Bill C-20 (Historical)

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

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I have the opportunity to ask another question, then I will gladly do so. In response to what the hon. member just said, I would say that there were nine bills before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued. In the end, three of these nine bills were reintroduced for consideration by the House. Moreover, one of the bills we considered here has to do with online pornography and online predators. I cannot recall the exact numbers because there are so many, but I think that it was Bill C-20 that was recently passed by the House and, in our opinion, should be passed by the Senate.

That being said, Bill C-60 deals with two issues, one of which is very problematic: the use of self-defence to protect one's property. This has always been a problematic issue. The hon. member was speaking about the proposed amendments to sections 34 to 42 of the Criminal Code, which pertain to self-defence. These sections are often subject to interpretation and the courts have rendered many different decisions in this regard. The protection of property, which is what interests me, is addressed in section 494 of the Criminal Code. Under section 494, we may arrest without warrant a person who is destroying our property or that of others. I will come back to this later.

Can the protection of property be distinguished from self-defence? If so, we could pass Bill C-60 to amend just one section of the Criminal Code, section 494. I would like to hear the hon. member's thoughts on this. Perhaps he could speak to us about his party's position, which unfortunately I have not yet heard.

[Carrie Kohan, Child Advocate, Founder of MMAP and Co-founder of Project Guardian, Mad Mothers Against Pedophiles]

Hello. Bonjour. My name is Carrie Kohan. I am a child advocate who founded Mad Mothers Against Pedophiles and I am the co-founder of Project Guardian.

I've sat in front of this committee for many years now on various bills, and I'd like to thank the justice committee again for allowing me to speak to you on this matter today.

When looking at Bill C-22, age of consent, I feel like I'm having a déjà vu, because on October 7, 2003, four years ago, I sat in front of this justice committee on this very topic. It was Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act. It was an omnibus bill that tied in child Internet porn, artistic merit, and the support of vulnerable witnesses. Each one of these topics was a very serious issue and probably should have been addressed individually; however, they were lumped under one large bill.

In my address, I spoke of my concern that having a lower age of consent combined with such lenient sentences or non-existent sentences for convicted pedophiles would lead to Canada becoming a pedophile haven, which it since has.

According to the recent 178-page report compiled by EPCAT in December 2006, it states that Canada has indeed become a destination for child sex tourism because of its relatively lower age of consent. If that statement doesn't sound alarms in the whole of the justice committee, I don't know what else you'll need to hear to create change and understand the desperate situation our children are being put in as a result of our previous lawmakers and their apparent lack of concern for the safety of our children.

I also believe another contributing factor has resulted in our country being recognized as a pedophile haven, and that is our lack of sentencing for convicted pedophiles. In the hearings of October 2003, I shared with the then Liberal justice committee the 1997 stats that showed that in Canada, 60% of convicted pedophiles get jail time and 40% get conditional releases or house arrest. Of the 60% who get jail time, the average time served in prison was only six to eight months. This is because in Canada we can't enforce our maximum penalties. If we do, they are often appealed and reversed to a much more lenient sentence.

It is not that all Canadian judges don't want to give the maximum sentence; in Canada, they cannot. If a judge even tries to give a maximum sentence it is likely the convicted pedophile will successfully appeal his or her sentence and win, and the children of Canada and we as a society will lose. So the judge has no choice but to base his or her decision on precedent because our legal system is based on civil law.

Let's take a look at a recent conviction in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office, on November 3, 2006, a 54-year-old West Palm Beach man named James--or Jimmy--Oliver was convicted and sentenced to 130 years for just four counts of sexual exploitation and one count of possession of child pornography. The convicted man had traded child pornography online with another man and included a video of himself performing oral sex on a prepubescent child in his care. When a police seizure was made of Oliver's home, he was also found to possess images of child pornography on his computer.

On October 6, 2006, the West Palm Beach federal grand jury returned a 19-count second superseding indictment, charging Oliver with seven counts of distribution of child pornography and one count of receipt of child pornography, each of which carries a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years, up to a maximum of 20 years.

Oliver was also charged with two counts of distribution of child pornography to a minor in order to induce or persuade that minor to engage in sexual activity with him. These convictions also carry a minimum of five to 20 years. Oliver was also charged with four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor for the purpose of creating child pornography, each of which carried a mandatory minimum term of 15 to 30 years.

Oliver was charged with four counts of permitting a minor in his custody or control to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of creating child pornography, again a mandatory minimum term of 15 to 30 years. Lastly, Oliver was charged with one count of possession of child pornography, carrying a statutory maximum term of 10 years. In total, Oliver got 130 years in prison.

The U.S. judge also imposed restitution in the amount of $11,142 to pay for the victim's psychological counselling and a special assessment to be paid of $500. The judge also stated that no prison term, no matter how lengthy, can undo the serious harm done to these children.

Obviously, the United States of America has a zero tolerance policy for this crime. Now compare this to Canada. Can you understand why we are considered one of the places now to come and rape children and create child pornography and distribute it from? In May 2006, a Montreal man, who must remain nameless because of our laws, assaulted his young daughter from age 24 months to 4 years of age. He posted the pictures of this crime on the Internet. He was also found to have roughly 5,000 pictures and 5,000 videos of child pornography on his computer, some of which featured very young children and infants.

By the way, this actually brings up something else that I'd like to talk about later--the police issue of sampling. That's something we have to address.

Anyway, this 32-year-old Canadian man was sentenced to a maximum sentence of 15 years in November 2005. However, he won his appeal in the Quebec Court of Appeal and had his sentence reduced from 15 years to nine years. But in Canada nine years doesn't mean nine years; it actually means anywhere from three to six years, not including time served.

When the appellate court reduced the sentence, Judge Côté cited the man's crimes were not amongst the worst sexual assaults ever committed. And they also cited his young age--not the young age of his victim, but his young age. The court also cited the fact that this man had only one other criminal conviction, for sexually assaulting another child when he was 17 years old.

Here we have two similar crimes. The convicted pedophile in Canada has a prior conviction and possesses over 1,000 pieces of child pornography and gets maybe five to six years in prison, a prison that Canadians have now nicknamed Club Fed. The other convicted pedophile, in the United States, gets 130 years for virtually the same crime, and he has no prior conviction. Where do you think pedophiles would rather commit their crime? In a country where they could potentially get 130 years in prison or a country where they can get a maximum three to six years served? And that's if they are even caught in the first place.

The previous justice committee of Canada, Solicitor General, justice minister, and prime ministers that I have met or sat before over the past eight years have effectively put Canadian children on the top hit list for pedophiles to target. The only way to correct the ineffective laws of our past governments is to create new laws that will mirror those of our neighbours, so that we will no longer be the desirable destination of choice by pedophiles.

We need to increase our age of consent to 16 years minimum. In fact, the majority of Canadians that I have spoken to, which have been many, have actually wanted the age of consent to be similar to that of the United States and other countries and be raised to the age of 18. We need to include a close-in-age clause, four to five years. We need to grandfather previous relationships of one year or more that are outside that five-year age difference--within reason, of course. We also need to be on par with other democratic countries and implement minimum sentences of five years, to a maximum of 20 years, for various child-predatory-related crimes. I would personally like to see Carrie's guardian angel law adopt a progressive timeline for this type of sentencing.

I hope this justice committee understands the urgency needed here, and I also hope that this bill and the safety of our children does not become a bargaining tool for other political parties. That would be a shameful act, demonstrating that the will of the party is not to protect the children of Canada but instead to use the bill for the party's own political benefit or gain. Whether it is within the legal means of the political party to use this bill as a tool or not, I would ask that all parties present and the members of this committee pass this bill as a selfless act and act as a united parliamentary union in support of the protection of the children of Canada from predators.

Please ask yourself how many children are being raped at this very moment across Canada because of our ridiculous laws to date and the apparent lack of protection for Canadian children. And how many pedophiles are walking away with house arrests for abusing defenceless children?

Take a look at the 178-page report. You will see that we are a national disgrace. Only you, this committee, can do something about it. Please raise the age of consent immediately--today--and unanimously bring forward new legislation to introduce minimum sentencing for pedophile-related and violent crimes, such as the four violent crimes we witnessed in Edmonton, Alberta, over this last year, against Shane Rolston, Josh Hunt, Dylan McGillis, and, most recently, 13-year-old Nina Courtepatte. We'll be hearing that sentencing tomorrow.

These were violent crimes. The murderers deserve more than bail and house arrest.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

Criminal Code

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22. I am also very aware that all the justice critics need to be in committee for clause by clause of another justice bill right after this, so I am going to truncate my remarks to help get all the right people in the room who need to be there shortly after question period.

I will say at the outset that our party will support the bill. In doing so, we are following up on work that has gone on over a number of years. The Speech from the Throne of October 5, 2004 committed the government to cracking down on child pornography. Similarly, in the previous Speech from the Throne, the former Liberal government committed to reinstating former Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

The bill was reinstated on February 12, 2004 as Bill C-12. It was awaiting second reading in the Senate at the time of that Parliament's dissolution for a federal election. In June 2004 the then prime minister reiterated support for reintroduction of the package as the first legislative item in the new Parliament. I know that the former minister of justice, the hon. member for Mount Royal, introduced in the former Parliament Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act. It received third reading on June 9, 2005, royal assent on July 20, 2005, and came into force in its entirety less than a year ago, on January 2, 2006. Bill C-2, then, is built on reforms previously proposed in the former Bill C-12 and proposed reforms in five key areas.

I might reiterate, too, that former Bill C-12, by a procedural motion, a hoist motion, from the then opposition Conservative Party, was prevented from going forward a couple of years earlier.

Be that as it may, when I hear the Minister of Justice incorrectly saying that nothing was done, I have to put on the record that we did strengthen prohibitions against child pornography.

We broadened the definition of child pornography to include audio formats as well as written material “that has, as its predominant characteristic, the description of prohibited sexual activity” with children “where that description is provided for a sexual purpose“. We prohibited advertising child pornography, increasing the maximum sentences and making a number of offences have more bite.

We wanted to protect young persons against sexual exploitation. One of the things that I like in Bill C-22 is that the government has not disposed of that section that was so important, the section that talked about the exploitation of children. It had prohibited sexual activity with young persons between 14 and 18. Under Bill C-2, a court would be directed to “infer that a relationship is exploitative of the young person based on its nature and circumstances, including the age of the young person, any difference of age, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person”.

