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

[The Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that because the last vote was done as a private member's vote, it is going to take some time to do a calculation, the exact numbers of yeas and nays on the vote, but I am advised by the Table that the motion would carry given the number of votes. Accordingly, I declare the motion, that the question be now put, carried.

Hon. members will be able to read all the figures in tomorrow's Journals. It is fascinating stuff.

The next question is on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-20.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-20.

Sex Offender Information Registration Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague on this particular issue. It strikes me as totally ludicrous. We just came off a two week break from Parliament and the vast majority of members of Parliament did as I did, which was to go back to our constituencies and do tours of the ridings.

I had an opportunity to visit the majority of the communities in my large rural riding and speak with the people. This is one of the issues that I spoke to them about along with Bill C-20, the child pornography law.

My constituents are clear on this. If there is a choice between running a risk, as the member for Mississauga South said, of running afoul of the justice practices or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or upholding the protection of society and the most vulnerable members, my constituents, first, come down solidly on the side of upholding the protection of the citizens of the country and second, worry about protecting the rights of the criminals.

However, it seems to me the Liberals always have this backassward. They look at the wrong situation and look at the rights of criminals rather than the rights of victims.

To sum up, 4 out of 10 criminals incarcerated at present for sexual offences will reoffend. For us to say retroactivity does not matter is burying our heads in the sand and it is ensuring that there will be a lot more victims of these people once they are released from prison.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite an informative and interesting debate for the last hour or two with members of the Canadian Alliance exchanging views with the member for Mississauga South. Rather than him standing up and trying to blindly defend the indefensible, I wish he would take time to read the bill in its entirety. I see my hon. colleague from Elk Island crossing the Chamber floor to hopefully enlighten the hon. member for Mississauga South. Perhaps in the future his interventions will make a bit more sense.

I would like to start out by addressing some of the comments that the member for Mississauga South raised over the last hour or two, not only during his 20 minute speech but during his interventions when he was commenting on and questioning, not only members of the official opposition but other members of the Chamber. One comment from the member for Mississauga South that I found particularly offensive was his contention that Bill C-23 would somehow be fixed when it went to the Standing Committee on Justice.

I am deeply honoured and pleased to have the privilege of representing the good people of Prince George--Peace River in this Chamber. It is a very unique honour to be given the right to the best of my ability to represent my electoral constituency in this place. It has been my experience though, in the nine years I have been an MP, to see all too often bills not getting fixed at committee. I say that without any particular pride or joy. No one knows this better than the hon. member for Mississauga South. As a Liberal government backbencher, he has endeavoured on countless occasions in the period of time I have been here to bring forward amendments and improve government legislation only to have those amendments duly voted down.

People in the real world outside Ottawa are not aware that the very nature of the committee structure is partisan and that is unfortunate. When we have a majority government with the majority of members elected to the House of Commons, we end up with a situation where it has the majority of members sitting on all standing committees as well. When ministers bring forward legislation, they get the assistance of the government whip to ensure that the legislation goes through virtually unamended. He or she gets all members of the particular standing committee to vote down any amendments brought forward, unless they are amendments brought by the government department and put forward by Liberal members.

We have seen in past that bills were amended quite extensively but very seldom were they what I would call independent amendments, whether those amendments came from a government backbencher or from an opposition member from any one of the four opposition parties. All too often amendments are dismissed out of hand and voted down at committee. We have seen this happen time and time again with important legislation, and I could run down a very long list of legislation that has been treated in that manner.

I cannot believe, as I sat in the Chamber, that I repeatedly heard the member for Mississauga South say that we should get the bill through second reading, get it off to committee and it would fixed. That is complete nonsense.

I think not only parliamentarians or staff persons who have worked on Parliament Hill but also members of the general public, who follow with any degree of interest what goes on in this place, would know that is complete nonsense. All too often when legislation goes off to committee, unless the government, or the minister or the department says that a technical error was made, all other amendments are voted down.

I have seen bills, which were passed, come back to haunt the government down the road because Liberals do not do their homework and they turn a deaf ear to opposition members. For partisan reasons, they say that they will not even consider a particular amendment.

When it comes to Bill C-23, what could be more important than protecting the most vulnerable members of our society, women and children, boys and girls, from sexual predators? In the nine and a half years I have been here, I have heard over and over again the issue of the need to do a better job of protecting the most vulnerable members of our society.

My colleague from Elk Island pointed out, and elicited quite a round of debate from the member for Mississauga South, that under the section entitled “Purpose and Principles”, subclauses 2(2) (a) (b) and (c) did not talk about preventing these types of horrendous crimes. That was the issue he was getting at when the Liberal member for Mississauga South intervened and said that under particular clause “This Act shall be carried out in recognition of, and in accordance with, the following principles: (a) in the interest of protecting society”. He focussed on that and said that the bill really was about protecting society.

However when we read on further, that argument is nonsensical because there is no mention in any of those paragraphs of preventing sexual assault, sexual abuse and the likes of those despicable crimes. It is all about bringing forward a registry in the hopes of helping police solve crimes, which is an admirable goal in and of itself. There is no question of that. We want to assist police and the authorities in any way possible to catch the reprehensible individuals and put them away.

