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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I am pleased to be debating Bill C-20, which the government purports to be a bill that would protect our children from perverts and predators, the pedophiles of our nation, but as we saw just a few short moments ago the government has no intention of protecting our children from the likes of predators or perverts who would prey upon our children. The Liberals sat in their seats and denied our member for Calgary Northeast from putting forward a purely common sense private member's bill by making it votable.

We sat and watched several ministers vote against making a bill votable which would have added an undeniable measure of safety to the children of our nation. It was a shameful act. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and the President of the Treasury Board should be hanging their heads in shame today, as should their Liberal colleagues who refused the children an undeniable, extra measure of safety against the sick and perverted actions of pedophiles. Shame on them.

I am honoured that I can speak on behalf of the children of our nation. As my colleague from Okanagan--Coquihalla said earlier so eloquently, and has said on many occasions, if the government cannot, or will not in this case, protect the children from predators, then it forfeits the right to govern our nation. No words could be truer, particularly in the case of the Liberal government which has chosen, by its action or its inactions, so many times in dealing with this issue to stand firmly on the side of predators and perverts and against the children. Shame on it.

One has to ask the question, and that is what this debate is all about, do the children of our families have an undeniable right to be protected from pedophiles and perverts who roam the streets? The answer is yes, of course. Does the government have an undeniable responsibility to ensure absolute protection of the children from predators and perverts who roam the streets? The answer to that is yes.

The Liberal government has already made its position clear. Do we as a society believe that pedophiles should have rights under the law that they could use to take advantage of and pursue their perverted activities against the children of our nation? No, but the government allows them to. Time and time again we have stood in the House and demanded that the Liberal government bring in some legislation that reflects what the people are thinking in regard to this disgusting and perverted act of pedophilia or child pornography.

Time and time again we have stood up here and time and time again the government has stood on the side of pedophiles by its inaction. Yes, that is a strong statement. Of course it is, but the government is guilty by its inaction. The government has brought in Bill C-20, supposedly to add a measure of protection for children. Where in the bill, after our years of calling on the government to act, is the mention of raising the sexual consent age limit from 14 to 16? It is not there.

Who in their right mind could imagine that an adult having sex with a child of 14 years is in any possible way acceptable? Who in their right mind could believe that there could be a reasonable argument not to raise the sexual consent level from age 14 to age 16? Who in their right mind could stand up in the House, as some of the Liberal members have done, and say that this is something that is very complex, that we may find ourselves offending some people of different cultural backgrounds who may have differences of opinion?

A 14 year old is a child. This is Canada. Have the values of our country fallen so far into a pit of hell that there are people in the House who can imagine that a sexual act between an adult and a child of 14 can somehow be rationalized?

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice finds this amusing. Sir, it is not amusing.

Carrie's Guardian Angel Law

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Northeast for bringing this bill forward. He is one of the few in this House who can speak from professional experience because if I am correct, he is a former police officer from Calgary. We respect his opinion and his efforts on this issue. We are very much in support of the bill and what he attempts to do with Bill C-214.

Normally our justice critic, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, would be speaking on the issue but he is out campaigning for the future leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. We have always in the past relied on his advice and expertise in this area because he is a former crown prosecutor. In his absence I have just a few comments on the bill.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code and would deal specifically with dangerous child sexual predators. The bill would establish the offences of dangerous child or sexual predation carrying a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. As well, it would cover the sexual assault of a child involving the use of a weapon, repeated assaults, multiple victims, repeat offences, more than one offender, confinement, kidnapping and those who are in positions of trust. It would also seek to make parole ineligible for those convicted for a minimum of 20 years and they would be ineligible for day parole or unescorted absences for a minimum of 17 years.

Bill C-214, or Carrie's guardian angel law, which it is often referred to as, would amend the Criminal Code by adding a dangerous child sexual predator offence after section 273. Section 273 supplements the definition of consent found in section 265 of the Criminal Code, which defines all assault offences, including sexual assaults.

Cautious estimates note that one in three young women are sexually abused before the age of 18 and one in six boys are sexually abused before the age of 16. These are startling figures. Even more frightening is that most abused and neglected children never come to the attention of the authorities. A lot of these offences are never discovered or recognized. We have no way of knowing how many of these go unreported. The cases that we do hear of are just a fraction of the real number.

Sexual predators in many cases are never caught. This is a sad reality but it is a reality. There is a serial element to their behaviour. There are no deterrents or consequences for these people. They can be found in every province; it is not a rural or urban issue. It affects all parts of Canada. It is not a case of a higher instance in one province versus another; it is a situation that prevails throughout the country. There is a high rate of recidivism, in other words, repeat offenders.

The life altering and lasting implications for the victims result in shocking statistics for all Canadians. We have heard time and time again of the impact of these types of offences against children.

Clause 2 in the bill introduces the new offence and defines the circumstances under which someone would be charged under this new amendment to the Criminal Code.

This definition of a dangerous child sexual predator would include anyone who has been convicted of such an offence within 10 years; in the commission of the offence commits a sexual assault on more than one occasion or victim; or is in a position of trust or acts of concert with another. In other words, those people who are in a position of trust, like teachers and troop leaders or coaches or whatever. It would address that reality. That person would be guilty of an indictable offence and would be designated as a dangerous child sexual predator.

The intent of the bill is clear. Anyone convicted under this section of the code would receive a sentence of 20 years to life with no chance of parole. We are talking of cases of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault where children are involved.

It would create a separate type of sentence in the Criminal Code. This is quite clear from the wording of the amendment, which would in effect amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to prevent unescorted temporary absences, day parole, full parole or statutory release from being granted to individuals who have committed child predatory offences or have been found to be child predators under the new provisions of the Criminal Code for at least 17 years. With respect to sentencing this bill seeks to ensure that a minimum of 20 years is served in custody in every case in which a child predator offence is perpetrated.

Bill C-214 is about what happens after the fact, after the finding of guilt. In other words, the bill speaks to what happens after the verdict is rendered. This is a very important point. Because of the special nature of the offence and the special type of harm to society and the individual that results from it, we need a change in response and attitude by the justice department. That is implicit in the member's bill.

The bill would amend the Criminal Code and allow the court to find people to be child predators on the basis of having committed offences against children or their inability to control their sexual behaviour. A finding of guilt and a finding of that designation would have certain consequences. We are talking about a type of dangerous behaviour, a dangerous offender application, something that is already permissible under the Criminal Code. We are talking about the worst of the worst.

I shudder to think of it. I know we all get chills when we mention the names Olson and Bernardo in reference to this bill, but these are the types of predatory, sexual and violent offences envisioned by the change in the Criminal Code that the member has in mind. We can talk about rehabilitation in the context of some offenders, but at the upper end of the scale rehabilitation means nothing and is no longer a consideration. Rehabilitation of these offenders is virtually non-existence and cannot happen.

When looking at the intent of our justice system, the protection of the public must be given precedence. This is brought about by deterrence and denunciation. This is why I recognize what the hon. member is trying to do. He is drawing a clear line to distinguish the types of offences that are so horrific and damaging to their victims. The psychological and physical impact on the victims cannot be over-emphasized.

Such offences require special treatment. The offenders should be denied early release or any leniency that could be misinterpreted in the sense of condoning or embracing that type of behaviour.

At a time when the government is trying to remove the artistic merit defence through the introduction of Bill C-20, the vulnerability act, this piece of legislation would seem to fit in with that agenda. We support this initiative because we think it is very important. We hope that the government members will support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-214, an act to amend the Criminal Code, being introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

The private member's bill before us today seeks to create a new section, section 273.01, in the Criminal Code that would affect sentencing of offenders convicted of section 271, sexual assault; section 272, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm; or section 273, aggravated sexual assault.

The amendments would come into play where the victim is a child under the age of 16 and where the offender comes within one of six prescribed circumstances, any of which could result in designation of an offender as a dangerous child sexual predator. If designated under the proposed scheme, the offender would receive an automatic life sentence.

