officers are telling us that they do not have the time nor the resources to deal properly with this issue. The way that the evidence has to be prepared when a child pornographer is charged is that absolutely every image that person has in his or her possession has to be catalogued and presented in court. This ties up hard-working police departments for months and months at a time on one case while other cases are going unprosecuted.

The Liberal member who just spoke mentioned the material. Pedophiles use some of these writings and images to brainwash children to normalize them. No consideration should be given to the artistic merit of literature that has been handwritten and has been used to brainwash children so that they think child pornography and some attacks upon them are normal. That is how they use it. They have admitted it. I have heard the comments of a famous pedophile in B.C. who has said that it is exactly what they do with it. They use it to prey and lure children into their grasp.

We have spoken a lot about the artistic merit aspect, whether it is educational, scientific or for medical purposes and so on. Now the government has taken all this and put it into one broad defence called public good. This is not sufficient. We all know that when that aspect gets to court the lawyers will have a heyday with it which will just further contribute to the lack of protection for children.

First, there is no substantial difference between this defence and a previous defence, the community standards test, which was rendered ineffective by the Supreme Court in 1992, the Butler case. We spoke at length about that on many occasions in the House.

The community standards test, just like the public good defence, is concerned primarily with the risk of harm to individuals in society. There is no positive benefit in recycling laws that have already been discredited by the courts. Why would we bring forth a part of this bill that has already been discredited in the Butler case? It just will not stand up.

Second, it is clear that the artistic merit defence, while it has been eliminated on paper, may still apply in practice.The minister has simply renamed and repackaged the artistic merit defence under the public good. We stand here today and say that is what will happen. I believe in a few years time if this is not changed, then we will be able to stand here again and say “We told you so”.

However we should not have to do that. We have an opportunity now. If we cannot as legislators and elected officials come together, all parties, and do what is best for our children, then in my mind we have no business being here. Some of the comments which I heard the other day from members of the NDP party and previously from some of the members of the Liberal government are absolutely unbelievable and disgraceful. Any mind that could get around the fact that any kind of child pornography has some kind of public good or artistic merit is absolutely unbelievable.

On this bill, one of the things we have been after for years is to raise the age of consent. That was one of the issues that the hundreds of thousands of people who put their signatures on petitions wanted. They wanted the age of consent raised from 14 to 16, and some of them wanted it raised to 18. Is that too much to ask?

The argument about 14 and 15 year olds learning about the birds and the bees does not stand up. A clause could have been put in to do away with that really easily. As the member from Port Moody said earlier, that one issue of raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 would protect one million more children in this country, that one simple thing, yet there are still arguments about why that should not be done.

Those people are children and we are not doing our job to protect them. That is a shame.

We have brought this issue to the House. I myself brought in a private member's bill to amend the Criminal Code to give the police one more tool of confiscation upon conviction. That was picked up by the government and put into law. For that I am thankful.

We should not have to go around and around on these things. We should be able to look at legislation like this and come up with the absolute best shot right off the top without any further fiddling around.

Regarding the whole position of the trust or authority clause which has been put in, it is already against the law for a person in a position of trust, or with whom a young person between 14 and 18 is in a relationship of dependency, to be sexually involved with that young person. That is already in there and it is no big shakes to have that put in again.

I have listened to the arguments on the issue of the age of consent. I have heard members from all parties put forward their ideas. I cannot for the life of me understand why the members of the Liberal Party and some others do not want to do the right thing to protect children.

I see 14 to 16 year olds who come to Ottawa occasionally on different tours. Some of them are very mature and some of them are not, but they are all still children. We have to do what we can to protect them at all times.

Regarding the issue of sentencing, the maximum sentences were raised. That is always something that looks good, that the maximum sentence will be raised to 25 years. Well big deal, the maximum sentence is never given out. It is the minimum sentences that need to be enforced. Staying at home and being locked up on the weekends away from the community is not enough. A message has to be sent to pornographers that if they prey upon children, they will go to jail for a long enough time to make them think about what they have done.

We know that there is recidivism by pornographers. They are almost incurable, and still we put them under house arrest. It is the minimum sentence that needs to be addressed, not the maximum. Certainly in extreme cases the maximum sentences should be severe, but let us look at the other end to ensure that the minimum sentences are enough to deter pedophiles and pornographers, those animals that prey upon our children.