However, as my colleague from Elk Island so eloquently stated, the primary goal has to be to prevent it to begin with. We should try to utilize and put in place all the tools possible to prevent these types of crimes from ever occurring in the first place, especially when dealing with individuals who have shown statistically that the recidivism rate is of the nature of 40%. In other words, on average, four out of 10 sexual offenders that are currently incarcerated in Canada will reoffend again. We can count on it. We know it will happen. Yet the government draws up legislation in Bill C-23 and says that retroactivity is open for debate. It is concerned about it because it might not stand up under the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Well, guess what? My constituents, and I hear this constantly, do not give a damn about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable people of our society. They do not care. They do not want that argument. They are sick and tired of hearing that argument because it focuses more on the rights of the criminal, of the predator, than it does on the rights of the victims.

My constituents want a government that will stand and say that it will go to any length to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. That is what they want from a government. They tell me over and over again. They do not want to hear the legal mumbo-jumbo, that we better make sure this law is right because it might end up before the Supreme Court of Canada and it will get struck down because it is offensive to the predators and goes against their rights.

As I said, my constituents do not care about the rights of the criminals. They want a government that is going to start focusing on the rights of the victims and do everything within its power to ensure that there are no more victims, or certainly that the number of victims is kept to a minimum.

My colleague from Battlefords--Lloydminster brought forward an amendment which states:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “That” with

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-23, An Act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, since the bill fails to require retroactive registration of sex offenders who have a 40% recidivism rate in order to avoid needing another offence before a repeat sex offender is added to the registry.

Again I do not take any pride or pleasure in this statement, but I think that is a very worthwhile amendment. My colleague from Battlefords--Lloydminster is well aware that if that amendment were accepted and passed, it would kill the bill. The point he is making, the point the Canadian Alliance as the official opposition is making is that this bill might as well be dead as to be the way it is. It is useless.

I said earlier during an intervention that I do not know whether other colleagues, especially government colleagues in the chamber, are getting tired of listening to me make these kinds of statements. I suspect they are. I know that I am getting tired of saying them. I am getting so frustrated with the government bringing forward these half-baked ideas and trying to sell them to the Canadian public as if it actually were addressing a serious issue. I am getting totally frustrated with it.

And it is not just me; it is not just the one member who happens to represent Prince George--Peace River. Members throughout the chamber and across party lines are reaching that same level of frustration. Society is crying out for a government to address these serious issues, especially the ones dealing with protection of children.

Another bill before the House, Bill C-20, deals with pornography and it also does not go far enough to protect children. It redrafts, rejumbles and rejigs the existing laws but we are still stuck with court interpretations that allow for a legal defence of child pornography based upon artistic merit. Whoever heard of such nonsense?

Members should go out into the real world outside the chamber, outside this Ottawa bubble of Parliament Hill and talk to people about protecting children. I can say that for the people of Prince George—Peace River it is not just their member of Parliament who is frustrated. The people from one end of my riding to the other are fed up with this nonsense where the government brings forward this type of legislation and tries to convince Canadians it is doing something to address a serious problem. It boggles my mind.

What will we have if Bill C-23 proceeds? And I suspect it will because the government has a majority. It will vote down the amendment by the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster and it will vote down any other amendments.

The House will ship Bill C-23 off to committee. This is something the Liberal backbencher from Mississauga South says is the answer, to send it off to committee and the bill will be fixed there. I wish I had just a pittance of his confidence that anything would be accomplished at committee, but I do not and I think that will be borne out.

I remember another law that was passed. Maybe my hon. colleague from Mississauga South can remember. It dealt with something called conditional sentencing. I fought against that law back in 1995. The Liberals forced it through and said not to worry about it, that it would be fine.

I think all the opposition parties said they did not have any problem with conditional sentencing if it was used for minor crimes, misdemeanours such as a young person caught for the first time on some minor charge, vandalism, property damage, shoplifting, that type of a crime. The young person would not be thrown in jail with hardened criminals but instead would get conditional sentencing.

Conditional sentencing is where a court will impose conditions rather than jail time. None of us have a problem with that.

The opposition, at that time it was the Reform Party of Canada, pointed out repeatedly during debate and at the justice committee, ironically enough, that the bill could be abused by the court system. We could end up with a situation where violent criminals got off scot-free or they could have some condition imposed. If they had killed someone while driving while drunk perhaps they would not be able to drive for a while, maybe five or ten years, or sex offenders would end up not doing jail time.

There have actually been cases where people have been convicted of sexual crimes and have not served a day in jail because of conditional sentencing. This is something the government brought forward and said it was a good idea.

The government would not listen to the opposition when we said that it was not the right way to proceed, that we should define which crimes it could apply to and for which the judges could use this new form of sentencing. No, the government would not listen. We are still stuck with it however many years later it is now. I lose track after a while.

I certainly support the amendment by my colleague to not give second reading to the bill if we cannot make this retroactive, if we cannot send a signal to the courts, to the justice system and to the people back home in northeastern British Columbia. They always tell me there is no such thing as a justice system in Canada anymore. They say it is a legal system. It is a system designed by lawyers for lawyers. It is not a justice system. They would argue that there is not justice anymore in our legal system. Some days it is pretty hard to not agree with that argument.

There is no question it has to be retroactive. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest bringing forward, as Bill C-23 does, legislation to enact a registry for sexual offenders and only have it from this day forward or from whatever day it is actually enacted into law, without placing on it the individuals who are already incarcerated, especially because of the high incidence of recidivism.