The three existing offences mentioned in the proposed bill currently carry maximum penalties ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment, the most severe penalty known to our law. As well, if firearms are involved, there is a provision for a four year mandatory minimum penalty.

I suspect most Canadians would be surprised that these offences already attract such severe maximum penalties. In fact, surveys conducted by the Canadian Sentencing Commission in the mid-1980s showed that the public had very little knowledge of either maximum or minimum penalties generally and that many were taken aback by the severity of the existing maximum.

The Criminal Code provides that “the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute... to respect for the law and maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society”. The objectives of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code include denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring the offender and others from committing offences and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

The government shares the concerns of Canadians. Courts across the country have been imposing stiff sentences for this type of crime, which address sentencing objectives, such as denunciation and deterrence, and highlight the importance of individuals being able to feel safe and secure.

In addition to providing a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, which the Criminal Code already does for specified sexual offences, Bill C-214 would provide for full parole ineligibility be set at 20 years.

In Canada, we have tried to avoid reliance on mandatory minimum sentences. Our judicial system has always respected the discretion of judges to fashion a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the offender. A judge having the benefit of all the facts and evidence regarding the circumstances of the offence and the offender is well placed to determine the appropriate sentence in an individual case.

The September 30, 2002 Speech from the Throne confirmed that protection of children is a key priority of the Government of Canada. Numerous legislative reforms and initiatives have since been introduced to strengthen the criminal law's protection of children against sexual exploitation. For example, Bill C-23, the sex offender information registry act, was tabled in December and would establish a national sex offender registry requiring sexual predators to report to police agencies on an annual basis and which would allow rapid police investigations through an address searchable database. Failure to register under the proposal would be a Criminal Code offence with serious penal consequences.

We also introduced Bill C-20, a comprehensive set of measures to protect children and other vulnerable persons from harm, which includes amendments to the Criminal Code providing for substantial increases in penalties for abuse and neglect, and requirements for more sensitive treatment of children who participate in criminal proceedings.

Other notable features of Bill C-20 include the following: tougher child pornography provisions; a new category of sexual exploitation, increasing the level of protection for young persons between the ages of 14 and 18; tougher sentencing provisions for offences where children are the victims; abuse of a child in the commission of any Criminal Code offence is now required to be considered by a judges as an aggravating factor in sentencing; distributing material knowing that it was produced through a criminal act of voyeurism; and also, the creation of the new offence of voyeurism, primarily targeting Internet activity, capturing those who observe or record others without their knowledge for sexual purposes.

Prior to the current session of Parliament, we introduced a number of other reforms that were also designed to protect children. For example, Bill C-15A, which received royal assent on June 4, 2002, amended the Criminal Code by adding offences and other measures that provide additional protection to children from sexual exploitation, including sexual exploitation involving the use of the Internet. That new legislation came into force on July 23, 2002, and resulted in the following changes: it is now illegal to use the Internet to communicate with a child for sexual purposes, as well as to transmit child pornography; courts can now order the deletion of child pornography that is posted on Canadian computer systems as well as the seizure of materials or equipment used to commit a related offence; and the procedure has been simplified to prosecute Canadians who sexually exploit children in other countries.

In 1997 the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code were amended to toughen up the provisions against the most violent sexual predators. Individuals who are declared dangerous offenders by the courts are now subject to a mandatory indeterminate sentence. The 1997 amendments also included a provision that permits judges to impose a long term offender designation, resulting in up to 10 years of community supervision after serving a penitentiary term.

Police and the courts can also impose strict conditions on the activities of known sex offenders through the use of probation orders, that is, section 810, recognizances, prohibition orders and peace bonds.

Another significant impact in this area was the amendment of the Criminal Records Act to make the criminal records of pardoned sex offenders available for background checks, which greatly reduces the possibility that sexual predators would be employed or allowed as volunteers in positions of trust over vulnerable children.

In 1993, the Criminal Code was amended to create a new prohibition order, lasting up to a lifetime, to ban convicted child sex offenders from frequenting day care centres, school grounds, playgrounds, public parks or bathing areas where children are likely to be found. The order also prohibits convicted child sex offenders from seeking or maintaining paid or volunteer positions of trust or authority over children. Another provision was created to allow a person to obtain a peace bond, a protective order lasting up to one year, if he or she fears that another person will commit a sexual offence against a child.

All of these efforts demonstrate the federal government's continued commitment to protecting children. As such, there is no need to create a minimum penalty for this type of offence given the high maximum penalties already found in the code and sentencing patterns for this offence.

While I recognize the concerns of the hon. member for Calgary Northeast with respect to this type of offence, I do believe that the existing penalty of life imprisonment currently demonstrates our commitment to providing protection for children.

Furthermore, the reforms in Bill C-20, which are currently before the House and being debated, will result in changes to our laws that will be much more effective in ensuring the protection of our children.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me start with the parliamentary agenda.

We will continue this afternoon with Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill, followed by, if there is time, Bill C-20, the child protection bill, as well as Bill C-22, the family law bill.

Tomorrow, we will call third reading of Bill C-3 regarding the Canada pension plan. The next item will be Bill C-6, the bill regarding specific claims for aboriginal people.

On Monday, we would return, if necessary, to Bills C-6, C-20 and C-13. We will continue this business on Tuesday morning, but in any case at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, it is my intention to call Bill C-22, the family law bill.

I will be consulting with a view to returning at some point to debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-10A, the Criminal Code amendments.

On Wednesday, we will continue the debate on Bills C-13 and C-19 if necessary, at whatever stages they are at then.

I wish to announce that Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Colleagues across the way particularly have asked about what they claim to be a principle that military intervention has a vote. I have a number of them here.

For Korea in 1950, there was no resolution in the House and no vote. For Sinai in 1956, there was no vote. For the Congo in 1960, a recorded vote was asked for but no division was held. For Cyprus in 1964, there was a debate before deployment, the motion was agreed to on division with no recorded vote. For the Middle East in 1973, the motion was agreed to with no division and no recorded vote. For the UNIFIL mission in 1978, there was no motion and no vote. For Iran-Iraq in 1988, the motion was agreed to with no division. For Namibia in 1989, there was no vote. For the Persian Gulf in 1990, it was debated after deployment, with a recorded vote and a division.

There were many cases where there were no votes, no debate, no uniformity.

We have established the coherent system which we enjoy today. We have utilized it as late as last night.

I am also prepared to offer to other parties, should they want it at some point, perhaps as early as next week, yet another evening to debate the situation in Iraq. I know many colleagues on my side of the House would like that. We are quite prepared to offer that.

Criminal Code

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I am pleased to rise and speak today to Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to protecting children and other vulnerable persons.

This subject has been high on the agenda of our party for a long time. For years the Canadian Alliance has demanded a national child registry and only recently has the government acted. We have demanded harsher punishments for child predators and more resources for law enforcement to catch them. We have tirelessly advocated raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 so that those vulnerable young people have less of a chance of being cruelly victimized.

I am sad to say that in all these regards the bill is sorely lacking. There are no more resources for law enforcement to do its job, there are longer sentences but not mandatory ones, and the age of consent is still at a shameful 14 years.

Last year, John Robin Sharpe argued before the Supreme Court of Canada that he had the constitutional right to possess child pornography. Sharpe had been arrested in British Columbia after police found photographs of nude boys and sexually explicit written material, most of which were described as extremely violent, and included children as young as six years old.

At his provincial trial in 1999, Sharpe had been acquitted of all four counts of possessing child pornography, with the judge striking down the child pornography law. While the Supreme Court decision substantially upheld Canada's laws against child pornography, the exception created for personal writings was defined in such a broad way that violent and anti-social text, like Sharpe's, could still be justified under the law.