To conclude, I want to restate that when it comes to protecting our children, surely we as legislators and elected officials looking at the most vulnerable in our society can all work together, do it now, put everything else aside until we have this one thing right in this country. Let us bring in some legislation which truly does that. If we cannot do that, we might as well stand back, wave the white flag and give up.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate this issue today, not because any of us in this place enjoy talking about the issue of child pornography, but because it is important to bring some scrutiny to this legislation.

Child pornography in Canada is a scourge. I am concerned that Bill C-20 does not even come close to addressing some of the real issues that face people who have been the victims of child pornography or parents who are concerned about the impact of child pornography and the fact that it might put their own children at risk.

I want to start off by acknowledging the work of some of my colleagues who have done a fantastic job of bringing this problem to light. The members for Wild Rose, Calgary Northeast and Provencher have all provided meaningful and important input on the issue. They have helped raise the level of debate and raise the issue on the public agenda, because it is a serious issue.

Ever since that court decision some months ago that basically said that artistic merit could be allowed as a defence if somebody were being prosecuted for pornography, Canadians have been rightfully concerned about how well protected their children are. There are a number of things the government could have done if it were serious about addressing the issue.

Maybe the best example is to talk about the recent roundup of child pornography that occurred, not just in Canada but in the U.K., the United States and other places around the world. There were something in the range of 2,000 incidents of people downloading child pornography in Canada. However, because of the difficulty of sorting through the law as it stands now, only about 50 to 100 have been arrested and much less than that have been charged because the police must go through every single downloaded image to see whether or not it fits the standard of artistic merit.

That is true. My friend across the way is laughing, but it is true. It slows the process down unbelievably.

The fact that we have only been able to arrest 50 to 100 people tells us that the resources that are necessary for the police to address this issue have not been made available by the government.

The government talks about crime and dealing with it. I do not know how many times the issue of the firearms registry has to come up but I will raise it again. It is another example of where we have resources misplaced. We put all kinds of resources into a ridiculous registry which in and of itself will do nothing to deal with the issue of crime and in doing that will take away all kinds of resources that could have been used by the police to deal with issues like child pornography.

Every time legislators decide to spend a dollar on something that means that they decide not to spend it on a hundred other things. In this case, the government spent $1 billion on the firearms registry thereby guaranteeing that there would not be $1 billion available to deal with the issue of child pornography and to give police officers the resources they need to cure this scourge that has become epidemic in Canada.

People are vitally concerned about it. Ever since the Internet arose it has become easier and easier to spread child pornography. People are rightfully very concerned about this. There are so many aspects to this and I wish we all had more time to discuss it because it is a serious issue.

One of the things that concerns Canadians is that when the court decision was made in the case of John Robin Sharpe that allowed artistic merit as a defence of possessing child pornography, the failure of the government to act quickly was a sign that it was not going to act very forcefully in the end. They were right because Bill C-20 does not provide that protection to victims and to people who are potentially the targets of child pornographers because it leaves the definition of what is allowable so wide open one could drive a truck through it.

The public good, what can that possibly mean? I am afraid it will mean all kinds of things to people who have crafty lawyers and a little bit of money.

I can guarantee that we will see the public good challenged in the courts again, just like it was with the previous legislation. There is a very good chance of overturning all kinds of legitimate convictions under the laws surrounding child pornography because of that public good clause. The government is erring on the side, I am afraid to say, of child pornographers at the expense of innocent victims.

I do not understand, after the hundreds of thousands of names that appeared on petitions, how the government could not have received the message. Surely it understands that this is an issue that Canadians feel very strongly about. They are concerned that the Liberal government has caved in, that it did not steel its spine when it was time to do it to protect children.

A moment ago my friend for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam spoke and made a good point. He said that tied up with that whole issue is the issue of raising the age of consent. He pointed out that if we were to raise the age of consent in Canada from 14 to 16, we would bring an additional one million young people under the protection of the law. That is an important point.

In Canada today one has to be 16 to drive a car, but under the current law a 14 year old girl could have sex with a 45 year old pimp and it would be completely licit and within the bounds of the law. We cannot allow that to happen.