I think every member of the House could speak passionately to this issue for a long period of time, but unfortunately, my time is up. I have appreciated the opportunity to voice my concerns and the concerns of the constituents of Prince George--Peace River on Bill C-23.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Saskatchewan lay out a representation of the concerns of his constituents with Bill C-23. I am struck with the fact that it does not seem to matter in what area of criminal law the Liberal government finally is pushed to react, it invariably does a half-assed job of bringing forward the legislation. Bill C-20, which it brought forward to deal with the issue of child pornography, is very similar to Bill C-23. It tries to do half or less of the job.

I cannot imagine the Liberals would bring forward legislation that would not make it retroactive to ensure that existing sex offenders would be included on the registry. Good grief, what good will the registry be if all the hundreds of sex offenders, who are currently incarcerated, will not be on the registry? It just boggles the mind.

I know in conversations that I have had with constituents from one end of Prince George—Peace River to the other, they are appalled that the Liberals take years, not weeks, not months, to react to the pleas of Canadian citizens to protect our children, the most vulnerable people in our society, and then they bring forward legislation that will not do half the job.

I represent a huge rural riding which covers over 200,000 square kilometres with about 10 communities, from Prince George in the south to Fort Nelson in the far north, getting up close to Yukon, and I have heard it in every community big and small. Is my colleague from Saskatchewan hearing similar concern being expressed by constituents in his riding?

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I spoke earlier on Bill C-20, the child protection bill, and I talked about a parallel bill that would come in later today. Bill C-23 is that bill.

Bill C-23 would put in place the national sex offender registry. The national sex offender registry has been called on for a long time in the country. There have been several different stabs at it. However it has never really happened. I guess the genesis of this came out of a Canadian Alliance supply day motion put forward by my good friend, my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford. On March 13, 2001, over two years ago now, the House of Commons voted in favour of that motion. The motion, which was very simple, read:

That the government establish a national sex offender registry by January 1, 2002.

We have missed it by a year and some. It did not happen. The Liberals ignored it. At their own peril, they walked away from it, yet there was a groundswell of petitions and support. People from our ridings across the country questioning what had happened to it. They asked where had it gone because they had not seen it this place. Finally the Liberals were pushed to act, and we have Bill C-23. Unfortunately, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, it is a half measure. There are some terrible flaws in this legislation as well.

A lot of it started back in 1988 when an 11 year old boy was murdered by a convicted pedophile who was out on statutory release, another wonderful thing that needs to be changed. The Liberals at that time started thinking about a national sex offender registry. That was 15 years ago. There have been a lot of problems and a lot of convicted felons since that time. A lot of folks who have been released on statutory release back into the very communities have reoffended and gone back to prison.

It is timely that we are finally getting around to this legislation. However there is a huge flaw. It is not retroactive. As my colleague from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar pointed out, it starts off just like that, a white, blank sheet of paper. There is nothing on it.

How can that be when our prisons have these types of people incarcerated now? They are being let out. I had one on the streets of my riding a week or two ago. I have talked about this a couple of times in the House but it bears repeating. A fellow who is a multiple convicted felon, been away many times, keeps getting out and doing the same dastardly deeds. His victims are young girls ranging in age from 11 to a one and a half year old. How bad is that? Yet his name will not show up on that registry. He is a multiple convicted child predator.

There is a huge hole in this type of a document. That alone has called for amendments to make it retroactive and the government will not go there. There have been questions in the House to the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice and they say that they cannot make it retroactive because of privacy concerns.

How much privacy do the victims have? They wake up screaming at night. These nightmares will continue on for their life. Yet the legislation, which is supposedly there to protect them and to help them get past this, is not retroactive. It does not take that burden away from them. It keeps them reliving those problems every time this clown is released back into society to reoffend.

Other colleagues have touched on the rate of recidivism. It is huge and unbelievable. These people do not even take any kind of counselling while they are incarcerated. They can say that they do not need it and walk away. They cannot be forced to take counselling. Their constitutional rights supercede the victims and the nightmare they continue to leave. It is absolutely upside down and backwards here.

The government says that it cannot make it retroactive because of privacy concerns and it will be constitutionally challenged. My good colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who used to be a public prosecutor in Nova Scotia said that any new law would be challenged. They always are to test how strong it is.

Our courts need to have the backbone, and maybe we need to put it there from the House of Commons. It is the top court on the law. Maybe we need to inject that backbone into our judges right from here, with the toe of our boot if need be, and say, “ Here is the crime and this is the time that they need to do”. Get on with it.”

We see maximum sentences being extended and enlarged. However maximum does not mean anything. It is the minimum time that they serve that counts. It does not matter that the maximum is doubled, or tripled or maybe it is 16 life sentences. Nobody serves those sentences. They go to the minimum term. They get statutory release. They are up for parole at two-thirds of their time and all sorts of things. There is a huge amount of work that needs to be done on our whole justice department. This retroactivity totally negates the whole purpose of the bill.

The government will not implement retroactivity on the sex offender registry. It will not implement retroactivity on the DNA database. It will not go and get DNA from a lot of these bad guys because of their constitutional rights and the privacy laws. Then it implements something like Bill C-68, a firearms registry, which has forms that really invade my privacy. It set up a database that is a shopping list for every other criminal in the world who wants to find out what I have and where to come and get it, and my constitutional rights are challenged.