These upsetting court decisions do not properly reflect society's interest in protecting children from sexual predators. Children are the most valuable members of our society and the law must recognize that fact and the courts must uphold it.

This necessity has become increasingly apparent over the recent revelations of project snowball. Two weeks ago, project snowball, an offshoot of a worldwide child porn investigation into 250,000 people, has turned over names from every province and territory to Canadian authorities. These individuals have been paying by credit card to access a U.S. child porn site which a Toronto police detective said included “some of the most evil images of child abuse you can imagine”.

Unfortunately we cannot be sure that those individuals will ever face justice for their crimes. Police stated last week that they had the names of more than 2,300 suspected pedophiles across Canada but that only 5% had been arrested because Canada lacked a national strategy for targeting sex offenders. A lack of resources and appropriate legal tools stand in the way of an effective response to this growing problem. Canadian police are hamstrung and Ottawa must do more. We do not see any help forthcoming in the bill which will help to solve the problems our police are facing.

While police are not given the resources to do their jobs, the government will point to its bill and say that children will be better protected. Bill C-20 aims to achieve this by changing the defence for possessing child pornography from the current artistic merit to public good. The word swap is simply repackaging the same thing. It is something we see from the government time and time again.

The public good defence that the government now heralds is almost identical to the old community standards defence that was rendered ineffective by the Supreme Court in 1992. There is no positive benefit in recycling laws that have already been discredited by the courts. To do so risks even more child predators continuing to walk free.

In order to create the impression that this law will be tough on child exploitation, the bill proposes to increase the maximum sentences for exploiting children. Unfortunately, the courts have consistently failed to proportionately increase punishments when the maximum allowable sentences are raised. Child pornographers will still be entitled to house arrest, an alternative to prison. Without minimum sentences, pedophiles, like John Robin Sharpe, will continue to escape custodial sentences even when they are convicted.

There are areas in the bill that will increase the maximum punishment for child related offences. These include sexual offences, failing to provide the necessities of life and abandoning a child. The government proclaims that children will be better protected because there will be a greater deterrent to the offences that pedophiles and others who harm children may commit. This is simply not true.

Currently the norm seems to be for pedophiles to be given a slap on the wrist and to serve their time in the community, usually the same one in which they have committed their crime.

In this vein I would like to bring to the attention of the House examples of what a lack of minimum sentences result in. John Robin Sharpe received just four months of house arrest at home instead of doing prison time.

Recently five London, Ontario men, aged 33 to 56, nabbed in the Snowball investigation were charged with offences such as possession of child pornography, production of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. The police described the Internet photographs these men had as some of the most evil images of child abuse we could imagine. Two of those men were recently sentenced with both receiving a six month conditional sentence and eighteen months probation. Is that justice?

The Ontario Provincial Police have urged tougher sentencing for those convicted of child pornography offences saying, “Light sentences in Canada are a joke”.

These penalties do not reflect the severity of these crimes. What has been done to these children to make these terrible photographs is simply unacceptable. We will continue to see more of these types of sentences as the individuals caught in Project Snowball make their way through the courts. We will see pedophiles getting off pretty much scot-free while lives are destroyed to please perverted minds.

Another serious flaw in the bill is the continued refusal by the government to raise the minimum age of consent from age 14 to 16. This is clearly shown by the comments by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada who when performing yet another stalling tactic stated that, “there are many social and cultural differences that have to be reflected in the law and we will work within the consensus”. It is unfortunate that working with its cultural consensus results in a toothless bill. I would like this parliamentary secretary to name the culture to which he referred. There are no cultures in Canada that I am aware of that would accept this kind of child abuse.

It still seems under this government parents and law enforcement officers will never see the legal protection and the authority they need to give these children the proper protection from predators. The age of consent in Canada remains at 14 years even though most western democratic nations have legislated a 16 year age minimum.

The Liberal proposal is to bring in a law that requires the court to analyze each case to see if the adult is exploiting the child. This approach is cumbersome and complex and it fails to create the certainty of protection that children require.

Canada's low age of sexual consent coupled with the government's failure to protect children from sexual predators has resulted in Canada potentially becoming a preferred destination for sexual predators to prey on innocent Canadian children.

The need to protect innocent and vulnerable children from pimps and other adult sexual predators is a matter of the highest priority. Even the Department of Justice's own 1999 consultation paper expressed the view that the current age of consent was “too low to provide effective protection from sexual exploitation by adults”. Until this legislation contains provisions to raise the age of consent to 16, neither I nor my party can support the bill.

The federal government's lack of action has given rise to the belief among Canadians that the rights of pedophiles, pornographers and other sexual predators are more important than protecting our own children.

A Canadian Alliance government would institute a comprehensive sexual offence registry, implement tougher sentences for pedophiles, eliminate all the legal loopholes for child pornography, streamline the administrative process for convicting sex offenders and prohibit all adult-child sexual contact.

Possessing child pornography is not a victimless crime. It degrades, dehumanizes and sexually exploits children. It destroys innocence.

One thing Canadians will see in Bill C-20 is that the government is more concerned with protecting the rights of child predators than in making the necessary changes to protect children. Until our parents and law enforcement agencies have the tools to clamp down on these dangerous sexual predators, they will continue to walk free. We cannot allow that to happen.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. It has a lifelong, lasting effect on all of these children. The sex trade is out there because nobody corrected it. Nobody did anything. Nobody showed those little children that this is wrong. Nobody took them into their arms and said they were going to correct it and take care of them.

Subclause 7(1) of Bill C-20 amends subsection 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code, defining child pornography to include

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 addition of a clear section for the purpose of specifically defining what constitutes child pornography is welcome. As I have stated concerning the removal of “for a sexual purpose”, we know, I know and everybody in the House knows that this is what this is all about for those people. That is what it is all about. It does have an effect on the families down the road and on those little children.

We owe it to those little children to correct this. We owe it to those little children, and I cry out to members tonight, like never before in the House of Commons. I would like to see us bring forth the changes we need, the additions to this bill, and we will all vote in favour of it, if it is done in the proper fashion, if we know it is going to protect them for the rest of their lives.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, members usually stand in the House and say it is an honour and a privilege to speak to a certain topic. On today's topic, it tugs at my heart to have to get up and think that in Canada and in this House of Parliament we have allowed child pornography to take place for so long and we have to debate it in the House of Commons.

My colleague from Labrador was saying that there is no reason we should have to do this. We have laws for everything else. We have laws for minor offences.

This is one of the most horrible offences there is in any child's life. People can refer to artistic merit. What is artistic merit? I will say that when the police representatives from Toronto came to Ottawa and asked all of us to attend a meeting and they showed us pictures of children of what was supposed to be artistic merit, I had to put my head down and close my eyes.

Tears ran down my cheeks. I could not believe that anyone would do such a horrific thing to tiny children. This is Canada. There should not be one person in the House of Commons on either side who would stand for this sort of thing to happen.

The Liberal answer to the John Robin Sharpe case is Bill C-20. That answer is not good enough for all of us. The minister could have tightened the gap in the law with a very clear definition and determination of what constituted child pornography. He could have then outlawed it with a zero tolerance policy and said that it is not acceptable and it will not be allowed to take place in our country.

In my opinion a portion of Bill C-20 still leaves our little children very vulnerable. The bill does not answer in a positive manner the question raised in the Sharpe case. The bill will not act as a deterrent to those wishing to produce child pornography of what they call the imagination.

I have to say that those people who enter into child pornography and call it artistic merit are people who have a mental problem. Those people are not normal in any way, shape or form. In no way should they be allowed to continue down that road in our country.

When I was the mayor of the city of Saint John I was appointed to sit on the citizens forum on Canada's future. I travelled across the nation and interviewed and met with people of different cultures. There was a lawyer from Ottawa on that board with us. He said that we were dealing with the wrong thing. When I asked him what he meant, he said, “We should be dealing with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was one who helped to draft it”. I asked him why we should be dealing with that and he said, “Because when we drafted it, we left something out. We left out responsibilities. Everybody in Canada has their rights and their freedoms, but not responsibilities”.