Consistent with the existing criminal law treatment of sexual assault, that bill focused on the offending conduct of the accused rather than just on the young person's consent to that conduct. That was always the concern, that it was not just an age number, because the age of 14 has been in the Criminal Code and utilized since the late 1800s. It was the “exploitative” nature, and I am pleased that the bill keeps this, because that helps in our being able to come forward with our consent today.

We did increase the penalties for offences against children.

We facilitated testimony not only for child victims and witnesses under 18 years but for other vulnerable victims and witnesses. This is procedural, to help stop re-victimization in the court process.

We created a new voyeurism offence. Today we have those cameras that take pictures; that is why we needed this.

In 2002 we also created the offence of Internet luring under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. That prohibited the use of a computer system, including the Internet, to communicate with a young person for the purpose of committing a sexual assault against that person. It can and is being successfully charged, irrespective of whether a sexual assault actually took place. The fact of the offending conduct of trying to lure a child via a computer system is what we were getting at and it is there.

Also, just a few weeks back, a private member's bill on increasing sentences passed in the House.

Today's Bill C-22 is an improvement over former private members' bills, no matter how good the intention was. The fact is that now this bill has the five year close in age exception and that will go a long way, I think, in helping us to accept this bill and give our consent to it.

In fact, in our Liberal justice plan announced last week, this was one of the bills that we said would be put forward and given consent by our party, along with the other bills of conditional sentencing and imprisonment, as amended in committee, such as: Bill C-9; Bill C-18, an act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification; Bill C-19, an act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-23, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments); and Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate), which was debated in the House last week under the topic of payday loans.

We on this side will add Bill C-22 to that list of bills. There are about 11 government justice bills. This one makes six that the Liberals are prepared to move forward in the Liberal justice plan, although we do not think that these bills are universally perfect. But we could find flaws with all pieces of legislation in the House. There are sections in this bill to do with unconstitutional areas of the Criminal Code, which we could have fixed. The justice minister has chosen not to do that, but at this stage I think the protection of children should be our utmost priority.

Listening in the chamber today was one of the good police officers who has to work in this area. He was kind enough to give some Liberal members a briefing. Unfortunately, his colleague from the federal police services was not allowed to do that, for reasons unknown.

On this side of the House, we as the official opposition are prepared to support this bill. I am prepared now to move on and give my time so that critics from the other parties can all be present in the justice committee for voting measures later this afternoon on another piece of legislation. There is unequivocal support here for Bill C-22.

The Patent Act

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in what is probably the last day in the current session to speak to an extremely important bill.

During our life as parliamentarians, we often make mountains out of mole hills even though there are no mole hills in this dignified House. But here we are dealing with an extremely important bill in the dying days of a session.

Regrettably Bill C-56 was put forward at the very last minute. It could already have been reviewed in committee and disposed of, sent to the other place where it could have been reviewed, amended if necessary, and passed.

A political agenda has taken over a humanitarian agenda. This is what is going on here. For the past few days, even weeks, various opposition parties, several government members and some ministers also, I hope, various stakeholders in Bill C-56, including brand name drug companies and generic name drug companies, as well as humanitarian and community groups involved in this issue have been urging the government to go ahead.

As a matter of fact, the office of the Minister of Industry had invited members to a briefing session on the bill, but it was postponed and was only held this week. It makes one wonder.

This week, the Prime Minister answered a planted question on Bill C-57, reading a prepared text saying that it was a priority. We might stop sitting very soon. Yesterday, the government House leader, before leaving for a warmer climate as a result of an appointment, said good bye to parliamentarians although Bill C-56 has not passed yet. Once again, the partisan agenda has taken over the humanitarian agenda.

For several weeks now the government has tried to blame the drug industry as well as the opposition parties, including the Progressive Conservative Party, the sponsor of the Drug Patent Act, accusing them of delaying matters. The holdup is not with us; it is with the government.

I will not talk about the benefits of Bill C-56, as everybody is in agreement on that. However, as my Bloc Quebecois colleague said, now that Bill C-56 can be discussed, as we are doing now, we see that there are people on both sides who have reservations, be they the brand name drug companies or the generic drug companies, humanitarian groups or non-governmental organizations.

We are ready to take a few hours or a few days to study the bill in committee, very quickly. We will not be the ones holding the process up. The problem is that every time there is a delay, there are more deaths in these countries, every day.

Let us imagine the possible and probably scenario of an adjournment and a prorogation in the next few weeks. We should be called back sometime in February. However, if there is a prorogation, all the bills will die on the Order Paper, unless there is an agreement among the parliamentary leaders of all the parties represented in the House. This could represent a delay of three or four months.

I would not want to hit a nerve here, but how many hundreds of thousands of people will contract these diseases, tuberculosis, malaria or AIDS, in that period? How many hundreds or thousands of people will die? It could be interesting to air the Liberal convention in Africa next week to make sure people realize that, because of a leadership convention, everything is being put on hold while people are dying.

We all agree with the bill. Yes, we support the pharmaceutical companies, and we also support the Patent Act since we introduced it. As one of my colleagues was saying earlier, what is interesting in all this is that we can be compassionate while doing business.

We can do it. The big bad World Trade Organization was able to arrive at a compromise, to strike a delicate and complex balance. It can be done.

That being said, we are stuck in a situation that we cannot control. The four opposition parties are in agreement about speeding up the process, but not at any cost. Our party does not have on its agenda a leadership convention that will be broadcast on all major Canadian networks on November 14 and 15.

We are lawmakers. We are here to finish any job that we start. Certain bills are frivolous. In fact, they exist just to make a minister or a government look good.

Bill C-56 is a very important bill. The Minister of Industry has made a number of blunders when he was justice minister and when he was health minister. We all remember the blunders he made on the hepatitis issue. At least here, with the credibility given to this file by the Minister for International Trade, he had a chance to speed up the process. But no. We are getting a new prime minister.

People dying in Africa are not a priority after all. Surely something can be done. We, in the Progressive Conservative Party, are in contact with our colleagues and our leader in the Senate. He and the PC team in the other place are ready to do the job quickly, but properly.

Will we have time to finish the job? While reading a letter, the current Prime Minister was boasting about the fact that we are the first country to legislate on the WTO decision, but the legislation may not be passed because of the partisan agenda of this government.

Yes, maybe it is time we had a new leader. Yes, maybe it is time we had a new prime minister. I agree with that, but surely there can be better planning. It is so important. Surely it would be possible to give the House, the committee and the other place the opportunity to look at this issue.

House leaders on this side met and they had discussions with the government House leader, or at least the person who will be in that position probably for another few hours. Rumour has it that he is going to Brazil. They can send him wherever they want. The fact remains that he always was a good soldier for the Liberal Party.

However, what are we going to do now? We will be back in our ridings next week. In my riding, I have organizations lobbying to have this bill passed. In Quebec there are organizations lobbying to have it passed. They are going to ask us what we are doing. And we will have to answer that we are currently on break. Their next question will be, “So will you be able to deal with it next week?”

We do not know whether or not we will come back. Regardless of the fact that the Order Paper is calling us back on November 17, we do not know if that is what is going to happen. We are ready. I am ready, as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, to come back next week to review the bill, to bring in people concerned with Bill C-56 and speed up the process.

We can do it. However, in some respects, we wonder if we should lend credibility to the Liberal partisan agenda. Should we do it? They tried to put the blame on us, “We know full well that the Conservatives favour the big drug companies. In the 1990s you introduced the Patent Protection Act and so on and so forth. You are against it. You are the bad guys in this Parliament.”

We are not the bad guys in Parliament. The bad guys are those who are unable to get their priorities straight with regard to their own legislative agenda. That is the problem.

With better planning and cooperation when they introduced Bill C-56, it could have passed today. Today, we are realizing that the big mean drug companies are not the only ones to have reservations. The generic drug companies also have reservations regarding the implementation of the bill. As I said earlier, without sounding like I am repeating myself and rambling on, organizations have reservations regarding Bill C-56. We would like to hear from them in committee. I can guarantee we will speed up the work, but we will do it.

If it were only pharmaceutical companies that had reservations, I would not be making this speech today. But stakeholders on both sides have reservations about the application and the applicability of this legislation.

Members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology discussed this issue, and we would like to see the regulations. A bill is often 3, 4 or 5 pages long, whereas regulations are often 3, 4 or 5 inches thick. We would like to see what would be in there.

We must protect tens of thousands of jobs in Canada. In fact, we must protect the delicate balance between Canada and the United States with regard to pharmaceutical research and the distribution of pharmaceutical products.

Therefore, this bill must go to committee quickly. I am sure that, on this side of the House, we would agree to do this right now. Members on this side of the House, or at least members of the Progressive Conservative Party, are ready to sit down in committee and do a good and credible job.

Today, we can help those who are suffering, those who have had enough and those who will contract these diseases. We can tell them that Canada's commitment is more than a statement made by a Prime Minister at the end of his reign. Parliament will take its responsibilities.

At the same time, if the government has not done a good job in terms of legislative planning, that is its problem. It is not the opposition that is the big bad wolf here, but the government.

Bill C-56 is one of those bills that gives goose bumps. Yesterday, we were watching the Prime Minister who was boasting about Bill C-20. It gave me goose bumps, but not for the same reason. It gave me a negative feeling, whereas Bill C-56 gives me a positive feeling. If everybody agrees, we could look at this as early as next week, unless the partisan agenda prevails again over the humanitarian agenda, unless the government is willing to wait three or four months and have a few thousand more sick or dead people on its conscience. We are ready to move quickly to do a credible job.

Child Pornography

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well what the government has been doing over the past few years.

In light of the Sharpe decision of the Supreme Court, we have decided to proceed with Bill C-20 in order to increase the protection of our children in Canada. We have been working hard in order to pass that bill.

He knows that we did not really have the full cooperation of his party and he should be ashamed. Working together, we would have been able to pass Bill C-20.

Organized Crime

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to such a crime, which is indeed an awful crime, I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member to what we are doing as a country at the international level.

For example, lately we had a meeting in Paris among G-8 colleagues and talked about the question of child pornography and protection of our children, not only in Canada but anywhere in the world.

We have Bill C-20 as well, which is before the House. At the international level we know that people are using more technology and we need more international cooperation. It works well and--

Liberal Government Policies

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's attempts to deceive Canadians have no limits. At every opportunity the Liberals pay lip service to Canadians by saying one thing but doing something quite the opposite.

In 1999 the government voted to support the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Within the past few months we have seen it not only reverse this position but to actively campaign against it.

Last week the Liberal government supported our motion unanimously to protect children against child pornography. Bill C-20 is the government's answer to protect children. The bill takes out the outrageous defence of “artistic merit” and replaces it with “the public good” which, given recent court rulings, could mean anything.