A good friend of mine, Dr. Ted Morton, has done an indepth study on the constitutionality of Bill C-68. He said that the government did not have a leg to stand on in regard to that bill, and he has listed it out. This fellow is a constitutional lawyer. He knows about what he is talking. That really starts to ring true when we see the people who have tried to become arrested under Bill C-68 and the government will not charge them because it knows it will get thrown out of court and totally destroy the whole premise of this public safety Bill C-68 hides behind.

We see those type of things implemented in here.

Even if a sex offender is put on the brand new list, there is another loophole. Through the courts, he can apply to not have his name listed if he feels that it would be detrimental to his health and safety. How absolutely ridiculous is that? Nobody in any court of law or at any kitchen table would ever agree with the premise that a criminal, a convicted felon, can apply to not have his name on there because it is injurious to his own privacy and safety. That is a loophole that nobody can believe.

Provinces have started to develop these registries. They have had to do it ad hoc because the federal government will not come forward with the proper legislation and funding to help them out. We can have pedophiles listed in Ontario who move to Saskatchewan and we lose them because there is not that continuity. This would address that if it were done properly, but we do not see that here. The big problem is the funding.

As I mentioned in a question to my colleague, the Canadian Police Association was here on Hill the last week and it probably lobbied him like it did everybody else. Its stand supposedly is pro Bill C-68. Maybe at the top end it. However ordinary folks who came to see me said that it was not a good thing. They want to see a DNA database. They want to see a sex offender registry that is retroactive. The government tends to not mention the CPA stand on those issues but it will give the CPA credit for being in favour of Bill C-68, at the upper end.

There are a lot of things wrong with this. The biggest issue that we take umbrage with is the retroactivity. To that end, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that” with

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-23, an act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, since the bill fails to require retroactive registration of sex offenders who have a 40% recidivism rate in order to avoid needing another offence before a repeat sex offender is added to the registry”.

Criminal Code

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues in regard to Bill C-20, the bill that makes amendments to the Criminal Code to safeguard children from sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect.

I would like to make a few observations. This legislation is of course very complex. It has many cumbersome provisions that will not make it easier to prosecute sexual predators. The existing defences of child pornography such as artistic merit, it is educational, scientific or for medical purpose and the public good are now being reduced in this bill to the single broad defence of “the public good”. This is simply not sufficient.

First, there is no substantial difference between this defence and the previous defence, the community standards test. That was rendered ineffective by the Supreme Court in 1992 in the Butler case. The community standards test, just like the public good defence, was concerned primarily with the risk of harm to individuals in society. There is no positive benefit in recycling laws that have already been discredited by the courts. That is why I would ask the government to strengthen this legislation.

Second, it is clear that the artistic merit defence which has been eliminated on paper may still apply in practice. The minister has simply renamed and repackaged the artistic merit defence in this bill.

The bill does not raise the age of consent of sexual activity between children and adults as my previous colleague mentioned. The bill creates the category of sexual exploitation with the intended aim of protecting children between the age of 14 years and 18 years. In determining whether a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of a 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 the young person.

It is already against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority with whom a young person, someone between 14 years and 18 years was in a relationship of dependency, to be sexually involved with that young person. It is unclear how adding people who are in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person will help protect young people. By the Liberals failing to prohibit adults having sex with children under the age of 16 years, the police and parents are still faced with the continuing task to children that is not effectively addressed by these amendments, but a continuing risk of that. Only by raising the age of consent will young people be truly protected under the Criminal Code.

The bill increases maximum sentences for child related offences. These offences include sexual offences, failing to provide the necessities of life and abandoning the child. This is truly meaningless if the courts do not impose the sentences. Currently, sex offenders often receive a slap on the wrist and serve time in the community. What is needed is truth in sentencing, eliminating statutory release and conditional sentencing for sex offenders and putting in minimum sentences in order to deter child predators.

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

The bill creates a new offence of voyeurism and distribution of voyeuristic material. This is a positive step. This makes it an offence to observe or make a visual recording of a person who should have a reasonable expectation of privacy if the person is in a place in which the person can be expected to be nude or engaged in sexual activity.

As to the impact the legislation will have on the family, we must observe that there are no substantial improvements that will benefit children and their families. The protection of children is of vital interest to Canadian families but this bill fails to take the necessary steps to address pressing concerns in this area.

The Canadian Alliance has called for the complete elimination of the artistic merit defence and for the age of consent to be raised to 16 years from 14 years. The bill does not do that. Bill C-20 falls short of protecting Canada's children. The Canadian Alliance will continue to advocate raising the age of consent to 16 years and will continue to advocate for the elimination of defences that protect sexual predators. I will have to oppose this legislation because it is just not good enough.

I agree with my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance. The bill is a timid first step for Canadian children. It is complex and has cumbersome provisions that will not make it easier to prosecute sexual predators. Police and prosecutors still do not have the tools to deal with child pornography cases effectively or efficiently. Children must be protected from abuse at the hands of adult predators, regardless of whether that relationship is a so-called trust relationship or not. The Liberals' failure to prohibit all adult-child sex leaves children at an unacceptable risk.