Everybody should have responsibilities. John Robin Sharpe should have responsibilities. He should have been taken to task by the court. In no way should that man have been able to be free after what he did with those little children.

If every member of Parliament sitting in the House of Commons looked at those pictures that the Toronto police department brought up, not one member of the House would have allowed that to take place ever again.

I think about the little children who have been put through that horrible situation and their future.

The fundamental question in this debate must centre around the harm caused to those most vulnerable in our society, the little children.

Underlying this, we must give thought to the role of the court in the context of judicial policy making as it pertains to the supremacy of Parliament and overruling Parliament. We must show how this new legislation will eradicate child pornography within the context of the artistic merit defence. Unfortunately for Canadians, the legislation does not go far enough and could once again be subjected to judicial interpretation, putting our children at risk.

There will most definitely be constitutional challenges, there is no question. The people of Canada will not allow this to take place in the future. I have to say that while the addition of a clear section for the purpose of specifically defining what constitutes child pornography is welcome, the removal of “for a sexual purpose” would, in my opinion, completely change the meaning of the legislation positively. The exclusion of these four words would send a clear message to the judiciary, removing the subjectivity of the purpose of the work and putting the emphasis on the acts described within.

I have a family. I have children and two grandchildren. I cannot believe that any of my colleagues here would allow anything like this to take place with my grandchildren. I will fight this until my dying day, until it is straightened out, so that it never happens again. I know my colleagues on the government side. I do not believe they want child pornography to take place. I do not believe that those who are sitting here tonight want to have the abuse of little tiny children called artistic merit.

All of us in the House of Commons know that anyone who would do what John Robin Sharpe did has a real mental problem. His mental problem should have been addressed. He should never have been allowed to walk out the door of the courtroom.

I understand the intent of the minister's legislation, but I fear the manner in which it is presented will not be sufficient to protect against the abhorrent creation of pornographic material depicting children. The public, along with child advocacy groups and members of the House, have called upon the government to produce a clear, concise piece of legislation which would completely remove the chance works of this nature and to see the light of day once again. Once again the minister has left open to interpretation by the courts a matter that strikes at the very heart of our democracy.

The intent of the bill is to protect children from all forms of exploitation, including child pornography, sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect. Unfortunately definitions of public good will be vague and no level of objectivity exists which will allow a court to decide what is pornographic and what is not. We have just seen that happen. Once again it will be a question of acceptability to the individual. Obviously, an argument as to what constitutes the public good will predominate, leaving our children vulnerable.

As we travel across this nation, people today stop and ask what has happened to Canada and what is taking place with the types of bills which are before the House of Commons, especially those with regard to what we are debating here tonight. Even more so they are asking about the traditional family. We are moving in the wrong direction. I have to say that for most of us who speak out, the majority of Canadians from coast to coast are with us. They do not want to see any child being abused in this manner. If anyone sitting in the House thinks this does not abuse a child, then there is something wrong.

The overall effect of the Sharpe decision by Mr. Justice Shaw was to leave many in society in dismay to find that a learned judge would in fact open the door to potential pedophiles and those who take advantage of youth, those who denigrate images and engage in writings that have a very corrosive effect on the norms in our society. Works of this nature go against the very fabric of what is acceptable in a moral and just society. There can be no denial that a direct correlation exists between the fantasies of sick individuals and harm to our children.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, these people are sick. They are not normal. Why should any court or any judge be in favour of what these people are doing instead of looking after the little child out there? Why risk the potential danger when the collective will of the people is to see this material stricken from existence? In handing down the Sharpe decision, Justice Shaw effectively broadened the interpretation of the current defence of artistic merit. I cannot believe that anyone in our judicial system could do the likes of that.

What does that say to all the others out there who are doing the same thing? It says it is okay. It says these people can do whatever they want with our little ones because when they go to court they will not be found guilty. They will be given a little slap on the wrist and that will be it.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, to carry on with this, I encourage the Internet service providers, instead of using veiled threats, to work with all levels of government and the police forces in order to stop and do everything possible to prevent the use of the Internet for child pornography. That is not going to be easy. Nobody said that it would be. The fact is that now that the Internet is here, which is a great service for people around the world to be able communicate with each other, it can also be used in communication for some evil things. As the hon. member for Wild Rose has said and the member from Surrey said before, we must work with the police officials in our country to do everything we can to minimize the impact on our children, not just in this country but in countries around the world.

Will this Parliament or any parliament around the world be able to successfully eradicate child pornography? Probably not, but we should do everything we can in order to ensure that we try, and we should put the adequate resources in there in order to do it.

I know that in certain countries around the world, where they have devastation and poverty beyond our recognition, some parents, unwillingly or just through plain ignorance or severe lack of education, may sell off their children or use their children in this regard. Those children's pictures are shown on the Internet around the world. They do it for money, which shows that we possibly may do a lot of good in this country down the road, but we are going to have to help those people around the world. We will have to educate them. We will have to discourage them and prevent them from using their own children for sexual exploitation in order to put bread on the table.

We have heard of many cases in countries like Pakistan and India where parents will more or less sell off their children to work in weaving rooms or on looms in order for them to gain a bit of money to bring back to the family. A lot of these young children, especially girls, are sold into prostitution, not only in those countries but literally around the world. That is unacceptable, but we have to ask ourselves why they are doing that. I cannot honestly believe, no matter what culture, what ethnicity, what religion or what morality people have, that anyone who bears a child and cares for that child would honestly want to do that. I may be ignorant about that, but for the life of me I just cannot see them wanting to do that. However, when people are desperate and have nothing they resort to drastic measures.

The real problem is with the people who buy those services, the people who use those children and manipulate those families for the sake of the almighty dollar. They use those children, manipulate them like birds in a cage and exploit them, not only in their own countries but around the world through the Internet. This is reprehensible. It does not just happen in Canada; it happens around the world. We have heard just recently of that international bust of people who have done that.

For the life of me, I do not understand why people feel they need to have some sort of enjoyment or fulfillment or release, for lack of a better word, from looking at children in a pornographic way. It boggles the mind. I may not be the greatest practising Christian in the world but I do believe in God and I know that God would not want his flock to do that, so why do people do it? Is a longer jail sentence the answer? Obviously these people must be severely ill or demented. I could use much stronger language, Mr. Speaker, but you would throw me out, so I will not.

I will try to be as courteous and as kind as I can using parliamentary protocol, but it bothers me greatly that even though my own children are safe, along with those of many of my friends, there are probably children in my own riding who are being exploited in this regard and I would be unaware of it.

I speak to policemen on this subject, not on a regular basis, and I know that my former colleague, Mr. Chris Axworthy, did a tremendous amount of work with police associations across the country when they mounted the campaign in 1995-96 in order to facilitate this type of legislation. It is quite amazing that this bill has been on our books for six to eight years and yet the government chose not to take even any aspect of the bill into its legislation. I can assure members that I will be actively working with my colleagues in order to facilitate this type of bill into the legislation, either through moral persuasion, through the debate in the House of Commons, or through committee or public pressure to try to get the government and my opposition colleagues to look at this type of legislation and enact it into the current Bill C-20. If we can honestly do that, I believe we would go a long way in protecting not only our children in this country but children around the world.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have waited a long time for the opportunity to address this particular issue again. Many of us have been addressing it since 1993, including myself. Ten years ago this problem was brought to the attention of the government on a number of occasions. Ten years later there are still no solutions.

Four years ago the Sharpe decision brought about the words artistic merit. It is now four years later and nothing has been done, except we now have a piece of legislation that inserts the words “unless the material can show public good rather than artistic merit”. That is a disgrace. When everybody starts bringing forth claims that there is some public good in what they are doing, it will be a great opportunity for lawyers to pocket money. It will be a real haven for lawyers and it will be at the sake of the children of this country who have suffered either on a personal basis or in the general picture.