The government promised Canadians a sex offender registry but continues to avoid giving us an effective registry.

Is it any wonder that Canadians are losing confidence in government. Canadians deserve better.

Child Pornography

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

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the Prime Minister's retirement I would like to suggest a wonderful legacy that he could leave to the Canadian people. They would never forget him and eternally thank him.

The Prime Minister could require that Bill C-20 be amended to reflect the will and concern of the people. He could eliminate all defences for the possession of child pornography that allow for the exploitation of children. He could raise the age of sexual consent to 16 instead of 14.

Children are the world's most valuable asset. We in the first world are not doing very well in our pathetic efforts to take care of them. They are being tortured, raped, assaulted, murdered and made to perform despicable acts for the gratification of perverted minds.

As a wealthy nation we have the money and the technology to protect our children, yet we are taking a backseat to the rest of the G-8 countries in fighting this horrific crime.

I ask the Prime Minister to please find the courage to step forward and erase all the legal loopholes in Bill C-20.

Criminal Code

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the amendment to Bill C-20, put forward by my party to delete section 7, which would remove the defence of artistic merit from the child pornography legislation, draft Bill C-20 before the House.

I start by saying the New Democrats and certainly myself are extremely concerned about child pornography and want to see it eradicated from the face of the earth. As parents, as artists, as parliamentarians, we all believe that we need to find many new mechanisms to ensure that child pornography cannot exist and that it gets no sustenance in this society. We believe there is a lot of good in Bill C-20 and some real progress is being made here.

I want to make that point because it is important to make it right off the bat. We are trying to change a bill which is ostensibly about protecting children. To oppose parts of it does not mean we do not want to protect children. Of course we want to protect children.

We want to talk about the fact that clause 7 weakens the whole bill. It weakens the ability to work against child pornographers. We heard witness after witness who came before the committee, from the Toronto Police Association to the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, to the Canadian Conference of the Arts to the Canadian Bar Association, indicate that clause 7 was problematic because the language that was used was vague and contradictory.

We do not want that kind of statement or those concerns when we talk about legislation which judges then have to interpret and which police on the street have to interpret and make snap decisions about whether they can take something to court and win. We want to make clear that the defence of public good at this point in time is not clear enough to be of any good in the fight against child pornography.

There are three reasons why clause 7 should be removed from the bill. One is that it does not, in our estimation, in any way further protect children from child pornographers. The law as it stands already criminalizes possessing and distributing child pornography. During the justice committee hearings on Bill C-20, many people brought up the silence around child abuse and how important it was not to return to the time when children and adult survivors of abuse could not talk about it. I want to read a letter from Ian Murray of Current Projects. He said:

The desire to punish those who would bring the abuse of minors to the public view while ignoring the actual victimization of children is a pattern I saw often growing up in the Catholic Church in Nova Scotia, working with abused youth in the Arctic and working as an artist and teacher.

Censorship, like abuse of minors, is an abuse of human rights. It is part of the same power relationship. You are following the pattern of the abuser who says “telling is a sin” while using the silence to continue the abuse.

It would be far more helpful to the protection of children to concentrate on the prosecution of people who abuse minors and those who silence the victims rather than suppressing information about abuse, which is what this law does.

I note that a number of institutions that are currently being sued for or found guilty of aiding and abetting criminal sexual abuse of children, including many churches, schools and the Government of Canada, support this law. Those who have exposed the sexual abuse of children through stories, pictures, plays, film, video, comedy, television programs and songs oppose this law. That should tell us what side the silencers are on. The vicious abuse of children at Mount Cashel is a perfect example of the power of the state and the church working together to silence victims.

As a society we need to deal with the power relations that lead to sexual abuse of minors. We need to talk about it and expose those images and confront the abusers. This law, at the present time with this section in it, makes this illegal.

I would like to move to a second reason why we think it is important that we make an amendment to Bill C-20 and remove section 7, and that is for the protection of artists.

The new defence of public good is too vague and unproven. It would take years of jurisprudence from the courts to decide exactly how to apply this defence in relation to child porn laws. It would literally take years to try to puzzle through it. Will museums be prosecuted for holding classic works of art that depict children in sexual acts? Will libraries, which protect the rights of Canadians to read any and all kinds of literature, have to clear the stacks of any books that might suggest teenagers had sex with adults? This is a slippery slope. Judges and courts should not decide what is for the public good, just as they should not be deciding what has artistic merit.

The third reason why we cannot support this clause in the bill is that it is too vague and leaves both the courts and the police wondering exactly how to prosecute someone and who they can protect.

I want to quote what Detective Sergeant Paul Gillespie of the Toronto Police Service said when he came before the justice committee meeting on October 7. He said:

We've seen what happens when police are left to define what is or isn't artistic merit. We'll be fighting about this one for years. Police would simply appreciate laws that are very clear and that will allow us to make better informed decisions at the time we are required to make them. Wording that is very open to speculation and suggestion and not quite clear makes it very difficult for officers to understand exactly what they're supposed to be doing. I can tell you from experience that when officers aren't quite sure of the wording, they don't do anything.

The Canadian Bar Association, representing over 38,000 lawyers in Canada, also found section 7 vague and contradictory. As written, it says the intentions of an accused are both relevant and irrelevant. Its brief to the committee warned this inconsistency may actually attract constitutional scrutiny and should be redressed.

I want to just say something about what I think is a question on everybody's mind or sits beneath all of this debate. That question is: what is the difference between art and pornography? With respect, I believe that one can tell the difference. I do not believe it is quite as murky as some might believe.

I believe pornography sensationalizes and glorifies. It seeks to deny the truth of what it purports to represent in favour of fantasy or fabrication. Art, on the other hand, seeks truth. Even when art is not a literal depiction of everyday reality, even when it employs fantastical imagery or ideas, it aims to hold up a mirror in which people can see their everyday lives, their emotions and their aspirations reflected. Any legislation in this area should reflect that critical essence of what art is.

Members from the Alliance have already complained about the courts deciding legislation around same sex marriages. Clause 7 would make law the responsibility of the courts to decide how far a bill extends. That is not the role of our judiciary; it is our role as legislators.

In conclusion, we in the New Democratic Party feel section 7 of Bill C-20 is too vague and contradictory and it clearly does not serve the people who are on the streets trying to fight child pornography. It does not serve children. It does not serve the artists and people in the country who have a deep need to express the damage done to them through sexual abuse and violence at the hands of adults.

There are many areas of Bill C-20 that we want to support. It does extend protection for children and other vulnerable people. However, we cannot support treating all work that deals with children and sex as pornography.

It is important that survivors can speak or draw about their experiences without facing prosecution. It is important that artists can explore, not just the virtuous part of society but also its evil side.

The NDP hopes that the rest of the House will agree that section 7 needs more debate and fine tuning and that it should be removed from Bill C-20.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-20, in a perspective slightly different from that of the previous speaker of course, but it is the role of Parliament to offer different perspectives.

I would like to start by thanking the members of the Standing Committee on Justice, particularly the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, in the beautiful area of Quebec City, Quebec's national capital, who has worked very hard with all the parliamentarians on the committee to report an improved bill.

We must remember that this bill was in response to court decisions attempting to determine what constituted child pornography offences and what constituted the right to freedom of expression. Any attempt to oversimplify this issue should make us suspicious.

The basic premise of the bill is a real and perfectly defensible one and I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that we are opposed to it. We must not change or allow the law to be changed in such a way that children under the age of 14 could have sexual relations with adults and vice versa.

There is a bias in this bill reflecting this reality. Representations were made by a number of groups, and parliamentarians as well. Also, I had the pleasure of exchanging ideas with a member of the other place—I do not think our standing orders allow me to name her—who has been looking into this whole issue of sexual exploitation for a decade. She testified before the subcommittee on solicitation laws.

Our colleague from the NDP proposed a motion to the committee on which I represent the Bloc Quebecois with our colleague, the critic for justice. The senator made us realize that, of the problems we are facing, human trafficking is the biggest. Bigger than property trafficking, and bigger than drug trafficking. The danger exists that children will be used and exploited for sexual purposes.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this bill because it creates a new criminal offence in Canada that did not exist before. It amends section 153 by adding subsection (1.2), which stipulates that, in order to determine that a person--meaning a adult--is ina relationship with a young person that isexploitative of the young person, a judge may take into account thenature and circumstances of the relationship.

Under the Criminal Code, it is already an offence to have sexual relations with anyone under 14 years of age, and that is understandable. There should be something beautiful, egalitarian, and noble about sexuality that contributes to personal growth, which is not the case for 11-, 12- or 13-year-old children who do not have the maturity or experience to engage in, enjoy and benefit from a sexual relationship.

That is how the Criminal Code used to deal with this. For decades now, courts have been convicting individuals who have sexual relations with children under 14 years of age. This bill makes it clear not only that a adult in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of that young person—note the use of the word exploitative—cannot have sexual relations with the young person, but that the nature of the relationship will be taken into consideration. Originally, the bill set out a number of criteria to be used to determine if a relationship was exploitative.

The first of those criteria was, of course, the age difference between the adult and the young person. The second one was the evolution of the relationship, and the third one was the influence the adult had over the young person.

The Standing Committee on Justice, as I understand--the parliamentary secretary may nod if I am right--added a fourth criterion, namely the age of the teenager.

That goes to the heart of the bill. We believe all those things are relevant. The biggest traffic in the history of mankind, no longer of goods only, but of human beings, is a problem compounded by Internet and new communications technologies. It is now possible to get a lot of information and have access to sites showing teenagers.

This is why a new offence has been added to the Criminal Code; it is aimed at those individuals who have sex with children under 14.

The issue is not as straightforward as it may appear, because of the right to freedom of expression. Of course, no one would claim that freedom of expression justifies having sex with a person under 14. The Supreme Court handed down a decision. What did it say about child pornography? I would like to quote the following:

I conclude that “artistic merit” should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art. Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support defence.

What the Supreme Court said is that we should never interfere with an artist's creative process. As law makers, we are certainly concerned by the Supreme Court's very broad interpretation of freedom of expression and creative process. This is why we had to set limits.

Bill C-20 says that if the depiction of sexual acts with teenagers goes too far, under Bill C-20, it will not be accepted even if it is part of a creative process. That is indeed setting limits.

The definition that would be found in the bill, if passed, would include some safeguards. Thus, we would talk about material that might objectively consist of child pornography, and I quote:

c) any written material the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years.