I was so disturbed when my party brought forward a motion in this place asking for the age of consent to be raised and permission to do that was denied by the Liberal government. It should have been part of Bill C-20. If the concern were to protect young people from predators that should have been part of this legislation. Sadly, it is not.

My colleague from Lethbridge and I went to the border crossing at Coutts a year ago. We were told that one of the big problems was sorting out the men who were coming into Canada to hook up with young people who they had lured over the Internet. This is a real problem that was brought to our attention.

I know the government has started to address that but it has only gone part way. It would not be near the problem if it would raise the age of consent to 16. If it were to do that then law enforcement officers would have another tool in their arsenal. Parents who are powerless to stop their 14 year old son or daughter from getting involved in something like that would have another tool to ensure that the lives of their children were not completely ruined. That is what it comes to.

I appeal to my friends across the way to consider carefully what the public is saying about this, what some of the government's own members are saying, and certainly what many members in the opposition are saying. This leaves the door wide open in a couple of different ways for predators of all kinds to choose their victims among Canada's citizenry.

For those reasons government members should err on the side of caution and vote against Bill C-20.

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

Mr. Speaker, passing bad legislation hoping it will protect children will not do nearly as much as passing good legislation that actually will protect children.

This is the second time in a year that I have risen in the House to call upon the Liberal government to take meaningful steps to protect Canadian children from sexual predators. I am using the expression meaningful steps because I want to make a clear distinction between the government's actions and the needs of Canada's children.

Last April 23, in my other speech, I called upon the Liberal government to raise the age of sexual consent to at least 16. This was raised by my colleague from York just a moment ago. I did so because as we examine Bill C-20, which has the stated purpose of protecting children, we note that the bill does not in fact define what a child is. It relies upon the current definitions in the Criminal Code.

Here it is particularly useful to consider this in the context of sexual exploitation. Clause 4 of Bill C-20 modifies the current section 153(1) of the Criminal Code. At first inspection the modifications appear substantial but the true purpose of the amendment is to increase the punishment for this offence from five years to ten years. Although this increase alone is a positive step, its potential ability to really protect minor children from abuse is minimized unless the age of consent for adult-child sex is raised from 14 to 16 years.

Making this change would be simple and easy. For the purposes of section 153 of the Criminal Code, it would require changing one word in section 153(2). That is right. If we were to change the word “fourteen” to “sixteen” in section 153(2), we could raise the age of consent for the purpose of 153(1) to 16 years of age. Right there, that single word change would offer legal protection against sexual predation for an additional one million Canadian kids.

Let me repeat this concept so it is clear for Liberal members of Parliament who have not summoned the will to show leadership nor summoned the will to implement common sense into law. If we were to raise the age of consent to 16 we could offer, according to Statistics Canada, legal protection to roughly one million Canadians between the ages of 14 and 16 years. It would cost the state treasury nothing. It is simply a one word change. However, to some Liberals, changing a single word to safeguard a million children is just too hard, too politically correct and perhaps too obvious to grasp.

In 1987 the Progressive Conservative government of the day made one of the worst public policy decisions in recent years when it reduced the age of consent for sexual activity from 18 to 14 years of age. Both the provincial attorneys general of Canada and the Canadian Police Association are in favour of raising the age of consent to at least 16 years of age.

Over three years ago, in November 1999, after decades of seeing the terrible results of having lowered the age of sexual consent, a federal justice department paper recommended raising the age of consent from 14 years back up to 18. The report, commissioned by the government, which should have been read and should have been implemented, reads:

There will always be some people who seek out vulnerable children to satisfy their own dangerous impulses, frustrations or need to dominate, in spite of the law and the disapproval of the vast majority of Canadian society. Immature, inexperienced youngsters are unlikely to have adequate knowledge of the implications and consequences of sexual activity. The relatively low age [of consent] may allow pimps, for instance, to seduce young girls without fear of prosecution, with the intention of luring them into prostitution.

We heard the bogus argument from my Liberal colleague from York, who spoke prior to me, that if we were to raise the age of consent to 16 somehow parents of a 15 year old girl could prosecute a 17 year old boy, which is utterly nonsensical. No law ever goes to court unless a prosecutor decides to take it to court, and even if that were to happen, if a prosecutor were to set aside common sense, all that would have to happen is that we would write it into law. We could impose a law where if someone had sex with someone under the age of consent, we would not prosecute if the age between the two people was, say, less than five years. It would be a simple thing to do.