After months of the Canadian Alliance demanding an elimination of the artistic merit defence, the Liberals have finally recognized its danger. Unfortunately, the Liberals have replaced the existing defences with the single defence of the public good. There really is no substantial difference between this defence and the previous defence that was rendered ineffective by the Supreme Court in 1992.

Higher maximum sentences for child pornography and predation will not be effective unless the courts enforce them. The bill also fails to prohibit conditional sentences for child sex crimes. Child predators should serve their sentences in prison, not in the community.

The age of consent for adult-child sex must be raised from 14 years to 16 years in addition to the new category of exploitative relationship. The bill's criteria for evaluating if a relationship is exploitative are vague and very subjective. By not raising the age from 14 years to 16 years, Canada's children are still at risk.

I add my voice to those of my colleagues. I have to oppose this legislation. Even though there are some good provisions in it, it just does not do what it should do.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-20. The title of the bill, the child protection act, does not really cover what is in the bill. The speakers before me have pointed out the flaws in the bill.

There has been a huge outcry in my riding over these situations that have occurred that have brought about the genesis of the bill, Bill C-20, child protection. With the advent of the Internet and the world becoming a smaller place we are starting to see more and more abuses.

The concerns that my constituents have is that they are seeing more and more that Canada is becoming a safe haven for the perverts of the world because we will not stand up and protect our children.

There has been this huge public outcry that we need to go further, faster and really put something on the books that protects our kids. This bill does not do that. Unfortunately there are a few things missing.

The government and other governments before it always have these code words that such and such is a priority for the government. We have heard that time and time again.

We only have to go back to 1989 and the Conservative government at the time when child poverty was a priority for the government. It went on and it has been a priority for the Liberal government as well. Guess what? It is worse, not better.

Whenever we hear these code words that it is a priority, citizens beware. Somewhere in there someone will get left out which is what we are seeing in the bill.

There is an accompanying bill that we will be debating later this afternoon I am sure, Bill C-23, the sex offender registry. We see the same underlying so-called priority and direction of the government not really covering the fatal flaws that we have in our legislation now. The biggest concern with Bill C-23 is that it is not retroactive. It will not go back and address the folks who have committed these offences, are habitual criminals and who will reoffend. It does not go back and put them on the list because of privacy and constitutional challenges which is what the Solicitor Generals tells us he is concerned with. However that flies in the face of protecting someone.

Canadian parents are concerned. They have read the articles on Canada becoming a safe haven. They have seen the court cases that have not been heard, or have been adjourned, or have been thrown out or whatever. Because of the way our laws are written they will not protect our kids. The bill seeks to address some of those missing elements but it does not.

We still have a version of the outrageous argument that there is artistic merit somehow in child pornography. The Liberals have recognized that is not the right way to write that down so they changed it and put in some fuzzy words. Now they call it public good. How can it be for the public good when we label it as pornography and it involves kids?

We have heard arguments from some members of the House. My counterpart, the member for Palliser, stood up and said that there was no victim here. Well, there certainly is. The last speaker, the member for Cumberland--Colchester, made the point, and I agree with him, that there was long-lasting psychological damage. Certainly there is a victim in a sense.

Artistic merit, public good or whatever we want to call it, leaves a huge loophole for these worldwide offenders to come to Canada and say they are artists. Now the member for Dartmouth wants to give them a tax credit. That is how ludicrous some of the arguments are on this example.

We see these types of offenders, the lowest of the lowest, being given community arrest. They are put back into the very community where the crime happened and where the victim lives. There is an instance of that right now in North Battleford. A fellow named Gladue has just been given a conditional release and he is out in the community. The police are not supposed to say anything because of his privacy but, thank God, they have come forward and told the people about the problem. They put forward the usual rules, that he cannot go near a park or talk to kids, but how do we enforce that when he is dropped back into a community where kids live on every block and are on every corner? They walk past the buildings. How do we enforce those types of things? It is an anomaly that my constituents cannot get their minds around. We release this guy because statutory release says that we have to do it.

He has taken no psychological analysis or any programs while incarcerated that say it is safe to release him but they are saying no. His chances of repeat offending are like 80% to 90%. He is a time bomb waiting to go off but he is out in my community. At least the police have acknowledged that he is there and have told people to watch out for him, and rightly so.

The other loophole in the bill is that we do not see the age of consent moved from 14 years old. Canadians have said that their kids up to age 16 receive a government cheque called a child tax credit. Under the tax system children up to the age of 16 receive a tax credit but at 14 they can have sex? It just flies in the face of any rational thinking that the government would not move that age to 16, and it makes no attempt in the bill to do that.

I remember one day in question period that exact question was put forward by my colleague from Provencher, the former attorney general of Manitoba. The parliamentary secretary stood and said that the government could not make that move because there were cultural groups in Canada that required that age. Can anyone believe that; cultural groups in Canada that insist that 14 remain the age of consent? That is ridiculous. This is Canada. We have our own rules and regulations. We do not need a cultural group dictating that the age of consent stay at 14. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is not in here.

I know some amendments will be brought forward by my colleagues from Provencher and from Crowfoot, our justice critic, to this very bill. We know the chances of those amendments getting through are slim to none but we have to try. People are requesting it.