This would be an offence under the current legislation. We understand there should be a balance. We agree that there might be painters or other artists who will, in their creative process, reproduce scenes of nudity that might involve children. What we do not agree with is written material the explicit and dominant characteristic of which is the depiction of an activity for a sexual purpose and involving people under the age of 18. I think the difference is extremely important.

I was a little sad about the comment from our Canadian Alliance colleague. He suggested that some parliamentarians, because they support Bill C-20, might agree with the fact that there are sexual activities without consent with children. I think we must recognize and say that this is not the objective of the bill.

In substance, the bill would create a new offence, the exploitation of children with the intent of having sexual activities. It would include safeguards in this definition.

When this offence is brought before a court of law, we believe there would be enough safeguards to ensure there is no abuse.

The time that was allowed to me to make my point on this issue has expired.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the amendment and talk about this issue one more time.

I am at a point of true frustration when it comes to this particular issue, which I consider to be an absolute no brainer.

We have in the country people who own, possess, manufacture, sell and profit from the exploitation of our children through child pornography. It is a big industry. It is creating a great amount of risk for our kids throughout the country.

We continually sit back and debate the legalities of this or that, or one thing or another. We are fearful that we might step on someone's toes and harm some individual who has some artistic talent or is a great writer of some sort. That is the most frustrating part about this whole episode.

Are we truly taking the steps necessary to protect the children of our country? Are we? We are debating legal parts of a particular bill. By the way, all the expert witnesses before the justice committee indicated that this was not the way to go, that it was a bad bill and would not achieve its goal. All the expert witnesses said that in the committee. Yet the committee has brought the bill forward with no changes.

While the justice minister stands on his feet with his parliamentary secretary and others insisting that this will be the great thing that will protect our children forever and ever, the legislation is still allowing a defence of public good which no one can define because it is too broad.

Therefore, I applaud the NDP for bringing forward a motion that would delete clause 7 of Bill C-20. The bill needs to go back to the minister's office, back to the justice department, and it needs to reflect the will of Canadians.

What is the will of Canadians? We had a vote in the House of Commons. All members who were present stated loud and clear that, on behalf of their constituents, they were casting a vote in favour of eliminating all defences that exploit children when it comes to child pornography. That is not some defences; that is not one or two defences. That is all defences.

There is no debate about what certain experts are doing with this material in trying to fight it, for example, police have possession of it because they confiscate it and they want to get to the bottom of it so they can clean it up. However, what stops them from doing their job properly? It is weak legislation like Bill C-20. They have to examine this material because it might have some public good.

I fail to understand what kind of possible public good could come out of something that exploits our children in the manner that we have all witnessed through different methods.

I too received a letter from John Sharpe. It was a wonderful letter. It is not very often that an MP can brag about getting a letter from a pornographer. The member from the Bloc said he received a letter. I think several of us received this letter from this ingenuous artist who has artistic merit in his writings, who even dared to put a quote in about how some people were saying that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child was healthy and it should be blossomed and encouraged. It stated that teachers in schools should have sexual relations with their students because it was good. What are we coming to when we allow that to go on?

It takes real courage and determination to say no, we are not going to allow it, it is utter nonsense that we even entertain these kinds of things, and we are going to end it.

Bill C-20 will not end it.

Clause 7 of the bill allows “public good”. It is a broad statement and nobody knows what it really means. Sure, I support the motion to get rid of that clause, and far better yet, I say, we should get rid of the bill, go back to the drawing board, start over and say that we are going implement something that has some real teeth in it, something such that judges will clearly understand that the people of Canada, through their elected representatives, want child pornography wiped off the face of the earth. Let us say that we are going to put all our ammunition toward fighting this war and get the job done.

Instead, we debate and debate. I am so disgusted with the media across the land, with the news items and all of that which they keep flourishing while they do very little on this extremely dangerous thing that is affecting our children. I wish the media would get off their rear ends and start telling the truth about what child pornography is all about and how it is harming this nation. When we start harming our kids, we harm our families and we harm the nation. As my colleague said a few moments ago in his speech, a nation that allows this to carry on is a nation that is doomed.

Let us talk about democracy. We had a vote in the House of Commons. You know what the vote was, Mr. Speaker. Everyone said yes, let us have legislation that will eliminate the defences for child pornography. Let us eliminate them, everybody said.

On that side of the House, they all know that Bill C-20 does not do that. How can they, with good conscience, stand in the House of Commons and declare on one day that this is what must happen and be proud of it--and I was proud of them for doing so--and then turn around and defeat a motion on this amendment because they want to keep Bill C-20, which does not accomplish the job. And they know it.

The justice minister needs to give his head a serious shake if he thinks for a moment that Bill C-20 is the answer to defeating child pornography in this country. He needs to listen loud and clear to those who appeared as witnesses at committee and said how ineffective this particular bill is in accomplishing a very important mission for the sake of our kids, our grandkids and our future grandchildren.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be involved in today's debate at report stage of Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

The reason I read the title of the bill is because we pass a lot of legislation in the House with great intent, but when it comes to the actual effectiveness of the legislation, it becomes very questionable.

I would like to congratulate my NDP colleague from Vancouver East for her success in having one of her amendments accepted. That in itself is a success because most times it is not easy to have amendments accepted in any legislation. I have been successful in the past with some amendments I have put forward on bills. The problem is that when amendments come to the House for debate and a vote, most times they end up being defeated.

The PC Party of Canada supports the amendment regarding the deletion of clause 7. Clause 7 probably took up half the time for public hearings on the debate over artistic merit and exactly what public good meant. Both sides of the argument were heard. There was no agreement as to how effective this clause would be if left in the bill. Even opponents were not sure of its affect and how it would relate in court. The artistic community felt it was unnecessary. Some individuals felt the clause was too broad. The PC Party does support the amendment in that it will delete clause 7 of the act.

We need to come back to the focus and intent of Bill C-20. The bill is about the protection of children in this country. A large majority of members in the House are parents themselves and have raised children. Perhaps many are grandparents. We all know that children are our most vulnerable and precious gifts. Whatever we can do to protect them from harm is laudable and that should be our prime focus.

Unfortunately, when we get into legislation, we tend to lose touch with its intent. We are so busy trying to make everybody happy that we lose focus of its intent, which is the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

Canadians have great expectations of members in the House of Commons. On this very subject, Canadians want the House to remove all loophole wording in Bill C-20. The deletion of clause 7 is a good step.

Canadians want the age of consent for teens having sex with adults raised from 14 to 16. The greater public expects the House to add tough minimum mandatory sentences to all laws regarding adults having sex with underage teens or children.

Canadians have great expectations of members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, we will probably fail them again like we did yesterday during debate on the sex offender registry, Bill C-23. The greatest shortcoming in that bill was the lack of retroactivity. In other words, what about all those convicted pedophiles of the last 10 years? We will not know where they are. We know that for repeat offenders the probability is quite large, especially for those who have been convicted of pedophilia.

Let me go back to clause 7. Under Bill C-20, the existing defence of child pornography, which is artistic merit, educational, scientific or medical purpose, is reduced to a single defence of public good. This leaves in the hands of judges the determination of what constitutes public good.

In fact, I am surprised and disappointed that the parliamentary secretary said this morning that the government will be opposed to this amendment. Furthermore, despite the minister's attempt to sell Bill C-20 on the basis that the artistic merit defence had been eliminated, he admitted recently in the justice committee that it is still included under the broader public good defence.

The PC Party calls for the elimination of all defences that justify the criminal possession of child pornography. Of course, the criminal possession of child pornography does not apply to those in the justice system for purposes associated with prosecution, or by researchers studying the effects of exposure to child pornography.

Another shortcoming I alluded to, was the age of consent. Bill C-20 fails to raise the age of consent for sexual contact between children and adults. Instead, the bill would create a category of exploitative relationships aimed at protecting people between the ages of 14 and 18. In determining whether a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the 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. This category is a vague provision that fails to create the certainty of protection that children require. It would not serve as a real deterrent and would simply result in longer trials and more litigation.

It was already against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority, or with whom a young person, someone between 14 and 18, 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 would add legal protection for young people.

As well, Regina v. Sharpe carved out two exemptions to the child pornography law: material such as diaries or drawings created privately and kept by that person for personal use, and visual recordings of a person by that person engaged in lawful sexual activity, kept by the person for personal use. The latter exemption would have the potential to expose children aged 14 to 18 to further exploitation by child pornographers since they would be engaging in legal activity.

By the government's failure to prohibit all adult-child sex, children continue to be at an unacceptable risk. Only by raising the age of consent would children be truly protected under the Criminal Code. We are not advocating criminalizing teenagers. As with other jurisdictions with a more reasonable age of consent, such as the U.K., Australia and most U.S. states, a close-in-age exemption would apply to ensure that teenagers were not criminalized.

Another aspect where Canadians expect change is in the sentencing of those convicted. Bill C-20 would increase maximum sentences for child related offences. These offences include sexual offences, failing to provide the necessities of life, and abandoning a child. This is meaningless if the courts do not impose the sentences, and we know by experience that when maximum sentences are raised there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices. What is needed are mandatory sentences, truth in sentencing by eliminating statutory release, and no conditional sentences for child predators.

It is high time that the House, in passing legislation, protects the intent of the legislation, in this case Bill C-20, in regard to our children and other vulnerable persons.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-20, now at report stage.

Last week, the House unanimously adopted a motion that made quite clear how distasteful we all find those who exploit or hurt the most precious members of our society, our children. They are also the most vulnerable members of our society. Our children need all the protection society can provide. If society cannot protect those we hold most dear, it has failed to do its most fundamental duty.

Members are sometimes taken by surprise. Sometimes that is good; other times it is not. This week, I was extremely surprised to receive an e-mail message from Mr. Sharpe himself. I think that the parliamentary secretary also got one. For this pornographer—because that is what he is—to write to the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as a legislative analyst and legal commentator of our work is very perplexing, to say the least.

From the outset, the Bloc Quebecois has been trying to protect our children from individuals like Mr. Sharpe. We are trying to ensure that our children cannot be hurt or exploited by perverts with rather warped notions about human relationships.

During committee meetings, there were numerous debates, including one on the defence of serving the public good. Initially, the defence of serving the public good was not defined or set out in Bill C-20 and so was quite broad. One after the other, numerous witnesses and experts appeared before the committee to tell members that the concept of public good had to be defined. In committee, the Bloc Quebecois moved an amendment in this regard, which served as the inspiration for the final definition found in Bill C-20. As a result, this bill was improved in committee.