Unfortunately, like so many of the countless ideas, the reports I just quoted, the papers, the recommendations and issue discussion papers for which the Liberal government pays, this paper was dismissed. The fact that one million children who could be protected by the addition of a single word are being ignored is disturbing.

However the weaknesses of Bill C-20 go beyond this. If ignoring a million children or adding more defences for those who would sexually exploit children were not enough reasons for the government to call for better legislation, here is another one. In November 1999, as my colleagues have been arguing, John Robin Sharpe was charged with the possession of child pornography in violation of the Criminal Code. At his trial, Sharpe contested the constitutionality of section 163.1(4) by specifically stating that a definition of child pornography that included sketches or drawings that were based on the artist's imagination rather than on an actual child was going too far.

On June 30, 1999, the British Columbia Court of Appeal agreed with him. This was confirmed in January 2001 by the Supreme Court of Canada, which said:

Accordingly, s. 163.1(4) should be upheld on the basis that the definition of “child pornography” in s. 163.1 should be read as though it contained an exception for: (1) any written material or visual representation created by the accused alone, and held by the accused alone, exclusively for his or her own personal use; and (2) any visual recording, created by or depicting the accused, provided it does not depict unlawful sexual activity and is held by the accused exclusively for private use.

If the government were grounded in the common sense of everyday Canadians, bells would have been going off in the justice department the day the B.C. Court of Appeal said that there was a problem with the definition of child pornography.

Eighteen months later the Supreme Court of Canada agreed that there was a problem with the basic definition of child pornography. This happened roughly two years ago and the Liberal government still has not acted. What the government has done is broaden the defences contained in the Criminal Code, the section that aided and abetted John Robin Sharpe's perversion. That section currently reads:

...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.

Thus, in the current Criminal Code there are four defences for people charged with possession of child pornography: if it has artistic merit, if it serves an educational purpose, if it serves a scientific purpose or if it serves a medical purpose.

Bill C-20 would completely rewrite subsection 163(1) of the Criminal Code. The new subsection would read:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence serve the public good and if the acts alleged do not extend beyond what serves the public good.

Instead of the four potential defences there would be just one, public good. It is therefore essential to find out what public good means. The very same Sharpe decision that told the Liberal government that there was a problem with the definition of child pornography, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the potential defence of public good.

At paragraph 70 of the decision Madam Justice McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, along with five other justices agreeing, wrote:

“Public good” has been interpreted as “necessary or advantageous to religion or morality, to the administration of justice, the pursuit of science, literature, or art, or other objects of general interest”.

So we have a majority of judges on the Supreme Court telling us that public good, which is what would be put into the law with Bill C-20, essentially has six elements. It has to be necessary or advantageous to any of the following: religion or morality, the administration of justice, the pursuit of science, the pursuit of literature, the pursuit of art, or the pursuit of other objects of general interest.

We have a Liberal member of Parliament applauding that. Yes, more power to the courts.

In Bill C-20 we have gone from four potential elements to six. The Liberal government has expanded the definitions and the reasons by which a Canadian may possess child pornography. Any bill that gives more ways to justify child pornography is a big step in the wrong direction, and yet the Liberal government celebrates the bill. The member from Hamilton just applauded to it, which includes dangerous ideas.

However, as we look at it things gets worse. We have lost the medical purpose as a defence and we have gained “the pursuit of other objects of general interest”. Most Canadians would agree that the pictures in Gray's Anatomy are not child pornography. At the very same time, I am not sure that our courts are ready to find out whether man-boy love documents could be said to be objects of general interest.

Quite simply, the bill cannot continue without dramatic amendment. As a Parliament we must stop merely passing legislation. We must begin taking meaningful steps to protect children from sexual predators.

Why? Because one of the worst things we do in this society is destroy the innocence of the young before their time. We do it in our culture, our television and in movies. We do it through our social and moral complacency. Now, sadly, we are doing it through our own laws by not using every and all known avenues to prevent the exploitation of kids.