Anytime anybody starts using child pornography to the extent it is being used in this country, every child we know, every grandchild or child of people in this room will be affected by the evil work being created out there. We have an opportunity here more than we will ever have in our lives to do something about it, to stamp it out in its entirety. We have to declare that we are no longer willing to tolerate our children or our grandchildren being exposed to this kind of garbage in this country.

Here is our chance. Let us not spend time sending a huge bill like Bill C-20 to committee where days, weeks and probably months will be spent analyzing it. There is nothing to analyze in child pornography. There is no artistic merit in it. There is no public good in it. Let us get rid of it. We can do it. Let us do it tomorrow. What is the holdup?

Since the Sharpe decision, police officers across the country have been spending hour after hour going through items of child pornography confiscated from those who claim to be people. The police have to go through each and every item, every picture, every film, every drawing, every sketch and every story to determine if there is any artistic merit. This will continue because they will now have to go through every item to determine whether there is any public good in it.

In the city of Toronto there are 1.7 million pieces of material that a handful of police officers, perhaps only four or five, have to go through. They receive psychological help from time to time. I can imagine what it does to them when they have to spend hours looking at that kind of filth and garbage to determine if there is any artistic merit and public good in it.

What kind of people do we have in here who would even hesitate for a moment to say the bill has to go to committee and through a process, and maybe a year from now it will be done? More than likely there will be an election and the bill will drop dead and nothing will have happened at all, as usual.

Child pornography is not to be messed with. When it comes to child pornography, there is nothing to discuss with regard to artistic merit or the public good. There is none. At least 90% of Canadians believe that. If members do not believe me, they should go back to their ridings and ask their constituents. They will be told to do what they can to wipe it out.

This is the place where we can do it. Whatever anybody thinks about the Supreme Court, this place is the top court of the country. Members must make up their minds to do it. Let us work together as a group of people with a little bit of common sense. Let us use our brains. We must indicate loud and clear to the country that child pornography must be wiped out. Let us get a national strategy together to help our police forces do it. Let us not make it worse.

Why are we debating to the extent that it could be this or could be that? That is irresponsible work on our part. Stop it now. What a joy it would be to see both sides of the House rise in unison and say that we will do one thing for the children of country, that we will wipe child pornography from the face of the earth and that we will start this in Canada. Why do we not do it now?

I cannot believe that we are hesitating for a moment. We should take that little section out of the bill if we have to, set it on the table and say that it will be dealt with at committee of the whole, everybody in the House. Then we can all stand and be united on saying that for the sake of our children, child pornography is gone. Does anybody have any problems with that?

Then we could address the courts in regard to some things like what happened in October. Listen to this. There was a story in the Calgary Sun about James Paul Wilson who was charged with possession of child pornography, assault and the obstruction of justice. He received a one year suspended sentence. He was in custody for nine months prior to sentencing which was taken into consideration.

In Winnipeg Leonard George Elder was convicted of sending hundreds of pornographic photos of children across the Internet. Last October the Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned a nine month jail sentence and stated that Elder should instead serve a 15 month conditional sentence.

There was an Edmonton Journal story about Leslie Jossy who used his work computer to print out child pornography. He received a one year conditional sentence to be served in the community.

The StarPhoenix in Saskatoon had a story about Kevin Hudec who downloaded hundreds of images over several months depicting sex between adult men and girls aged five to nine. He received a one year conditional sentence which he could serve from home plus probation for a year.

In a story in the Ontario-Quebec regional news of December 2002, Darryl Renton, a southern Ontario police officer from Brantford was found guilty of collecting child pornography. He received an 18 month conditional sentence which included six months of House arrest.

At that same period of time our justice system put farmers in jail. At that same time, we made millions of criminals out of a gun registry that was not working.

We can discuss all these other issues but there is no time for any more discussion. As we sit here, millions of pictures are circulating in the country. There is no deterrent to it. Let us help our police forces and our children and get together as members of the House of Commons and say that as of January 28 there will be no more child pornography and we will make every effort to see it happens. Can we do it? Should we do it? We better believe we should do it.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20, a bill proposing changes to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Wild Rose.

The Minister of Justice maintains that these proposed changes will protect children in Canada. The provisions in Bill C-20 are unnecessarily complex and cumbersome. They will not make it easier to prosecute sexual predators, which is supposed to be the goal because that is what Canadians are demanding. They want their children protected.

As a result of recent court decisions and development of Internet technology which brings formerly distant places much closer together, it has become clear that more protection is needed for Canadian children. We need to be able to more easily prosecute those who exploit, abuse or otherwise violate children in Canada.

I cite the infamous Sharpe case. Canadians were appalled by this decision that legitimized literary musings about sexual relations between adults and children. There was much outrage expressed by many people in my constituency of Surrey North surrounding that case. It was the catalyst that caused Canadians to demand that the federal government take measures to protect children.

In Bill C-20 the Liberal government attempts to tackle the controversy surrounding decisions like this. The government proposes to take the existing defences of child pornography, that is, artistic merit, educational, scientific or medical purpose and public good, and reduce them to the single broad defence of public good. This is simply not sufficient. There is no substantial difference between this public good defence and the previous community standards test that was rendered ineffective by the Supreme Court in the 1992 Butler case.

There is no positive benefit in the government's attempt to recycle laws that have already been discredited by the courts. The minister has simply renamed and repackaged the artistic merit defence. Canadians want the defence, regardless of what it is called, scrapped entirely. They do not want adults able to defend the sexual exploitation of children on the basis that there is some kind of public good or artistic merit in the harming of young people.

The Liberals have not done so. They have simply hidden it in a list and labelled them all public good defences which will continue to be available and used by defendants trying to fight child pornography charges. This is not what Canadians want.

The bill does nothing to address the age of consent for sexual activity between children and adults. Canadians have consistently for years demanded that it be raised from 14 years to 16 years.

The bill we are debating merely creates a category of sexual exploitation to protect children between the ages of 14 and 18. This category requires that in determining whether an adult is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitive of that young person, a judge must consider the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence by the person over that young person.

The problem is that it is already against the law for a person in a position of authority or with whom a young person between 14 and 18 years of age is in a relationship of dependency to be sexually involved with that young person.

Because the Liberals have failed to prohibit adults having sex with children under the age of 16, police and parents are faced with a continuing risk to children that is not effectively addressed by the bill. Only by raising the age of consent will young people be truly protected under the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Liberals have left a great deal of wiggle room by allowing debates to continue over whether a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitive of that young person. This is not what Canadian parents want. It is not the protection young people need in Canada. It is an escape hatch to be used by sexual predators.

The bill increases maximum sentences for child related offences, including sexual offences, failing to provide the necessaries of life, and abandoning a child. Maximum sentences are meaningless if the courts do not impose them, choosing instead to mete out little more than a slap on the wrist with time served in the community.

Canadians need to have the government eliminate statutory release and conditional sentences for sex offenders and mandate minimum sentences in order to deter child predators.

Modern technology has surpassed legislation that governs the use of evidence in Internet child pornography cases. The bill fails to address those shortcomings and amendments are required in order to deal with the child pornography cases effectively and efficiently.

A few short weeks ago, Canadians watched in disbelief as police vented their frustration in trying to work through hundreds of names of people in our country suspected of trafficking in hundreds of thousands of photo images of sexually exploited children. Not only are law enforcement agencies sorely lacking in resources, but they are also woefully bogged down in procedure. They refer to the federal Liberal government's support and co-operation as a nightmare.

If the justice minister were serious about protecting our children, he would provide law enforcement agencies with the resources they need and streamline the process, particularly in the rules governing disclosure. Imagine what even a fraction of the $1 billion wasted on the firearms registry could have done had it been directed to protecting children from sexual predators. This government is failing.