One of the Bloc Quebecois' amendments concerns minimum sentences, and I wish the government had been open to this. The public feels—and I understand this—that sentences for sexual predators and child pornographers are not tough enough.

It was in response to this concern that we proposed an amendment prescribing a minimum sentence. For example, for a maximum sentence of ten years, I proposed a minimum sentence of one year. It is a rather short sentence, but it is enough to send an important message to the effect that the elected members of this House and the general public want to ensure that the sentences imposed upon these perverse and twisted individuals are harsh enough.

I was hoping that the government would seize this opportunity to have a debate of a much more general nature on minimum sentences.

I had the support of both Alliance members and Progressive Conservative Party members, as well as some government members. Unfortunately, I did not have time to convince a sufficient number of them.

I think that it is our duty as members of Parliament, elected by the people, to address this serious issue and to decide collectively to send a clear message to the judiciary. This message would say, “We, parliamentarians, believe that, because our children are so precious, so vulnerable and so dear to us, those who commit these types of offences cannot get away without a mandatory jail term”.

All this to say that the Bloc Quebecois is against the amendment brought forward by the New Democratic Party. I am still not clear what its purpose was. The Bloc Quebecois is asking members of this House to oppose this amendment. It is also asking them to support Bill C-25. We will come back to that at the third reading stage.

We are also asking the House to explore the possibility of imposing minimum sentences. This would ensure that those who prey on our children get the clear message that harsh punishment awaits those who commit these repugnant acts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this motion, which the Canadian Alliance will support not because we support artistic merit but because we do not support the broad definition of public good.

In the John Robin Sharpe case the judge considered some of those vile, ugly drawings to have some sort of artistic merit. That has been a problem with us and, I think, the nation. Even the hon. member across the way who spoke would agree that those drawings should not have been considered to have artistic merit.

Under Bill C-20 the existing defences of child pornography, that is, artistic merit or educational, scientific or medical purposes, are reduced to the single defence of “for the public good”. This leaves in the hands of the judges the determination of what is for the public good.

Furthermore, despite the justice minister's attempt to sell Bill C-20 to Parliament and to the nation on the basis that the artistic merit defence has been eliminated, he admitted recently in the justice committee that it is still included under the broader defence of “for the public good”. Here is what the minister said at the justice committee:

Artistic merit still exists in the sense that a piece of art will have to essentially go through the new defence of public good and through the two stages. Of course, the first question is always this. Does it serve the public good?

We on this side of the House object to that and I think Parliament objected to it last week. My memory is sometimes not very accurate and not very clear, but I do remember that last week the House passed a private member's bill in the name of my hon. colleague from Wild Rose. That bill calls upon Parliament to bring forward legislation against child pornography that would remove all defences and would in effect stamp out child pornography, all defences for child pornography that would exploit children and all defences against criminal possession of child pornography.

There is a difference obviously of using some material for certain purposes. We understand that because some of us in the House had the opportunity to be briefed by the crime unit from Toronto some months ago on the nature of child pornography and how awful and terrible it is. We understand that use as being a legitimate one. It was not criminal possession and it did not have to be judged by any kind of law to find out if it was for the public good or not. We understand that it was very helpful in that particular case. We would not think that the law should remove the opportunity for our law makers to view this sort of thing to see what the problem is for our law enforcement officials to use it.

My belief here today is very simple. Parliament just last week said that we should remove all defences for criminal possession of child pornography that exploits children. We do not have to work too hard at figuring out the exploitation of children by that kind of material.

As we look around the House of Commons this week it is probably in its most floral stage. There are more flowers in here than perhaps those outside decorating for Christmas. We remember the veterans who fought in the wars that gave us the freedoms that we enjoy in this nation. None of us would want to deny the fact that these freedoms have been hard fought for, they have been won at the cost of the lives of many of our finest, over the years of the history of this nation.

However, they did not die so that such garbage could be pushed upon society. They did not die so that such garbage could be used to penetrate and bring about harm in the lives of our children. They did not die so that our children could be preyed upon by adult sexual predators in this nation or in any nation.

They did not die for that reason. I believe they died because they wanted a nation that had freedom for families and parents raising children, a nation where parents could raise children in the safety of a free nation, the safety of a nation where the children were free.

Can members imagine that? Can members imagine the children of this nation being set free to play on the playgrounds of this country, to play on the playgrounds of the schools, to walk safely home on the sidewalks of our cities and not be in fear of being grabbed or used or taken by sexual predators who run free in this land?

I think we need to remember why these people died, why they gave their lives, and I think we need to remember the kind of freedom they wanted us to have.

I know that many people will not agree with what I am going to say, but let me tell them that I believe there is no such thing as artistic merit in child pornography. There is no such thing as artistic merit. That kind of garbage is not art and it does not need protection.

That kind of garbage is not put there for educational purposes. Not only is it put there to pervert the mind of the one who is producing that kind of garbage, but it is put there to pervert the minds of others. It is there to pervert the minds of other adults and to allow those minds to feed upon this kind of garbage and imagine in their own minds the kinds of things that they might want to do with the children of this land. That has to stop. There is no sense in protecting that kind of thing.

Yes, we want to have freedom in this land, but as we all know, our freedoms are all guided by certain limits. When we drive down the highway, we assert the freedom to drive and to have a driver's licence and an automobile, but as we drive we are restrained by white lines and yellow lines, stop signs and stoplights and all the laws we have. Everything we do is somehow defined and constrained by certain laws.

I do not think we should have absolute unhindered freedom to produce the kind of garbage that places our children in danger in this country.

A Parliament, a nation, a people and a society that cannot place our children truly in a priority position of safety and protection is not a good society. It is a weak society. It is a crumbling society. If it cannot protect its own young people and its own children, it is a society that is on its way to destruction.

We need to remove all kinds of pretended defences for things that place our young people at risk. It is absurd to think that some artist should have the right to depict these kinds of things when it puts our children at risk and when that very depiction is there only for the promotion of evil, for the promotion of predatory thoughts and actions.

We believe that this government needs to go back to square one with this legislation. This will put it back to square one. It needs to start over and put in something here that will be in keeping with the motion this House passed just last week.

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

Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward today proposes to delete clause 7 of Bill C-20, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

In essence the motion seeks to maintain the status quo on child pornography. Simply stated, the government does not accept the status quo and neither do Canadians.

Clause 7 of Bill C-20 proposes two reforms to the existing child pornography provisions. First, it proposes to broaden the existing definition of written child pornography to include written material that describes prohibited sexual activity with children where that description is the dominant characteristic of the material and it is done for a sexual purpose.

Second, Bill C-20 proposes to narrow the two existing defences into one defence of public good, a term that is now specifically defined in the bill. Under the new law no defence would be available where the material or act in question does not serve the public good or where it exceeds or goes beyond what serves the public good. More simply stated, if the risk of harm that it poses outweighs the benefit that it offers to society, then no defence would be available.

The motion to delete clause 7 does more than just seek to maintain the status quo; in fact it says the opposite of what Bill C-20 proposes. It says that written materials that consist primarily of descriptions of unlawful sexual activity with children which descriptions are done for a sexual purpose are not child pornography and that they should not fall within the reach of the criminal law.

In the 2001 Sharpe case, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted “for a sexual purpose” as being that which can be reasonably perceived as intended to cause sexual stimulation. With this interpretation in mind, it is difficult if not impossible to comprehend the basis for any argument that seeks to support and protect materials that mostly describe the sexual abuse of children and where these descriptions can be reasonably perceived as intended or intending to cause the reader to be sexually stimulated.

It is quite significant that our existing criminal law already clearly prohibits the sexual exploitation of children. The types of written material that this motion seeks to protect are those that portray or purport to portray children as a class of objects for sexual exploitation.

The government recognizes the very real risk of harm that such portrayal and objectification of children poses to our children and to society at large. That is why Bill C-20 proposes to include these types of materials within our definition of child pornography.

The second thing the motion seeks to do is to maintain the current test for when child pornographic materials should be protected by the defence of artistic merit.

Under the current test for artistic merit, the defence is automatically available for material that, objectively viewed, demonstrates some artistic merit no matter how small. For example, if the material in question is a written story, the question becomes, objectively viewed does the story reflect some accepted or recognized literary techniques or styles? If so, the defence is available irrespective of whether the risk of harm that the story poses to children and society outweighs any benefit that it offers.

The government does not agree with and does not support the existing test for artistic merit and neither do Canadians. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights amended Bill C-20 accepting the government's amendment to define the public good as including acts or material that are necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice or the pursuit of science, medicine, education or art.

This definition closely models the language of the Supreme Court of Canada when it interpreted public good in the Sharpe case. Accordingly, the interpretation of Bill C-20 will be guided by the Supreme Court's judgment in this case.

A number of witnesses representing the arts community appeared before the justice committee on Bill C-20 to express concerns that their work or that of fellow artists would be criminalized by Bill C-20. I believe that their concerns are at the heart of this motion.

The justice committee's amendment of Bill C-20 to include a definition of the public good directly responds to those concerns expressed not only by the arts community but also to those expressed by child advocates appearing before the committee. They wanted greater clarity in the bill as to what constituted the public good. However, as to the balance of the concerns raised by the arts community witnesses, a number of observations or points in reply should be made.

The first question to be considered and answered in any potential child pornography case is the following: Does the work in question meet the Criminal Code's definition of child pornography? The written works that were described by these witnesses to the justice committee would not meet the existing definition of written child pornography, that is, they could not be said to advocate or counsel unlawful sexual activity with children. Neither would they meet Bill C-20's proposed new definition. That is, they could not be said to be works that one, were comprised primarily of descriptions of unlawful sexual activity with children and two, that such descriptions were written for a sexual purpose.

The second level of inquiry, and one which falls to the courts to determine, is if the material meets the definition of child pornography, is it protected by a defence? Under Bill C-20, as I have already outlined, there would only be one defence and its test would be a two step inquiry and yes, it is possible for art to meet such a two step inquiry.

Bill C-20 in its preamble clearly identifies the bill's objective. It states:

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

The motion to delete clause 7 of Bill C-20 and to maintain the status quo for child pornography is not only incompatible with Bill C-20's objectives, it is antithetical.

I urge all hon. members to support Canada's children and to support Bill C-20 as passed by the justice committee and not to support this motion.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved:

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-20 and the amendment before us.

I would like to make it very clear that members of the NDP support the measures in the bill that are clearly presented and defined. We believe they will help protect children, a goal that is certainly shared by all of us in the NDP and I think by all members of the House.

We believe we have an obligation to do whatever we can to protect children in our society and to stop the abuse and exploitation of children in every form, whether through child pornography or any other way. That is something that we support very strongly. It is a very important value.