The police associations were here last week for the lobby day on the Hill. The government made a big hue and cry about how the CPA was all in favour of Bill C-68, the gun registry, and that we should spend the money because it was a useful tool. However it forgot to tell us that on that very same day the CPA said that there was not enough money for child pornography and that it needed more cash and more police officers on the line to fight it.

The criminals who perpetrate this type of thing have gone on the Internet, they have gone global, and our police officers have not been given the resources to fight it. The Liberals forgot to mention that little flaw in their thinking the other day.

It is fine to support Bill C-68. Everybody is welcome to do that in a democracy. However there are two officers in Toronto who have been forced to sit and watch this stuff through their whole shift to prove there is criminal intent here. How perverse is that? They have a psychiatric review themselves after six months but there is no psychiatric review for the people they arrest for this thing. It is craziness. We do a psychoanalysis on the policemen but not on the bad guys. We just shake our heads at how these type of things get in here. Court cases are tossed out. They are unenforceable.

The bill would increase the maximum sentence. It sounds great that the maximum sentence for doing something will be increased. Whether we use that or not has no bearing on the fact. It is the minimum sentence that needs to be increased. If the minimum sentence is 4 years now, let us make it 10 years. It does not matter if we make the maximum sentence 20 years because nobody qualifies for the maximum anyway. There are weasel words right in the bill that say it is protecting our kids by increasing the maximum sentence. It is the minimum that we need to increase, not the maximum. This really fails any kind of a test. There are so many things that are required that are just basic.

What about conditional sentences and the idea of community arrest? Prison time is called for so criminals can get the counselling and the psychiatric care they need if and when they ever do get released.

We have a lot of concerns with the bill. There is no truth in sentencing when we see the maximum increased, not the minimum. Nobody really tells us that the victims have no rights at all, that the criminals have all the rights. He can be statutorily released into the same community in which he committed the crime. These poor kids who are victims of this are stuck living with this person right in their midst.

This whole idea of minimum sentences not being increased and psychological assessments and analyses not being done on these perverted people in our society just flies in the face of anything called child protection. There is no possible way that my colleagues and I can support a bill like this. I know the committee worked very hard on this. It heard from a lot of community groups and lot of parents who said that these things needed to be in the bill. However we have seen no movement by the government to enforce tougher and harder penalties on these criminals.

We are not able to support the legislation simply because the government will not broaden out the scope of who will be covered, how they will covered and why they will be covered, and stop this whole influx of the global perverts who come to Canada because it is a free ride. That is not acceptable.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this occasion to address the House and Canadians on the matter that has unfortunately captured the attention of the public for a number of years.

Bill C-20, the Liberal answer to the John Robin Sharpe case, has been too long in the making and I am fearful does not go far enough to alleviate the inexcusable production of child pornography.

I will however preface the bulk of my comments by saying that some aspects of the legislation are favourable and under closer scrutiny of the justice committee will no doubt prove beneficial. For example, clause 5, which amends section 161(1) of the Criminal Code to expand the definition of those convicted or discharged on the conditions prescribed in a probation order can be seen as a positive step. The addition of offences under this section will increase a number of offences for which the judge can place an order of prohibition leading to a greater number of victims who will be protected.

We can also view as a positive the amendments in sections 151 and 152 of the Code, maintaining the indictable offence maximum of 10 years while increasing the level of punishment under summary conviction by directing the court to incarceration not exceeding 18 months.

The fundamental question in this debate must centre around the harm caused to those most vulnerable in our society: 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 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 against be subjected to judicial interpretation, again putting our children at risk. There will always most definitely be constitutional challenges.

There is an inherent danger to society as a whole when we fail to recognize the detrimental effect child pornography can have at a very base level. No one is suggesting that literary works be removed from circulation based on the promotion of sexual conduct with minors. Indeed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides sufficient protection for freedom of thought and expression. However the question of what constitutes a reasonable limit is central to this whole debate.

Clause 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 18 years. While the addition of a clear section for the purpose of specifically defining what constitutes child pornography is welcome, I would suggest that the definition be streamlined to remove foreseeable subjectivity.

As a definition, child pornography should not be open to interpretation through intent or any other means. That is to say the thought process behind the writing and whether the work was produced for a sexual purpose should be of no consequence. We need simply state the definition of what is acceptable and what is not. With the clear definition, the judiciary is removed from the public-private nature of the debate. As a remedy to the problems associated with Section 163.1(6) of the Code, clause 7(2) replaces section 163.1(6) with:

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.

While I understand the intent of the minister's legislation, 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, has called upon the government to produce a clear, concise piece of legislation, which would completely remove the chance works of this nature would see the light of day.

Once again the minister has left the door 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. 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.

I ask the minister why it has taken the government so long and how his legion of lawyers could have produced yet again such an obviously flawed piece of legislation which is going to raise more questions than it answers.

The overall effect of the Sharpe decision by Mr. Justice Shaw had many in society recoiling with dismay and shock. That a learned judge would in fact open the door to potential pedophiles and those who take advantage of youth who denigrate images and engage in writings that have a very corrosive effect on societal norms is a travesty. 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 created to children. Why risk the potential danger when the collective will of the people would see this material stricken from existence?

In handing down the Sharpe decision, Justice Shaw effectively broadened the interpretation of the current exemption or defence of artistic merit.

Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in the charter “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. The contention that section 1 limits are justifiable in this case are correct when weighed against the potential harm to children and the intent of Parliament to protect the rights of those most vulnerable.