We have the technology to chase down these predators, but there is nothing in the bill about that. On the other hand, given advances in camera technology, the bill does provide some protection for Canadians. The bill creates a new offence of voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material, making it illegal to observe or make a visual recording of a person who should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is a positive step.

Given the fact that the Liberals have chosen to address advances in camera technology, Canadians are left to wonder why they chose not to do something about the advances in the Internet technology and the trading of images depicting the sexual exploitation of children.

There is not much more to say about this weak and largely ineffective legislation. It is a great disservice to Canadian parents, police and young people vulnerable to sexual predators. The Liberals are missing the target with Bill C-20. It should target those who torture, harm, humiliate, degrade and violently and sexually assault young people in Canada. Instead we have legislation that merely confuses things.

In the end, defence lawyers will make a great deal of money successfully getting their clients off because of this weak and ineffective law that will no doubt be torpedoed through this place without amendment. The bill offers nothing substantive that will benefit children and their families. The government should be ashamed for turning its back on the young people whose innocent faces peer out from the images that document their suffering.

I urge each member of this place, especially members on the government side, if they have not already done so, to spend some time with the seasoned police veterans who are haunted by the disturbing images of this horrible treatment of young people. Just look at the evidence. Spend some time with the police. Spend a night in a police patrol car on the kiddie stroll in many of our larger cities. Talk to the drug addicted teen prostitutes. Spend some time with their families and understand the heartache that is caused by this. Then come back here and make a speech about how this bill will do the job of rescuing and protecting these kids.

Bill C-20 is a disappointment.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

As members may have noticed during my previous speeches in the House, I am very concerned by all the issues that relate closely or remotely to children. This is why I wanted to take part in today's debate. In fact, these issues are of concern to us all.

First, I want to point out that we support the principle of Bill C-20. As I said earlier, the idea is to tighten up several important aspects of the criminal law by introducing new provisions made necessary by the technology that surrounds us and keeps changing at an incredible pace.

However, we remain vigilant regarding certain aspects of the proposed changes, namely the wording of certain provisions relating to child pornography and to consent to sexual relations. We feel that it is appropriate to debate these issues and to hear many witnesses in committee.

An initial reluctance deals with the issue of consent to sexual relations. The Criminal Code currently contains provisions regarding consent to sexual relations. According to those provisions, the consent of a person under the age of fourteen is not a defence to a charge of a sexual nature, such as sexual assault, exhibitionism or fondling. We can, therefore, deduce that a person aged fourteen and older is capable of giving such consent.

We can also interpret this provision to mean that the consent of a complainant can be a defence if the latter is between twelve and fourteen years of age or if the accused is between twelve and sixteen years of age, if the accused is not more than two years older than the complainant or, finally, if the accused is not in a situation of trust or authority over the complainant.

We can also conclude that a person in a situation of trust or authority cannot sexually interfere with a person between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, even if the minor consents.

These provisions of the Criminal Code were strongly criticized, mainly by the Alliance, which wanted to raise the age of sexual consent to sixteen. The Alliance members concluded that unless the age of consent was raised, Canada was at risk of becoming a sex tourism destination since sexual relations with minors aged fourteen and older are not illegal here. It is important to note, however, that child prostitution is illegal in Canada.

We are still opposed to raising the age of consent. Sexual relations among youth aged fourteen and fifteen are now tolerated by society.

Furthermore, we believe that we must speak out against the inconsistencies in the Alliance's positions. In the debate on the bill to amend provisions regarding young offenders, members of the Canadian Alliance said that a child aged fourteen or fifteen is responsible enough to be tried in adult court, but when it comes to consenting to sexual activity, that same youth aged fourteen or fifteen is not responsible enough to give consent. It is impossible to know where one stands with the Alliance, given such inconsistencies.

Bill C-20, as proposed by the Minister of Justice, provides for amendments to the provisions on sexual consent, but they are not the amendments requested by the Alliance.

Instead, Bill C-20 creates a new concept of consent, namely exploitation. An adult cannot have a sexual relation with a minor if he is in a situation that is exploitative of the minor.

Subsection 153(1.2) lists factors to be considered in determining whether a person is in a relationship that is exploitative of the young person. The factors are the age difference between the person and the young person, the evolution of their relationship and the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

The Bloc Quebecois is reticent about the application of this new concept. At first glance, it creates legal uncertainty.

Based on the wording of the proposed provision, an adult who has sexual relations with a young person could never be certain whether he or she is committing a criminal offence, because sections of the Criminal Code leave it to the judge's interpretation, even though the young person consented.

These leads us to our second point. A parent who disapproves of his young child's choice of lover can always file a complaint with the police, even if the factors that led him to do so are not those provided for by the legislator. This adds to the legal uncertainty and the complexity of the interpretation, which once again rests completely with the judge.

We feel that we could define the objectives of these provisions in committee upon hearing witnesses.

One thing worries me, however. Although the purpose of the bill is to protect children and other vulnerable persons, it seems that, above all, the interests of the child must be taken into consideration. It would be preferable to be consistent in our objectives in terms of children and young persons.

The application of the Divorce Act used this same principle as a guideline for interpretation. I believe this principle must be taken into consideration here to give the appropriate direction to Bill C-20.

As for the rapid advances in communications and information technologies, we are aware that guidelines are needed in reaction to some sombre realities. I am thinking of voyeurism and child pornography.

For example, the potential abuse of netcams, which send images directly to the Internet, is a subject of considerable public concern. Some people have particular, and justifiable, concerns about the clandestine viewing or recording of certain acts or actions for sexual purposes, not to mention that such viewing or recording is also a blatant violation of privacy.

That is why we find Bill C-20 adding two new offences to the Criminal Code. The purpose of the first is to make it illegal to deliberately observe or record another person in circumstances where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, in three specific instances.

The first involves observation or recording for a sexual purpose. The second is observation or recording of a person in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude or to be engaged in sexual activity. The third is when the person observed is nude or engaged in sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such activity.

The second offence proposed in Bill C-20 addresses the distribution of material known to have been produced in the process of committing the offence of voyeurism. The maximum sentence for all voyeurism-related offences would be five years imprisonment.

Lastly, copies of recordings obtained in the process of committing the offence of voyeurism for the purpose of sale or distribution could be seized or confiscated. In such cases, the courts could order deletion of all such material from a computer system.

We believe that the legislative provisions relating to voyeurism were made necessary by the multiplication of surveillance cameras and of means of distributing images taken by such cameras rapidly, via the Internet for example. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of these provisions right from the start and once again prepared to address this matter in committee.

The new provisions proposed in connection with child pornography address two different aspects.

At the present time, the definition of child pornography applies only to material that advocates or counsels illegal sexual activity with children. The reforms proposed in Bill C-20 would expand the existing definition of written child pornography to include any material created for a sexual purpose which predominantly describes prohibited sexual activity with children.

The new subsection 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code would read as follows:

(c) 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.

First, it should be pointed out that the possession of pornographic material is a crime punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment.

I am wondering about this new clause. According to the wording of the new provision, any written material describing sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years is child pornography.

This means that any sexual fantasy involving a minor is a criminal offence and is punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment, because that fantasy was put in writing, even though the person who wrote this material has not shown it to anyone, and even though no child was involved in any way in the creation of such material.

I am concerned about the scope of that provision. The government now wants to criminalize people's thoughts.

Of course, the Department of Justice will argue that these provisions should be interpreted based on the ruling made by the Supreme Court in Sharpe.

Under that ruling, two categories of material should be excluded from the definition of child pornography. The first one includes 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. The second category includes 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.

So, the Department of Justice decided to go against the Supreme Court ruling by not specifically mentioning these exceptions in the Criminal Code.

Not mentioning these specific exceptions will create a legal vacuum that will result in uncertainty in the Criminal Code. This may in turn generate confusion when reading the code. Each person has his own definition, however imprecise, of what is meant by child pornography.