The Liberal government, with all the tools of power at their disposal, has failed Canada's children yet again. Thus, it has provided yet one more reason why Canadians deserve a new government that understands the needs of Canada's most vulnerable. The Liberal government does not get it.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act.

As hon. members know, Bill C-20 proposes a number of criminal law reforms that seek to better protect children against sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect, to facilitate testimony by child victims and witnesses and other vulnerable victims and witnesses in criminal justice proceedings, and to create a new offence of voyeurism.

While I believe that all of these proposed reforms are important, I will restrict my comments to Bill C-20's response to concerns relating to the age of consent to sexual activity.

Bill C-20's objective on this issue is clearly articulated in the first paragraph of the preamble, which reads:

WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns regarding the vulnerability of children to all forms of exploitation, including child pornography, sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect;

Simply stated, the focus of the response to concerns about the age of consent to sexual activity is on the exploitive conduct of the wrongdoer and not on whether the young person or victim consented to that conduct. In my view, this is both the right focus and the right response.

As the founder of Canada's first John school program and the streetlight program, it was pointed out to us that these were areas which very much needed enforcement.

More specifically, Bill C-20 proposes to create a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation of a young person who is over the age of consent; that is, who is 14 years of age or older and under 18 years of age. Under the proposed reform, courts would be directed to consider whether the relationship in question was exploitive by looking to the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including any difference in age and the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person, be that person male or female.

I am well aware that there continues to be calls to raise the age of consent for sexual activity. Why is this? As I understand it, these calls appear to be motivated by a number of reasons, including our desire to protect our young people.

One reason sometimes cited is that 14 or 15 year olds are too young and immature to fully appreciate the consequences of their decisions to engage in sexual activity. While many of us might agree with that, it is still true that a 14 or 15 year old does not typically possess the maturity of an 18 year old. We as a society nonetheless consider them mature enough to be treated as an adult under the new Youth Criminal Justice Act for the commission of serious violent offences. We must find a balance between both of these issues.

Another reason appears to be related to differing understandings of what is meant by sexual activity. Canadian prohibitions against sexual activity do not differentiate between sexual activity that consists of kissing and sexual activity that involves sexual intercourse. I do not believe that Canadians think that a 14 or 15 year old girl is not mature enough to freely make a decision about whether or not to kiss her 17 year old boyfriend. Nor do I believe that Canadians want to criminalize a 17 year old for kissing his 14 year old girlfriend. Whether we as adults like it or not, the reality is that adolescents do engage in sexual activity. We on this side of the House, whether we like it or not, have to be responsible legislators.

Another reason sometimes cited in support of raising the age of consent is that raising the age of consent to 16 or 18 will prevent others from forcing young persons into the sex trade. To this I note that it is already an offence under the Criminal Code to force anyone under the age of 18 years into prostitution and that this offence carries a mandatory minimum penalty of five years of imprisonment.

Whatever the reason for advocating an increase in the age of consent, the common thread appears to be the prevention of sexual exploitation of young people, which is exactly what Bill C-20 proposes to do.

Unlike proposals to raise the age of consent to 16 years of age, Bill C-20 proposes to extend protection, not only to 14 and 15 year olds but also to 16 and 17 year olds.

Bill C-20 contains many welcomed reforms to the criminal law to protect our most vulnerable members of society. I hope that all hon. members will support Bill C-20 to better protect Canadian children against exploitation in all forms. I am sure all members in the House will put their support behind the bill in order to ensure that we are protecting our children.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-20. I would like to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for sharing his time with me.

The bill we are debating is an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act. So far Bill C-20 has introduced very weak and timid steps toward this issue.

A person would be found guilty of a child pornography offence when the material or act in question does not serve the public good or where the risk of harm outweighs any public benefit.

Some of the other changes are proposed to protect people aged 14 to 18. Of course they would focus not on consent, but on whether the relationship is exploitative based on age difference, control exerted, and other circumstances.

Another step is that it would increase penalties for offences that harm children. The maximum penalty for sexual exploitation would double from 5 years to 10 years.

Bill C-20 would make it a crime to secretly observe or visually record a person where privacy is reasonably expected. Distributing a recording on the World Wide Web or elsewhere would also be a crime. Such an offence would carry a maximum jail term of five years.