In presenting the amendment today to delete clause 7, we do so because we believe the present wording of clause 7 is very vague. Clause 7 talks about the public good defence. We believe that it may, as a result of being very vague, be very difficult to catch child pornographers, while at the same time there are concerns that we will be endangering the rights of artists from pursuing legitimate artistic expression or researchers and health workers from dealing with the effects of child abuse and sexual trauma.

We believe that the defence of the public good, as has been put forward in the bill, would transfer too much power and discretion to the courts. For example, it may take years of litigation and jurisprudence for the courts to decide exactly how to apply this defence of the public good in relation to child porn laws. I do not think that is something anyone wants to see.

The scope of the public good is ironically both, on the one hand, too broad and, on the other hand, too narrow. In fact, what we need to be doing in the bill is clarifying it to ensure that the most essential point is that the police will be able to make sound decisions in their investigations of a suspected child pornographer to protect children. Second, that artists who are legitimately engaging in artistic expression will not be prosecuted because of that legitimate activity.

We realize that these are difficult issues but surely our role here as parliamentarians in examining the bill is to make sure the clarification on these issues is very clear and that it does not become a subject of ongoing and endless debate in the court system.

In speaking to the amendment today and urging the deletion of clause 7, we believe that clarifying the definition of the public good is something that has not yet been resolved or taken place. It needs to happen here in Parliament.

We do need to be sending a clear message to the courts on how we want the legislation to be implemented and approached. The way it stands now is that I think there is still ambiguity.

We have presented this amendment because we believe the bill is just not good enough. We want to see a good job done on the bill. A tremendous amount of effort went into the bill and its goal is to protect children from sexual exploitation. We want to do it in a way that we are clearly delineating artistic merit. We believe that the provision in the bill as it stands now is simply not adequate to do that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-20.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we were debating Bill C-46, not Bill C-20 on child pornography. Consequently, the pace of this debate is a bit surprising. I also marvel at my previous colleague's definition of brief remarks. If he was being brief, I would not want to hear him give a longer speech.

That said, I rise to speak on Bill C-46 with some disappointment as we had supported this bill at second reading and I had spoken in support of it some time ago.

At the time, I expressed the wish, as I did again in committee, that the government would consider possible amendments, including one on a matter I will address later. Unfortunately, the government has been inflexible, perhaps in the belief that it is the keeper of absolute truth and the ruler by divine right. No matter what the reason, the government's rigidity, inflexibility and closed-mindedness mean that today I invite my Bloc colleagues to vote against Bill C-46, which contains, however, numerous important provisions and clauses that we support.

There is, however, one basic provision in this bill which we in the Bloc Quebecois cannot support and on which we cannot agree with the government. It is the reason we will be voting against Bill C-46.

I felt it was important to make this clear right from the start. Given the inflexibility of the government, I will explain why our position has changed.

Bill C-46, which we have before us today, amends the Criminal Code and creates two new offences: prohibited insider trading and threatening or retaliating against employees for disclosing unlawful conduct. It increases the maximum penalties and codifiesaggravating and non-mitigating sentencing factors for fraud and certainrelated offences and provides for concurrent jurisdiction for theAttorney General of Canada to prosecute those offences.

Bill C-46 also creates a new procedural mechanism by which persons will be required to produce documents, data or information in specific circumstances.

Let us place all of this in context. The recent financial scandals in the United States, the Enron affair for instance, have made us all aware of the fragility of our financial system and, unfortunately, of how dependent we are on it.

Although we may think at first that only major investors are affected by a financial crisis, that is not the case. The biggest players on the stock market, in fact, are the pension funds. If a pension fund suffers major losses, therefore, the little investors are the ones who can end up losing their life's savings and watching their retirement plans go up in smoke. That is what is so worrisome.

As well, according to the financial analysts, there has been a trend recently for retirement trust funds to go more for stocks than for fixed income securities. A financial crisis in Canada would have a direct impact on the retirement income of millions of households. Those households are the ones we, as parliamentarians elected to represent the population, have a duty to protect.

Fortunately—and we do not yet know the reason for it—Canadian stock markets have so far been relatively free of wrongdoing, with the exception of Nortel and CINAR. I raised the latter issue again today in oral question period.

We can feel that something is not clear in this CINAR affair, and the Bloc Quebecois is determined to uncover what may be hidden, particularly what may lie behind the CINAR affair.

It is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois that, while several of the experts we consulted believe that our securities regulatory systems are much more comprehensive than the ones the U.S. had before the financial crisis I referred to earlier, it is important to send the clear message that financial wrongdoing is a serious crime that will not be tolerated in our society.

This is what prompted my hon. colleague from Joliette and myself, in the fall of 2002—more than one year ago—to call for major amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada to provide the appropriate authorities with better tools to fight financial crimes.

Let us take a brief look at these proposed changes to the Criminal Code I put forward back in the fall of 2002. In our press briefing, we proposed adding a section that would make insider trading a criminal offence, in order to send a clear message to company directors that the use of confidential information obtained in the performance of their duties for the purpose of making profits or avoiding losses would not be tolerated. The fact is that making profits or avoiding losses in this manner impacts negatively on other investors who do not have access to the same privileged information.

This provision would have been added after section 382 of the Criminal Code. It would have created an offence of insider trading, which would have carried a maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment. As we can see, the government accepted our suggestion and included a new offence of insider trading in the bill.

The Bloc Quebecois also proposed that a new offence be created for securities fraud. This offence was patterned on the measure adopted in the United States. We say so freely and without fear. It would carry a ten-year prison sentence and prohibit fraud when selling or buying securities

We had also proposed two amendments to section 397 of the Criminal Code. This section clearly stipulates that fraud is committed by someone who:

(a) destroys, mutilates, alters, falsifies or makes a false entry in, or

(b) omits a material particular from, or alters a material particular in,a book, paper, writing, valuable security or document.

In our opinion, this provision could have applied to falsified financial statements.

Furthermore, subsection 2 of this section makes it a specific offence if documents are falsified with the intent to defraud the creditors.

Currently, both offences carry a five-year prison term. We felt that this sentence was not dissuasive enough. Consequently, we proposed increasing the maximum term of imprisonment to ten years.

Finally, we proposed adding a third subsection to section 397 of the Criminal Code to specifically target the falsification of financial documents with the intent to defraud shareholders. We believe that shareholders are a more vulnerable category since—unlike the majority of creditors—their investments are not guaranteed. Therefore, we do not see why it is an offence to defraud creditors and not shareholders.

In committee, we suggested very specific amendments incorporating the elements that I just listed. Unfortunately, although as always, the Bloc Quebecois put forward these amendments, changes and proposals in a constructive manner, the government rejected them.

I would like to make a small digression to mention, or rather to deplore, the lack of respect the government has shown lately to the members of this House, particularly to those who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice.

Bill after bill comes before us. It is top speed and full steam ahead on the bill to decriminalize marijuana. The committee is also studying soliciting and prostitution. The government, when it sets the schedule for committees or the House, does not pay any attention to the fact that for many of us it is extremely difficult to be here in the House to debate government bills, and at the same time, to sit on committees. Even though, every Christmas, when asked what I want most, I always say I would like the gift of ubiquity, no one ever gives it to me.

So, while we were debating a government bill here in the House and I was scheduled to speak on behalf of my political party, the Standing Committee on Justice was meeting at the same time, and going about its business, despite the fact that several members of that committee were in the House. I could not defend the amendments I had put forward.

I think that is quite deplorable from a government that, probably sensing the end of its regime approaching, wants to get all its bills passed as quickly as possible, and therefore the work is not done well, because the members who follow the issues—on both sides of the House, in fact, because my Liberal colleagues are in the same situation—cannot contribute as much as they should to improving the legislation before them.

The government shows little consideration for its own legislation, its own bills, as seen in the fact that it does not give the members the time they need to properly examine the bills before them, and this will count against it.

When we are talking about such essential things as Bill C-46, commonly called the Westray bill, which is now before the House, or Bill C-20, the child pornography bill, or Bill C-36 on decriminalizing marijuana, in my opinion it is essential to proceed at a pace that allows the members to be here in the House and in committee at the proper times, but also to digest, assimilate, and understand the many suggestions made by the witnesses who come before us.

In fact, why spend thousands of dollars calling witnesses to appear and why ask them to come before the committee to explain their point of view and suggest amendments and improvements if the members opposite cannot digest the information provided.

All this to say that the constructive, intelligent, consistent and non-partisan amendments I moved in committee should have been moved by a member from the other side of the House. I am not questioning the hon. member's competency. I am in no way accusing him of bad faith. However, the fact remains that the amendments could not be moved, debated and defended by the member who sponsored them.

That concludes this essential digression to explain the current environment in which the members are working. Now I want to get back to Bill C-46 itself.

The Criminal Code would create a new offence prohibiting insider trading, with a maximum ten-year prison sentence.

Although insider trading is currently prohibited under provincial legislation regulating the sale of securities within Canada and under the Canada Business Corporations Act, this new offence under the Criminal Code will apply for cases requiring harsher sentencing.

Since this new offence was directly inspired by the proposal my hon. colleague from Joliette and I made over a year ago, we are pleased to see its inclusion in Bill C-46.

Employees who disclose to or assist law enforcement officers investigating capital markets fraud also need protection against intimidation. These employees often have a key role to play in disclosing scandals in companies, but they may be intimidated or threatened, including through measures against their job or their livelihood.

Creation of a new offence of threat or retaliation relating to employment would encourage people with inside information to co-operate with law enforcement officials and would punish those threatening or making use of reprisals. This offence would be punishable with up to five years' imprisonment. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this provision.

To strengthen penalties in cases of fraud on financial markets, and to make sure that the punishment fits the crime, the proposed reforms would increase maximum sentences for existing fraud offences, and would establish aggravating circumstances, which the courts should take into consideration in sentencing.

Maximum prison sentences would rise from 10 to 14 years for the present fraud offences under the Criminal Code, and for those affecting the public market. Maximum sentences for market manipulation offences would increase from 5 to 10 years.

The proposed reforms would also include a list of specific aggravating circumstances allowing the courts to impose stiffer sentences for the most serious offences. Factors such as the extent of the economic impact or any negative impact on investor confidence or market stability could lead to increased sentences. Moreover, a person's reputation and standing in the community or work environment, which have always been considered mitigating factors that can reduce penalties, could not apply in such a case. Those guilty of serious market wrongdoing are often able to get away with their crimes precisely because of these factors.