Simply put, it is my belief that the Supreme Court erred when it favourably interpreted the Shaw decision.

Unfortunately, it seems the minister's lawyers have weighed the rights of the individual against the rights of the child and we are once again left with a mediocre attempt to correct what the Canadian public realizes is a serious problem.

If the Liberals are unwilling to protect the rights of the children and, by extension, their families, I suggest they might at the very least take the opportunity in the upcoming budget to consider supporting victims of crime financially.

The Progressive Conservative Party has been supportive in the past of the law enforcement community, victims' groups and child advocates who are constantly tasked and constantly struggling with the lack of resources available to them. As I have said before, what could be a more fundamental issue?

We know that the lasting impact on victims of sexual abuse is sometimes a life sentence. Very often the mental anguish and the detrimental effect on the development of young people is everlasting. It is certainly incumbent upon Parliament to take every available opportunity to make for a safer and kinder society.

There is a need for victims to have more support, a stronger voice, an ability to be heard in a substantive way by the individuals who ultimately will decide whether a person be incarcerated and, after the fact, whether the person will be released. It talks directly to the issue of respect for and dignity of victims.

It is clear that there has to be an equitable approach taken by the government. This is why we need a victims' ombudsman's office. We have a budget specifically set aside for the commissioner of corrections to deal with the concerns, some legitimate and some not, of federal inmates. There is a federal budget allocated to ensure that inmates, some of whom are serving time for absolutely heinous crimes and have victimized numerous citizens, have an office where they can go if their situation in prison is not to their liking. Yet victims very often are completely ignored. They have no outlet, no central office in the country, where they can go to find out about important things like parole hearings or information pertaining to response or treatment.

While we debate the merits of the bill, elevating the philosophical discussion of the public good, it becomes evident that this legislation is a far cry from solving the problems associated with the Shaw decision. For the sake of the children the government must do better.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, try to imagine how you would feel as a parent, or relative or neighbour of a child victimized by someone trying to satisfy a depraved sexual desire. Think of the anger, the sadness and the frustration of the physical and emotional damage suffered by the child. Then imagine how shocked and helpless one would feel finding out the culprit would not be prosecuted because the police were unable to muster enough resources to properly investigate this evil crime.

As a mother of two I can say that I do not ever want to have that experience. The reality however is that many parents do face that scenario.

Sexual deviants are preying on our children and in many cases the police are powerless to bring them to justice. Sadly, sexual offences against children have been occurring longer than any of us can remember. Compounding the problem is the commercialization of sexual abuse. Child sex tourism is a booming industry in some countries, and prostitution, pimping and pornography are profitable scourges worldwide.

Bill C-20 addresses several criminal law reforms regarding the protection of children. However today I would like to focus on three areas of the legislation that I find particularly weak: the issues of child pornography and the age of sexual consent as they relate to sexual exploitation and ineffective judicial sentencing.

The government last July implemented new laws to address the growing problem of the use of technology, such as the Internet, to facilitate sexual exploitation. This work is to be commended but, as the very existence of this bill illustrates, there is much more to be done.

As we have heard, the bill eliminates artistic merit as a defence for written and pictorial child pornography and replaces it with public good. The minister was kind enough to explain this vague concept during one of his earlier speeches on Bill C-20. I would like to read an excerpt from that speech:

Bill C-20 proposes to provide only one defence, the one of public good and to eliminate the other provision, which includes artistic merit. By doing so, the availability of a defence would be subject to a two step analysis. First, does the material or act in question serve the public good? If it does not, then there is no defence. Second, even if it does serve the public good, does it go beyond what serves the public good? If it goes beyond, then there is no defence.

Can members think of a single instance in which child pornography could possibly be in the public good? Is there a single circumstance where exploiting sons, daughters, nieces, nephews or any other child could be justified? I cannot imagine any situation that could not be addressed in some way other than by sexually exploiting a child. That is why I question the minister's decision to provide a loophole, no matter how small, for people who prey on children to sidestep the law.

Raising the age of consent is another area in which the government chooses to allow sexual predators room to manoeuvre. Instead of raising the age of sexual consent to better protect our younger teenagers, the bill proposes a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation that the minister says will focus on the other person's exploitive conduct. He says that such a system will protect not only 14 and 15 year olds but also 16 and 17 year olds from exploitation. That is an admiral idea but one that would be more effective if combined with a higher age of consent to protect our younger adolescents from predators who may rely on consent as a defence for their actions.

Detective Sergeant Paul Gillespie of the Toronto Police Service's, Sex Crimes Unit, Child Exploitation Section, outlined to me his concerns about Bill C-20. One of the first things he mentioned was the government's refusal to raise the age of consent. He feels Bill C-20 would force police to more closely examine the nature and circumstances of the relationship in question, including the evolution of the relationship, the age difference and the degree of control or influence exercised by the offending party.

Detective Sergeant Gillespie said:

This is the law I can never envisage us using. It seems we are inviting intellectual exercises into morality issues, when in fact, this is about children being abused. When I hear such terms as “examine the evolution of the relationship,” I cringe.

He also questioned how such a law could be utilized effectively. He said:

The police do not have the resources to adequately investigate these types of cases in the first place, and now the onus is being put on us to “explore” the evolution of a relationship, or determine “trust”. How exactly are we supposed to do that?