We know too well that courts never impose maximum penalties, nor do they have the will to do that. Life never means life and 25 years has meant only 7 or 10 years in jail, just as if there is a scale or route under the maximum penalty sentence. For it to be effective there should be a well defined legislated minimum sentence. That would be a deterrent and not a motivation to commit such a heinous crime.

Last March a British Columbia judge cleared John Robin Sharpe of possession charges, concluding that his graphic child sex stories had artistic merit and were protected by freedom of speech. Canadians want their government to close the loophole left when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled two years ago that there were some exceptions to the child pornography law. Child pornography and artistic merit do not mix. The argument that pornography can be excused because it has artistic merit has angered a lot of Canadian parents. The weak Liberal Government of Canada continues to have one of the most liberal pornography laws in the world.

Last summer, a Pollara poll found that 86% of Canadians disagree with the artistic merit defence. They have been calling for the removal of the provision for the artistic merit defence from the child pornography law. We do not permit artistic merit to be a defence when it comes to hate literature. If we do not accept artistic merit in hate literature, why should we accept artistic merit in the child pornography law, which is meant to protect our innocent children, our future?

A major shortcoming of the bill is that it fails to raise the age of consent from 14 years to at least 16, if not 18, for sexual activity between children and adults. I fail to see the rationale for permitting adults to engage in any sexual activity with children.

Canada has a long history of prohibiting sexual intercourse with young females, regardless of consent. I am not trying to be politically incorrect here, but I am quoting: From 1892 to 1988, sexual intercourse outside of marriage with females under 14 and for those under 16 and “of previously chaste character” was illegal. The maximum penalty upon conviction for sexual intercourse with a female under 14 was life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for sexual intercourse with a female under 16 was five years' imprisonment.

Amendments to the Criminal Code in 1988 repealed unlawful intercourse and seduction offences and in their place created new offences called sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, which now prohibit adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual contact with either boys or girls under the age of 14, irrespective of consent.

There is no question that sexual exploitation is real and a serious risk for children and youth in Canada. Reports indicate that increasing numbers of youths are being sexually exploited and that Canada is listed on the Internet as a source for sex with children and youth. It is shameful.

Having the age of consent set at 14 makes it easy for predators to recruit young people into the sex trade without facing repercussions or without initially committing any offence. Once these youths are entrenched in the relationship, they are then convinced or coerced into engaging in illegal activities.

Recruiters consciously choose to form consensual relationships with youths who are over the age of consent but are as young as possible in order to make it easy to gain a hold on them. Raising the age of consent would assist in the prosecution of adults who buy sex from young people because the adult could be charged with sexual assault, and it would not be necessary to prove that there was negotiation for money or other considerations.

Raising the age of consent would be more consistent with other western industrialized countries. It would discourage sex tourism. Having an older age would send a message internationally that children in Canada are not available for sex.

In B.C.'s lower mainland, we are all too familiar with the problem of prostitution. A study there found that 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes enter the trade as children. There are literally hundreds of prostitutes under 17 years of age currently working Vancouver's streets. The recruitment process for the sex trade in Canada preys on young girls and boys and specifically targets those who are at the current age of consent.

According to the Children of the Street Society, the majority of parents who call asking for help have children who are 14 years old and who are being recruited into the sex trade. The society's argument is that if the police had the ability to pick up the girl or boy, regardless of their consent, and return them to their family or take them to a safe house, then many youth could be saved from entering the sex trade.

If we were to think about a 50 year old man being able to target 14 year old runaways for sex and giving them AIDS or other diseases or even getting them pregnant, we might get a different response. The results of dozens of studies show the effect of adult sexual contact with children. They are at a 21% higher risk of clinical depression. They have a 21% greater chance of suicide. There is a 20% increase in post-traumatic stress disorder. There is a 14% jump in extreme promiscuity and involvement in prostitution.

It is a serious risk and a serious challenge and we must take serious action. We suggest that the bill is a timid first step for Canadian children. After months of the Canadian Alliance demanding elimination of the artistic merit defence, the Liberals finally have recognized the danger but have not taken any serious steps.