We feel these are interesting proposals, but we regret that the government did not consider our suggestions with respect to increasing the sentences under section 397 of the Criminal Code.

I will conclude by explaining why we are against Bill C-46: the involvement of federal prosecutors. As members know, financial market regulation comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces, as does the administration of justice. Under Bill C-46, the Attorney General of Canada would have concurrent jurisdiction with the provinces and the territories to prosecute certain criminal fraud cases, including the proposed new offence of illegal insider trading.

Federal involvement in this area would supposedly be limited to cases that threaten the national interest in the integrity of capital markets. According to information released by the federal government, the Government of Canada will collaborate—that is always a key word with the Liberals, but we know what it means—with the provinces to ensure proper and efficient concurrent jurisdiction by establishing prosecution protocols.

We absolutely cannot support these new provisions. They all seem to confirm the federal government's desire to infringe upon yet another area of Quebec and provincial jurisdiction, the securities market.

In committee, I proposed an amendment to the bill that was constructive and would deny federal prosecutors the right to prosecute in these cases. The government rejected it.

Knowing the federal government's penchant for interfering in the regulation of securities markets, we are opposed to Bill C-46, because the Bloc Quebecois would never consent to the federal government's meddling, however minimally, in provincial jurisdictions.

Because of the government's inflexibility and desire to intrude in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, the Bloc Quebecois is voting against Bill C-46.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech. I also appreciate his question about the legislation, which has been asked several times: will it achieve its intent? That is a question we have to ask ourselves every time any kind of legislation comes forward. Will it achieve the intent? Like Bill C-46, will it achieve the intent with whistleblowers? Will it achieve the intent with corporate criminals?

Will we clean up our own house when we deal with corrupt activities within our government? We cannot send corporate vice-executives who are guilty of fraud, or whatever the corporate crime might be, to other parts of Europe to be ambassadors. We just cannot continue down that path. That achieves nothing.

Nothing is achieved when Liberals come up with a bill like Bill C-20, but they will not incorporate a clause in it that eliminates all defences that exploit children, like the illegal use of pornography. The minister continually wants to talk about how the doctors have it, psychologists have it and the police have it in their possession, that it is for a good intent, for the public good, and that we need to have that defence in there. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about defending children.

I realize the justice minister is a lawyer. I sometimes get the impression that the Liberals want to create more court cases to keep all the lawyers busy. I cannot imagine where they are coming from on all this, but it is just one example after another, as the member mentioned in his speech. He brought up several different issues.

Why can we not be specific about what we want to achieve, so there is no question about the intent?

The intent about child pornography was made here last Tuesday when 100% of the members who were present voted for the motion that favoured developing legislation, which would say that there would be no defence for child pornography when it exploited children, for possession, distribution, or anything. I do not have trouble understanding that. I understand that to mean exactly what it says, and that is the kind of legislation for which we are looking.

Would the member comment on why the minister and the government cannot be more specific and put it in words where most people would understand our intentions loud and clear? We will protect our children. We will protect our corporations. We will protect our taxpayers. We will do the right thing by getting it done without all this legislation that never clearly indicates whether the intent will be met.

Child Pornography

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

Mr. Speaker, last week the House totally agreed that all defences for child pornography that exploit children must be eliminated. The pride of the justice minister will not allow him to amend Bill C-20 to incorporate this change.

Why will the minister not swallow his pride, do the democratic thing and ban all defences for child pornography?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of concerns. Bill C-20 fails to legislate stronger sentences for convicted child pornographers. Maximum sentences are rarely used. What is needed is mandatory prison sentencing. The justice minister fails to use even the most basic of deterrents for predatory pornographers. Child pornography is child abuse.

Will the minister act to protect children by committing to some level of mandatory prison sentencing for convicted child pornographers?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 is clearly meant to deal with the problem of dealing with child pornography within our society and clearly it does so. It has addressed the Sharpe case and has brought forward a defence that is clear and well defined. It was placed before the House yesterday, so hopefully in the final debate the member will bring forward any concerns he has as the bill goes forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 fails to alleviate the burden on those who prosecute child pornographers for their perverted crimes against children. Investigators must itemize and document every pornographic image seized, often numbering in the tens of thousands, before being able to prosecute.

Will the justice minister amend the rules of disclosure so that police will not have to examine every single image before prosecuting?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will return to consideration of Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments, followed by Bill C-54. If we get through this, we will proceed to consideration of Bills C-19 and C-6, two bills on first nations. If we have time, we will also look at Bill C-51.

If that is a bit too ambitious, the first item for consideration tomorrow will be Bill C-6, the specific claims legislation. After oral question period, we will come back to Bill C-54, which we debated this morning, concerning fiscal arrangements. If there is time, this will be followed by Bill C-46, the market fraud bill, and Bills C-19, on first nations, and S-13, concerning the Statistics Act.

Next week, we will continue to consider bills that have not been completed, beginning on Monday with Bill C-46, on financial institutions. We will add to that list Bill C-23, the sexual offenders legislation.

By mid-week, we hope to be in a position to consider Bill C-52, the radio communications bill, and Bill C-20, the child protection legislation, as mentioned by the Minister of Justice during oral question period.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of the age of consent, the hon. member knows very well that around the table of the federal-provincial meeting there was no consensus.

The government has created a new offence of exploitation that will offer much better protection because the protection will be for all young Canadians between the ages of 14 and 18. If the opposition members wants to offer good protection to young Canadians, they should be supporting the government in the passing of Bill C-20. What they are doing is a disgrace.

Committees of the House

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, May 13, your committee has considered Bill C-33, an act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfers of persons found guilty of criminal offences, and has agreed to report it with one amendment.

I have also the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, April 1, your committee has considered Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, and has agreed to report it with amendments.

If I may, I would like to thank the members of the committee and the staff. This is our fifth piece of legislation in the last two weeks. It is very important legislation and everyone has done very good work. I must say, as the chair, that I appreciated it.

Child Pornography

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister must have inhaled because he is sure blowing smoke.

The Canadian Police Association, the Toronto Police Service, Project Guardian, the Office for Victims of Crime, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and Beyond Borders have all said that Bill C-20 will be ineffective in stamping out child pornography.

Why will the minister not commit to making the amendments these groups are putting forward and make the commitment today that he will withdraw all of these goofy defences?

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

Mr. Speaker, as we said yesterday and I have said many times, there is no place in Canada for those involved in such an offence, nor anywhere else in the world.

The hon. member knows very well that the legislation we have in place is one of the best in the world. Bill C-20 is before the justice committee at the present time. There are good measures to answer the Sharpe decision in order to increase the protection of our children.

I count on the support of the opposition to ensure that we pass that bill as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians continue to speak loud and clear. They want all and any of these so called liberal defences for child pornography eliminated.

Will the justice minister commit today to amending Bill C-20 to reflect the will of the people?

Supply

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on the recurring theme that we have heard today.

We heard of all the technical merits of getting on with the job and the limits of Bill C-20. There seems to be something deeper here about the ability of the Liberal government to manage social control legislation and the deeper philosophical malaise and almost fear to tread into that kind of moral code.

The Criminal Code itself is a grand piece of work which in essence is moral legislation. We are legislating morality when we apply the Criminal Code. The Liberal ideology seems to fall short when we get into this kind of social policy. It seems to be the fad in the political air that we are going to deal with the democratic deficit but Liberals seem to go all over the map when we try to deal with the ethical deficit. We heard that today in question period for example.

Could the member comment on the deeper philosophical inadequacy of Liberal ideology that is reflected time and again when it comes to this kind of social policy and social standards?

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are addressing a very difficult subject this afternoon, but it is a very important one. I would like to congratulate my colleague from Wild Rose who has a passion for this issue. He has been the one leading the charge in the House of Commons and in our caucus. He wants to see the government do something to protect our children.

We have heard discussions today about Bill C-20. The hon. member for York West said that members on that side of the House have worked hard to make Bill C-20 as tight as possible in order to protect children. However, we have some real problems with the efforts that the government side has made and with the justice minister's defence of the glaring loopholes in Bill C-20.

I live on Vancouver Island and represent 114,000 constituents. Robin Sharpe was in our area in Vancouver, 35 kilometres across the strait from Nanaimo. Judges in British Columbia refused to prosecute cases of child pornography for some months because of the constitutionality of the artistic merit defence in the John Robin Sharpe case.

The outrage in our community was palpable. People in my community, who I am sure are not that different from most Canadians, felt a sense of outrage that someone would justify the most vile depictions of sexual activity with children as being some form of artistic merit. People found it incomprehensible that these vile acts would go unchallenged by our courts. For months to follow, no cases of child pornography were prosecuted because of the glaring loophole of artistic merit in our law.

Bill C-20, which is supposed to protect our children, simply takes the artistic merit defence and replaces it with something the public was not familiar with, something called public good. This was done because the public was sensitized to artistic merit and was outraged by that term.

It is not good enough to simply have smoke and mirrors. It is not good enough when we are talking about protecting our children from abuse that will scar them for life. With counselling and with help, they may overcome these horrors and may live successfully. Many have, thank God, been able to overcome the horrors of abuse as children. Many carry those scars for life and many, sadly, carry them into their relationships in the future.

The consequences of seeing our children being abused costs society greatly. We on this side of the House are very concerned about it. I know members on the other side have genuine hearts of compassion and are concerned about this issue as well.

Unfortunately, we have not seen a response from the executive branch of government giving law enforcement the teeth that are needed to address this vile and degrading aspect of abuse that happens in our society.

Representatives of the Toronto police department came to the House a year or so ago. The member for Wild Rose was there as well as a number of our members. These representatives were apologetic for the material they had to present. Even their toughened officers that are trained in enforcement in criminal matters had a hard time dealing with the content of what is available today in the trafficking of pornography and the vile images of children being abused.

They apologized in advance and told us that some of us may have a hard time relating to the subject material. Many members had to leave the room as the presentation started because it was the kind of thing normal people do not want to imagine. The activities that are going on today and things that are being distributed throughout our society are so vile that the average citizen is really not aware of how evil they really are. These police officers were crying out to us as members of Parliament to do something.

With the volume of material they had to go through, these seasoned officers sometimes had to excuse themselves from the file. Sadly, some of them even had to take leave because they were so disturbed after spending hours going through that kind of stuff in order to build a case to see those people prosecuted.

On this side of the House we do not believe that a public good defence is good enough. We do not believe there should be any defence for feeding on this kind of vile material.