Our country's police officers, the ones who are out in the field dealing with child exploitation, appreciate the government's attempt to further protect children by putting forth the bill. I think this is a goal that we all share. However, what the police need to do their jobs more effectively is not a convoluted set of rules open to interpretation. They need clarity and they need resources.

Detective Sergeant Gillespie has provided me with a list of simple directives he says would greatly assist the police in successfully protecting our children. I would like to share those ideas with members. I urge members to listen to what he is asking.

First, raise the age of consent from 14 years.

Second, eliminate artistic merit as a defence for child pornography.

Third, include all child pornography convictions as primary designated offences for the purpose of the DNA databank.

Fourth, allow for a sampling of materials seized as evidence, similar to how samples of narcotics are analyzed in the case of a large drug seizure.

Fifth, make it illegal to advertise child pornography.

Sixth, require accused persons to reveal the key or password to encrypted computer files seized by police.

Seventh, require Internet service providers to maintain client information and records for at least 60 days.

Eighth, allow police to obtain client information records and logs from Internet service providers by way of a one page affidavit.

In September the government promised to make child protection a top priority. Yet we find ourselves in a situation where investigators are able to access the names of thousands of Canadians suspected of child pornography related activity but struggle to conduct adequate investigations. There are too many barriers and not enough resources.

Even when authorities are able to gather enough evidence to merit a guilty verdict in court, sentences are often little more than a slap on the wrist and certainly nothing to deter an avid child porn enthusiast.

We have heard that Bill C-20 features tougher sentences for child related offences. Unfortunately, the courts have traditionally been hesitant to mete out the maximum available sentences, rendering this a moot point. In fact offenders often serve their sentence in the community, not in prison.

According to November statistics from Correctional Service Canada, nearly 64% of federally incarcerated male sex offenders had prepubescent or adolescent victims. That figure rises to 70.7% when we calculate the percentage of male sex offenders serving their sentence in the community.

Think about that: 637 sex offenders who victimized a child or young person were roaming our streets during their sentence. That kind of punishment hardly serves as a deterrent, and without eliminating statutory release and conditional sentencing, tougher sentences will not be effective.

Our children deserve meaningful legislation that will give police and prosecutors the tools they need to halt child predation and bring child predators to justice.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as you know there is no time allocation motion on the agenda. There is however a notice, should that notice need to be exercised.

It is the intention of the government to continue this afternoon and tomorrow with Bill C-28, the budget implementation legislation. I wish to confirm to the House that it is my intention to continue to do so notwithstanding the opposition's dilatory motion to stop the bill from proceeding which was introduced in the House earlier this day.

If and when the bill is completed, we will then turn to Bill C-20, the child protection bill, either tomorrow if the budget bill is completed, or if not, on Monday. This will be followed by Bill C-23, the sex offender bill.

I then propose to bring back to the House for third reading Bill C-13 on reproductive technologies, which was concurred in by the House yesterday. That would probably bring us at least some way into next week and there will be further consultations at that point.

There have been discussions among parties and it has been agreed that the House shall not sit next Friday, April 4. Given that is the case, I now seek the consent of the House pursuant to that consultation to move the following motion. I move:

That when the House adjourns on April 3, 2003, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, April 7, 2003.

Criminal Code

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find consent in the House that the vote on the main motion on second reading of Bill C-26 be applied in reverse to the amendment at second reading of Bill C-20.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-20.

Interim Supply

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent in the House to proceed immediately to the taking of the division on the main motion on Bill C-26 and the amendment to Bill C-20 and to proceed following that with the motion on Bill C-206.

Criminal Code

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

Let the judges take the heat and let the lawyers be called the dogs of the day for arguing the cases. The fact of the matter is that when we hire lawyers we want our lawyers to represent us to the best of their ability, and then the judge makes the decision.

However, when the decision goes against the good of children, of all people, certainly the government should have the intestinal fortitude or the guts to make the change to protect our children, but it does not. It goes along and tries to pass another bill, which I am sure it will get through, Bill C-20.

Bill C-20 fails to set a clear standard on the issue of the age of consent for adult-child sexual relationships. In other words, we allow our 14 year old children to be bought and paid for by some 60 year old, and we do nothing about it. We have become known in the world as protectors of the child sex trade.

I have had the unfortunate opportunity of seeing some of these programs that the police are so concerned about. Fourteen is at the high end of the age spectrum. These videos show three year olds and four year olds. They are sick and they are sickening. Yet time after time when we find these people and law enforcement collects enough evidence and is finally allowed to bring these people to court, they are let off with a slap on the wrist and we say that we can change these people or the way they do business in regard to child pornography.

I have heard the excuse of artistic merit. Nobody with any reasoning is going to argue about a drawing in a doctor's office, for God's sake, yet I have heard members, and I even have heard the minister, stand up and say that is reason the government wants to have this in the bill. What a load of garbage. It is a doctor's office. We know that doctors have drawings and pictures of body parts, so that does not wash with the public out there.

What does get the public angry is that when these people are sentenced they can go right through the whole system without treatment and be allowed to go back onto the street. They are allowed back onto the street to ply their trade, and that is all it is. These people are in it for the money and are using our children to make the money. They go through the prison system without even having to sit one day to understand what is wrong with their trade.