We will be able to see this confusion when witnesses appear before the committee. The members of that committee will have the opportunity to comment on the confusion and ambiguity that will result from letting everyone define child pornography.

While we in the BLoc Quebecois want to make it clear that we do not support in any way such twisted and deviant written material, we wish to point out that the lack of details and specifications in the new provisions of the Criminal Code, in light of the findings of the hon. justices of the Supreme Court, will result in even more confusion in the public.

Now I would like to add my own personal observations concerning the provisions on the defence for possession of child pornography.

At present, subsection 163.1(6) of the Criminal Code, dealing with the defence for possession of child pornography, states that “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”.

However, in Sharpe, the Supreme Court interpreted the concept of artistic merit in a way that shocked many people. It gave it a very broad interpretation.

The court has concluded that the words artistic merit should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art.

The court added that any objectively established artistic merit, however small, suffices to support the defence and that, as long as artists produce art, they basically have no reason to fear prosecution under subsection 163.1(4).

Based on the provisions proposed in Bill C-20, the Department of Justice replaces this defence with another based on public good. Section 162(6) provides for this type of defence and reads as follows:

(6) 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.

Currently, the possession of video cassettes depicting pornographic acts involving children would be considered a criminal offence. Under what is being proposed, it could be demonstrated that this new defence could be used in a case where a psychiatrist, specialized in treating pedophiles, would certainly be justified in possessing such cassettes for treatment purposes because his possessing them would serve the public good. In this case, the possession of cassettes is more useful than harmful. At first glance, this new defence seems reasonable.

Under the provisions and proposals in Bill C-20, the sentences imposed for offences causing injury to children would be increased. The maximum sentence for sexual exploitation would be doubled from five years to ten. The maximum sentence for child abandonment and failing to provide the necessities of life would increase from two years to five years imprisonment, which is more than double.

The court must also consider the mistreatment of a child during the commission of any offence under the Criminal Code as an aggravating circumstance that could result in a more severe sentence.

Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the new provisions. It is here to protect children.

In terms of facilitating testimony by child witnesses and victims, the Department claims that the proposed reforms will ensure that participation in the criminal justice system will be less traumatic for the victim or the witness.

Current provisions of the Criminal Code would be expanded in order to allow all witnesses under the age of 18 to benefit from witness assistance in any criminal procedure. This provision would ensure that all witnesses receive this assistance, not only those who are affected by sexual offences, or other specific offences. This assistance includes testimony from behind a screen or through closed-circuit television, or with the assistance of a trusted person who would accompany the young witness.

Current provisions generally require that the Crown establish the need for witness assistance. Given the possibly traumatic experience for young witnesses in the courtroom, the reforms being proposed would recognize the need for assistance.

When it comes to all of the types of witness assistance, the judge retains full discretion to refuse assistance or protection, if it could impede the proper administration of justice. Furthermore, facilities that would allow for the use of screens or closed-circuit television would have to be available in court rooms in order for judges to allow them to be used.

The fundamental rights of the accused are therefore fully respected under the proposed amendments. The reforms would also allow children under the age of 14 to testify if they are able to understand the questions and answer them.

We support these amendments. However, in committee, we will ensure that none of these provisions threaten the rights of accused persons to a full and complete defence.

To conclude, I would like to repeat my support for the principle behind this bill, and for the principle alone. Amendments need to be made and specified. We need to hear from the experts and witnesses who will be invited to appear before committee. Once again, I would like to highlight the importance of the principle of the interests of children in any decision that affects them. This is a fundamental principle that must be safeguarded.

I, like all of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, believe that our children deserve our immediate and full attention and consideration. Our children must not suffer and must never live in fear of vile abuse.

To close, as I mentioned at the outset of my speech, I am very concerned about all issues that affect children in any way. I believe that it is our duty not only to protect them, but also to give them what they need to succeed and live their lives to the fullest.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her submission today in regard to Bill C-20. I think all sides of the House recognize that we need to protect our children and take measures that will be strong enough, that they indeed will be protection and not simply lip service paid to a problem that is recognized by most people across the country.

My question for the hon. member is this. Does she believe that conditional sentencing is appropriate for someone who is convicted of sexual interference with a child or of producing or spreading around child pornography?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act.

Bill C-20 proposes a broad package of criminal law reforms that seek to better protect children against sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect. It proposes reforms that will facilitate testimony by child victims and witnesses and other vulnerable victims and witnesses in criminal justice proceedings. It also proposes the creation of a new offence of voyeurism, and all the details are available in the information made available to members of the House.

I will speak strictly to the specifics of the amendments. I am not going to speak to things that we would wish were in the amendments because that would just lead to more contention, controversy, and a lot of difficult feelings and challenging situations among the various members. That is not very useful, so I would like to focus my comments on the proposed amendments relating to child pornography, as my job has to do with children. It is an issue which regrettably is not a new area of concern for all hon. members. It is ongoing and it is extremely sad that our society as a whole has to confront this, challenge it and attempt in every way possible to right this situation with our children.

The sexual exploitation of children, society's most vulnerable group, in any form, including child pornography, is to be condemned without any rationalization, absolutely condemned. Bill C-20 recognizes this and proposes amendments to our existing child pornography provisions that I believe will serve to better protect children against this form of sexual exploitation.

There are other forms of abuse of children that are perpetrated, where children are prevailed upon, such as child prostitution and sexual abuse, whether it be in the home or in any institution, by caregivers, teachers or any other member of society. Human smuggling and child smuggling have a lot to do with this issue as well. If we look at the whole commercial sexual exploitation of children in an international sense, we will see that it is pervasive and difficult. We challenge issues regarding child prostitution and we get technology merging with a whole new array of issues that we have to try to control, such as pornography through the Internet. We challenge that. We have made some progress. There is also human smuggling, another emerging issue in the sexual exploitation of children. It is ongoing. It is difficult. Those things that should work for us as a society, to make a better society, in a sense begin to work against us and against children because of the minds of those perpetrators whose intent is the exploitation of children and the most vulnerable in our society.

Bill C-20's child pornography amendments respond in a very direct and meaningful way to issues highlighted by the March 2002 case involving Robin Sharpe. We are all aware of the sad details of this case, of the absolutely abhorrent attitude displayed by this individual and his total disregard for his fellow human beings, especially children.

First, Bill C-20 proposes to broaden the definition of written child pornography. Currently, written child pornography is defined as written material that “advocates or counsels” sexual activity with a young person under the age of 18 years, which would be an offence under the Criminal Code. In its January 2001 decision in the Sharpe case, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the existing definition and its requirement that written material “advocate and counsel” as meaning material that when objectively viewed actively induces or encourages the commission of a sexual offence against a child.

I am sounding technical because the law is technical. These components and these amendments are technical. This is a human issue, but when we are dealing with the complexities of law making and amending legislation, this is the way it is. We cannot wish it away by just taking a simplistic approach. It does not happen that way.

Bill C-20 proposes to broaden the definition 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. Intent and depiction play heavily in the broadening of this definition. 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.

Bill C-20 also proposes to amend the existing defences for child pornography. Currently, the Criminal Code provides a defence, which is inconceivable, but it does that, as that is the law, for material that has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose. On a personal level, I just cannot even conceive of it, but that is the way it is. I am not a lawyer. I am not a judge. I am a legislator.

It also makes the public good defence available for all child pornography offences. This is an extremely contentious, controversial and sensitive part of the Criminal Code, on which no doubt everyone has an opinion or a bias. Everyone knows that in any way they deal with it does not mean that they condone child pornography, absolutely not.

Bill C-20 proposes to merge these two defences into one defence of public good. By doing so, Bill C-20 introduces an important new second step in the analysis of when a defence to a child pornography offence would be available.