Children must be protected from abuse at the hands of all adult predators. The age of consent for adult-child sex must be raised from 14 to 16, in addition to having the new categories for exploitative relationships. As well, higher maximum sentences for child pornography and predation will not be effective unless the courts enforce them. I would also like to mention that police and prosecutors still do not have the tools to deal with child pornography cases effectively and efficiently.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to direct one more question to my hon. colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. One thing I have been particularly incensed by over the years is the use by our courts of conditional sentencing where it is inappropriate such as in the case of violent crimes and in particular crimes committed against children.

I notice that Bill C-20, the legislation being quite hotly debated today, increases some maximum sentences but it does not provide any minimum sentences. Nor does not take away the use of conditional sentencing by judges in crimes against children.

Would the hon. member agree with me that this is one area where the government certainly could have acted effectively to provide a deterrent for those who would prey upon our nation's children.

[The Deputy Speaker]

After question period when we resume the debate on Bill C-20, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca will be allotted a five minute question and comment period.

We will now proceed to statements by members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in the debate on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code, respecting the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act.

Although Bill C-20 responds to a number of important issues, its overall objective is to provide increased protection to children against sexual exploitation and abuse in all forms. In particular, it addresses child pornography which, unfortunately, is an issue that is all too familiar to all hon. members.

I have found the second reading debate on Bill C-20 to be very interesting from a number of perspectives.

First, the debate serves to highlight the importance of careful scrutiny of measures that we have taken and propose to take to better protect children against sexual exploitation. The government welcomes this debate for it is through such discussions that we, as parliamentarians, can broaden our knowledge and our understanding of the issue at hand and thereby ensure the right response to what has already been said are very complex issues.

Second, the debate on Bill C-20 demonstrates that we do not all share a common understanding of what our criminal laws currently prohibit, that is vis-à-vis, child pornography or what Bill C-20 proposes by way of amendments. I believe that to fully understand and debate what Bill C-20 proposes, it is essential that we first fully understand our existing child pornography prohibitions.

Third, I note that while it may appear that there is a divergence of opinion among hon. members about what is the best way to protect children against sexual exploitation through child pornography, I believe that we all share a common, overarching concern and objective, namely, to better protect our children against this form of sexual exploitation. Let me reiterate the comments of the Minister of Justice in that regard. This government's commitment to the protection of children is clear and strong and it is reflected in Bill C-20's proposed amendments.

As I have already said, before considering the proposed child pornography amendments in Bill C-20, it is important to fully understand and appreciate what our existing criminal law already prohibits.

Since 1993, the Criminal Code has prohibited, first, making, printing, publishing or possessing for the purpose of publication any child pornography. This carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment on indictment.

Second, it prohibits the importing, distributing, selling or possessing for the purpose of distribution or sale, of any child pornography. This carries a penalty of 10 years imprisonment on indictment.

Third, it prohibits the possession of child pornography. This carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment on indictment. I note that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the possession offence with a very narrow exception. It does not apply to self-authored works of the imagination that are made and kept solely for one's personal use. However the child pornography offences do apply to self-authored works of imagination that are shared or otherwise disseminated.

Since July 23, 2002, and as a result of Bill C-15A, the Criminal Code also prohibits the transmitting, making available, exporting or possession for the purpose of transmitting, making available or exporting, any child pornography. This carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment on indictment. It also prohibits accessing child pornography. This new accessing offence carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment on indictment.

Bill C-15A amendments also allow the courts to order the deletion of child pornography posted on Canadian computer systems such as websites. These new measures directly address the misuse of new technologies to commit child pornography offences. On a related note I would add that Bill C-15A also created a new offence of luring. That is using a computer system in such a way, such as through the Internet, to communicate with a child for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against that child.

These are existing child pornography offences and they are very comprehensive. They recognize and address the many different ways that child pornography can be made and disseminated. When we look at them altogether, they show why Canada's child pornography provisions are among the toughest in the world, and they are.

Bill C-20 goes further yet and builds upon this comprehensive set of prohibitions against child pornography in two very key respects.

First, it broadens the definition of written child pornography. Currently the existing definition of written material only applies to material that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a young person under the age of 18 years. That would be an offence under the Criminal Code. Bill C-20 proposes to also include written material that describes prohibited sexual activity with a child where the written description of the activity is the dominant characteristic of the material and the written description is done for a sexual purpose.

This proposed amendment recognizes the risk of harm that such material can pose to society by portraying children as a class of objects for sexual exploitation. It also directly responds to the concerns flowing from the most recent Sharpe decision.