I cannot even imagine that if we cannot even define it, although we can define it, as my colleague has done, in a minimal way, if we cannot even define what a defence of public good is, that there would be any instance in which a defence would be allowed. So just on that point I think that there is a lot of room for defending children with the amendments that we have put forward, and legislation can always be amended and perfected. That is what our role is here in the House.

Under Bill C-20, 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 a court must also consider whether the act or material goes beyond what serves the public good. If it exceeds the public good, no defence will be available. I would weigh heavily on the side of the children; if it is even perceived in any way that children would be affected and those people who are vulnerable would be affected, no defence will be available.

This proposed amendment builds upon the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Sharpe case. In its decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that something that is necessary to the administration of justice or the pursuit of science, literature or art, for example, may serve the public good. Under the existing defence of artistic merit, artwork or material that had any objectively established artistic value benefited from the defence.

Under Bill C-20, this is not the end of the analysis. Even if something is found to serve the public good, and that should be understood, the court must then consider whether it goes beyond what serves the public good. In other words, does the risk of harm posed by the act or material in question exceed the public good or interest that it serves? This is a kind of second review.

Bill C-20's proposed child pornography amendments are significant. Canada's child pornography laws are among the toughest in the world. They do not suit everyone, and not everyone will be happy or satisfied, but it is a work in progress. We all love our children, we all value them and we are working on it. The adoption of Bill C-20's amendments will reaffirm this leadership role in protecting children from sexual exploitation through child pornography.

I hope that all members can support these amendments because, as I indicated, they are very specific. They are not to be confused with other things we would like to see happen. This very specifically relates to child pornography and very specifically relates to providing protection that is not there now, so I am hoping that we will have support from others. There are other issues and we will continue to battle to provide protection for children and other vulnerable persons in our society.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-20.

Before I go any further I wish to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the Secretary of State for Children and Youth who I know has been working very diligently in this area.

I would like to inform the member for Okanagan—Shuswap that the chair of the environment committee earlier today tabled a bill from that committee that had 79 amendments. Committees do in fact amend legislation on a regular basis. To say anything else to the Canadian public is a misrepresentation of what in fact takes place in this parliamentary process. That bill could be further amended in third reading in the House. I encourage all members to support Bill C-20 and get it into committee where more fulsome testimony can be heard.

Throughout this discussion I hope members will be very cautious in how they present the opposing viewpoints. It was very disheartening to me, as somebody who has worked on this issue and who cares very deeply about the children of this country and other countries where some of this pornography is made, that because we do not support their perspective somehow we do not care about children. That is absolutely inaccurate. I care very deeply about children and I have been working on this issue since I came to Parliament in 1993.

The language that we use is also important. I know the headlines in our local newspaper in the case of the Internet pornography that came out of Texas had "kiddie porn bust". Kiddie porn is an attempt to make it cute and acceptable. It is not cute or acceptable. It is child exploitation. We need to be very careful in the language we use and the headlines which refer to this kind of exploitation. All members of the media need to take their responsibility very seriously.

It is important to note that through the work of CIDA we work to reduce the exploitation of children in other parts of the world. The House passed legislation that makes it illegal to travel to another country to exploit a child. That was very important legislation. We were only the 12th country in the world to pass that bill. It will make a difference for children internationally.

We also need to be very cognizant of the fact that the people who work with children on the streets of Toronto, Vancouver and any other big city in this country tell us that those pornographic materials that exploit children are being produced right here in Canada. We must do more to enhance child protection. We must ensure that we have strict laws that prohibit the production and possession of this material as the bill does. We have to do more to educate the public about what it means when they consume this kind of material. We have to turn off the people who think this is acceptable. Ultimately, laws are only there when people have done something wrong. I prefer that we turned it off in the first place.

I was very pleased to hear in the minister's announcement of Bill C-20 that he reiterated the government's financial support for Cybertip.ca and for a tip line, 1-866-658-9022, where people can call and report incidents when they think people are exploiting children on the Internet or elsewhere. We can work toward ensuring people understand what this means for the world's children.

Bill C-20 is a comprehensive set of protections and reforms to the Criminal Code. It is responding to decisions that have been made in the courts and making sure that it is Parliament that is making the laws and not anybody else. It is our job to accept or reject the decisions that are made in the courtrooms across the country. We all play a part in making sure that Canadians have the best laws in place.

The minister has introduced this comprehensive package of reforms that improve the protection for children and vulnerable persons. It fulfills key commitments that we made in the throne speech of 2002. Particularly, we will enhance the protection of children from sexual exploitation and enhance the measures that we have already taken to create new offences that target criminals who use the Internet to lure and exploit children.

New technologies like the Internet are making the exploitation of children a borderless crime and so the government is working internationally to try to reduce this exploitation.

The important things that have been debated today are the changes to the artistic merit and public good sections of the bill. I will touch briefly on that. However it must be clear that the proposed reforms would expand the existing definition of written child pornography to include material that is created for a sexual purpose and predominantly describes prohibited sexual activity with children. The current definition in our Criminal Code only applies to material that advocates or counsels sexual activity with children. This is an expansion of the current provisions and will do more to make sure the law achieves what we all want it to.

The other very important area is the new category of sexual exploitation to protect young Canadians between the ages of 14 and 18. The courts will now have to consider whether a relationship is exploitative based on its nature and circumstances, including any difference of age, the evolution of the relationship and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person. It will really be up to the courts to look at the conduct and behaviour of the accused rather than the issue of consent, and that is an important issue for all Canadians.

We have heard other members say that all we need to do is raise the age of sexual consent to 16. Oh, really. Then we would somehow say that it is not appropriate for a 14 year old and a 15 year old to kiss each other. That is sexual activity. Nobody wants to criminalize that kind of behaviour. In what the minister has done, we are making sure that kind of activity can continue and that we will protect 16 year olds and 17 year olds as well, which the members opposite would not do by moving the age of consent to 16. They would not be protecting 16 year olds and 17 year olds.

It is important that we are also enhancing, doubling in fact, the maximum penalty for sexual exploitation. Contrary to what some people have said in the House during debate, doubling the maximum penalities sends a strong signal to the courts that this is a very serious issue and it can be more effective than any minimum sentence in deterring this kind of activity as much as people actually think about how they will be prosecuted.

The maximum penalty for abandonment of a child or failure to provide the necessities of life to a child will be more than doubled, from two years to five years. That is another important area where we can protect our children.

An important area that has not been touched on at all is the new offence of voyeurism. We are faced with a situation right across the world now where people are becoming involved in webcam activity. People, young and old, are having all their daily activities monitored on the web. It is a very bizarre kind of thing. I do not know why people consume it or produce it but people are doing it. We must be very careful to ensure that there is no secret viewing or recording of people for sexual purposes, or breaching people's privacies. Those are important areas to protect particularly young people who may not see the seriousness of giving up their privacy by participating in this kind of activity.

It has been a very interesting debate in another important area. I heard members of Parliament talk about how they want to do more to protect our children. I say to them that I do not understand why they oppose gun control which protects our children and our society. I would ask them why they want to criminalize activity and treat children as adults when it comes to the Young Offenders Act but they do not want to treat children as children in this particular case and work to protect them in the same ways.

We have to be very careful to be consistent in our messages. The government believes that people under the age of 18 deserve some enhanced protection, which is what the minister has done with the bill.

I would encourage all members of the House to support the bill, to have further debate in committee and to work toward enhancing the education around protecting our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to members from all parties debate Bill C-20. I have the same concerns as the hon. member who just spoke. I have listened to members on the government side and members of the Conservative Party say that they have many great concerns with regard to this legislation. However they are willing to support the legislation in order to get it into committee to try to make some amendments. I have heard this excuse used time and time again in the House, yet legislation comes out of committee basically the same way it goes into committee and it has been a waste of time.

Does the member feel that by supporting this piece of legislation now, as some members have stated, then try to amend it in committee sends the wrong type of information to the public, which is paying close attention to this?