Bill C-20 also proposes to amend the existing defences of child pornography. Currently the Criminal Code provides a defence for material that has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose. It also makes the public good defence available for all child pornography offences.

Bill C-20 proposes to merge these two defences into one defence of public good. As a result of the proposed amendment, a court would be required to consider whether the act or material in question serves the public good. If it does serve the public good, then the court must also consider whether the act or material goes beyond what serves the public good. If it exceeds what serves the public good, then there is no defence available. In other words, does the risk of harm posed by an act or material in question outweigh any potential benefit to society? That is the question we have to ask.

The question has been asked, when or how could anything related to child pornography ever serve the public good. I can understand this question, particularly from those who may be less familiar with the intricacies of criminal law, but this is not a new defence or indeed one without any existing legal interpretation or understanding.

In January 2001 the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sharpe child pornography case, the court considered the meaning of public good. The court noted that the term “public good” had been interpreted as including matters that were necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice, the pursuit of science, literature, art or other objects of general interest.

An example given is that of possession of child pornographic material by police or crown prosecutors for the purposes associated with investigation and prosecution. I hope all hon. members can see the public good to be served by enabling our police and prosecutors to possess child pornography for these investigative and prosecutorial purposes. The law must take these realities into account and Bill C-20 does exactly that.

The proposed amendment to have only one defence of public good should not be misconstrued as saying that child pornography is good. Of course it is not and the government has taken very real and concrete measures that strongly condemn child pornography.

The existence of child pornography defences was a key element in the supreme court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the overall child pornographic scheme. Bill C-20's proposed amendment to allow a very limited defence in limited circumstances that requires the balancing of the risk of harm against the risk of good to be served by that act or material in question draws from the supreme court's wisdom in this regard.

In other words, the government has taken very seriously its responsibility to protect children against sexual exploitation, as well as its responsibility to uphold the charter. It is not a question of doing one or the other. Bill C-20 does both. It protects the right of child victims to equal protection and benefit under the law and the charter rights and freedoms of the accused.

I would also like to acknowledge concerns noted by hon. members regarding the sentencing results in some child pornography cases. In this regard concerns are twofold; namely, that the sentences being handed down are generally too lenient and that they are inappropriate where they consist of a conditional sentence.

To this I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to a part of Bill C-20 that has received little attention and that is clause 24. Clause 24 proposes to make the commission of any offence against a child, and not just against one's own child, an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. First, I believe that this part of Bill C-20 speaks directly to the concern noted by some members regarding how seriously courts should view child pornography. Second, on the question of the use of conditional sentences in child pornography cases, I would note that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently in the midst of a review of the use of conditional sentences since their implementation some six years ago. I certainly look forward to seeing the results of that review on this issue.

Bill C-20 proposes significant reforms that will better protect children against sexual exploitation through child pornography. I call on all hon. members to support this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the bill, nothing, that deals with raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. The Liberals have simply chosen to leave it out, once more standing on the side of adults in our society who would cause actions to have sex with children who are 14 years old.

Where in the bill do we find that the sentencing we have given to pedophiles in our country is made to become more meaningful? As the member for Calgary Northeast pointed out, the sentences for child pornographers, predators and pedophiles are not in the years that one would expect, that any sane person in this country would expect, for someone so depraved and perverted, someone we would want to take off of the streets for as long as we can. Months: that is the average sentence that a pedophile gets in this country for taking advantage of a child. Months, and nowhere in the bill is this addressed.

Where in the bill do the Liberals talk about changing their mind about the sex registry, the registry that is going to keep track of the perverts and pedophiles who have caused harm to our children, who are in jails now and who will be coming out, knowing full well that the recidivism of pedophiles is almost 100%, if not 100%? Where is the action to ensure that those people behind bars who are going to come out and commit again are in the national registry? It is not there. Once more the Liberal government is standing on the side of sexual perverts, pedophiles and predators and against the children of our nation. The actions of the government are disgusting.

We cannot support Bill C-20 in any way unless it is totally amended. We have put forward the amendments, not with much hope given the track record of the government, but it is time for all of us as parliamentarians, including those in government, to stand up for the children of this country and against the perverts of this country.