There is an ancient proverb, and one which I think is reliable, that as long as this world remains, seed time will follow harvest and harvest will follow seed time. I believe that principle to be a very sound one. A farmer might plant oats and get partway through the season and decide he should have planted wheat because it has a better price. He cannot just change in mid-season; he has to wait for that crop to come in.

I am concerned as to where this crop that is being sown in society is taking us, and it will bring a crop. We need to do some crop eradication here. This is not the kind of thing that leads to a healthy society. It does not lead to healthy individuals.

The people who feed on this kind of vile material will act on it eventually. It is not good enough to think it is for their personal use and it keeps them from acting something out. People who feed on this kind of thing will bring a crop, sadly on the people on whom they act out their vile intentions.

The public good defence is simply not good enough. It is not good enough for Canadian society. It is not good enough for our children. It should be stricken down. It should be stricken from the law as a defence for child pornography.

There are other concerns. The government is touting that it has toughened things up because it has increased the maximum penalties for criminals who are involved in this type of activity. I do not know that Canadians can continue to be misled by this toughening up because the courts hardly ever impose maximum sentences. What is the point of having maximum sentences if the courts never impose them?

That is fundamentally misleading. It gives an impression that we are actually toughening things up, that we are doing something to protect society from perpetrators of this type of evil but we really are not. When we look at the implementation, many of the sentences are conditional sentences served at home, in spite of the tough maximum sentences that appear to be there. There are minimum sentences and many of them turn out to be simply conditional sentences. That is not good enough.

All of us probably know people who have been through situations of abuse. I know some personally. I know the tragedy it causes in their lives and the difficulty they have, sometimes for many years, in recovering.

In my riding I have had quite a response over time to this issue. I have presented numerous petitions in the House. At least two of them had over 1,000 signatures. I have had a lot of letters from constituents.

Hilda Higgs of Lantzville wrote that she is appalled that someone would see anything artistic when it comes to child pornography. Members opposite would say that we do not have an artistic merit defence any more, but we do have the public good defence which amounts to the same argument for the lawyers.

Gerald Hall of Lantzville wrote that the minds of our children are too precious to allow misguided individuals like Mr. Sharpe to overturn perfectly common sense laws that are in place to protect society.

Marilyn Burrows of Port Alberni wrote expressing her concern that the decision would set a dangerous precedent for our children.

I do not believe that the concerns of these constituents have been adequately met.

Dr. Maureen Keane of Qualicum Beach wrote and asked that the age of consent be raised and that the artistic merit defence be removed. Dr. Keane raised a point about the age of consent. I know other members have addressed it as well. We have one of the lowest ages of consent in developed countries at age 14.

We feel that for an adult to subject a girl or a boy of that age to enticement, perhaps with money, perhaps with goods, perhaps with lifestyle benefits, is not good enough. The age of consent should be raised. There are other jurisdictions that have dealt with this issue, such as the U.K., Australia and most U.S. states, which have a close in age exemption. We are not talking about teenagers that might be involved, whether we approve of that or not. We are talking about adults who abuse children, to make the point clear.

The point about the age of consent is one which I think has to be recognized. There are many serious concerns about children being abused. It is time for the House to take action.

Madam Speaker, I should have mentioned at the beginning that I was sharing my time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

It is a serious issue. I hope all members of the House will want to take action on it.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

It is not as simple as someone wanting it or someone else not wanting it. No doubt there is some reason that it is where it is and Liberal members are maintaining it where it is.

Certainly, those are issues that matter and have been thought through. The Liberals have worked very carefully to ensure that Bill C-20 and the legislation is as tight as it can be to protect the children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the parliamentary secretary.

Would the member be willing to help some of us lobby the justice minister to include raising the age of consent in Bill C-20? The age of consent is not in the bill. Why?

Raising the age of consent is something that 90% of Canadians want to see happen immediately. Will she help us get that done? The Liberals have voted against that in the past. I am assuming they will quit doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for participating in the debate and for her remarks.

In fact, I would like to thank all members who spoke on this particular motion today. I especially want to thank the member for Edmonton North when she put the fire into the spirit about this critical issue that needs to be addressed.

We had the Minister of Industry in the justice portfolio for a while. The present Minister of Health was there for a while and now this minister has been there for a while. I find it amazing that in 10 years this had not been seriously looked at, and even before that. If I were the Minister of Justice, I would be aware of what is out there. I would walk into the House and make an announcement that today we are getting rid of this filth and evilness that is happening to our children. I cannot believe it is taking forever and ever.

It has been said over and over that Bill C-20 must be fixed if it is going to do the job of eliminating child pornography from the face of our country. I am sure the member would agree that it should be gone. Who needs that kind of junk hanging around? We can do it.

I am going to ask the member, is she prepared--and I know this may pass unanimously and that would be great--to join me and other colleagues in the House to dog this justice minister until it is done? I do not want her to just say yes to that and then let it sit like so many other motions. Let us dog him until it is done. Will she help me do that?

If worse comes to worse,--in the wisdom of the people who developed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and put in a clause that says notwithstanding--if we come to a point where we cannot seem to accomplish anything else unless we use that clause, is she prepared to do that as a bottom line? Will she follow-through on these issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue today and, specifically, to follow my colleague on the other side of the House from Edmonton North. It will be a sad day when we no longer have her in the House standing up and arguing issues that matter to all of us.

The motion on the Order Paper today is about how we can better protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation, including child pornography. Protection of our children from such exploitation is a continuing priority for the government as reflected in last year's Speech from the Throne, and I think we will see that reflected in the vote that will happen in approximately one hour from now.

The motion on the table today calls upon the government to protect children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating all defences for the possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children. When we look at some of the things that people use as a defence for what they call art and various other things that they try to get away with and say that it is not sexual exploitation, any of us who have actually looked at some of the stuff know clearly that it is. The sooner we eliminate any portending avenue of defence the better.

Child pornography is an issue that concerns all Canadians. The making of a child pornographic image is in fact the making of a permanent record of the sexual exploitation of a child being depicted in that image. That same child is further exploited with every subsequent distribution and viewing of that awful image.

Child pornography in all its forms harms children and all segments of Canadian society by portraying children as sexual objects.

Today's motion therefore speaks to an issue that is a priority for both the government and for Canadians, and it is long overdue.

As the Minister of Justice has already stated, Bill C-20, which he introduced in December 2002, proposes child pornography reforms consistent with today's motion. This just brings it along a little faster. Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which is the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act, proposes a broad range of criminal law reforms that seek to better protect children against abuse, neglect and sexual exploitation, including child pornography.

The opposition's motion today would strengthen Bill C-20 and help move it in the direction in which I think we all want it to go. Bill C-20 proposes strengthening reforms to ensure that the maximum penalties for offences against children better reflect the serious nature of offending against children. Bill C-20 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.

The bill proposes two child pornography reforms that are consistent with the motion today and which respond in a very direct and meaningful way to issues highlighted by the March 2002 case involving Robin Sharpe. In that case, as many members know, Robin Sharpe was convicted of possession of photographic images of child pornography but acquitted of possession for the purpose of distribution or sale of written stories describing child sexual abuse on the grounds that these stories did not meet the current definition of written child pornography. I am glad I was not involved in that case because I certainly would not have agreed with that decision.

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 unlawful sexual activity with a young person under the age of 18. Bill C-20 would broaden this definition to 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. Significantly, this proposed motion recognizes the risk of harm that such material can pose to society by portraying children, as a class, as objects for sexual exploitation.

Bill C-20 also proposes to narrow the availability of the existing defences for child pornography. The Criminal Code currently provides two defences: one for material that has so-called artistic merit, or serves an educational, scientific or medicinal purpose; and another for material that serves the public good but does not go beyond what serves the public good. I think that is an area that is still up for much debate and discussion.

Bill C-20 proposes to merge these two defences into a single public good defence and in doing so would introduce an important new second step in the analysis of when a defence to a child pornography offence would be available for all child pornographic materials and acts.

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, then the court must consider a second level of analysis: does the act or material go beyond what serves the so-called public good.

Stated in another way, the second test asks whether the risk of harm that such an act or material poses to society outweighs any potential benefit. If the risk of harm exceeds the public good, for example,--because it allows for the exploitation of children as condemned by today's motion--then no defence would be available or should be available.

Today's motion addresses an important issue and calls upon the government to act immediately. Bill C-20 is currently being reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Hon. members can give immediate effect to this motion by supporting Bill C-20 at the justice committee, getting it into the House, and ensuring swift passage.

I wish to congratulate the opposition for moving this agenda forward and assisting the government, and ensuring the safety of our children.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from the other part of Saskatchewan splitting his time with me.

This is kind of a sad day. I have been sitting on House duty since 10 a.m. listening to the discussions on something that seems to me should not take a whole lot of discussion. We should have been able to put this through before morning coffee. We have been talking about it six ways to Sunday. We have been comparing it to Bill C-20. Surely we could just get this done.

Why in the world do we need to discuss perhaps the merits of Bill C-20, the merits of artistic merit, the merits of what the public good is when we see that sexual predators are allowed to do the stuff they do because they think it is all right? This is absurd.

We talk about the artistic merit of something. We could go to an art gallery. It seems to me that if we checked the heart rate and the heartbeat alone of people who are looking at art on the wall versus this kind of junk, child pornography, that ought to be enough to do it.

Some of these discussions today make me think we are talking about some volumes in the Library of Parliament. There has been so much sort of academic chat about this filth, that does not deserve to be talked about, as if it is academic stuff. Let us put it where it belongs. It is filth. It is disgusting. It is disgraceful.

I do not think we should be wasting a whole day in the House of Commons on it quite frankly. It is a sad thing that it has had to come to that.

Why can we not just pass the motion and say absolutely. However, that someone is allowed to go through the courts like Robin Sharpe and say that is just for his good, at whose expense? It is always the child who is the victim.

I can hardly believe that we would need to get into a discussion about this, about whether it is really okay or whether it is not, whether it will get distributed or whether it will get sold. Why do we need to waste time on this? I bet the people who are sitting in here can hardly believe it. Yet the minister today said Bill C-20 would look after all that.

He could turn this political and say that the opposition is just creating havoc or making a fuss. My friend from Wild Rose has been talking about this year after year after. Yet the minister does not need to worry about us. Let him listen to the Toronto Chief of Police for starts or the Canadian Bar Association. These people are not politicians. They are operating on the front lines and seeing this filth day after day.

When Paul Gillespie showed members of Parliament the kind of stuff that police officers had to look at every day, it was sickening. Somehow we can just treat this as though it is academic volumes. Shame on this House of Commons. Shame on the member over there who said earlier that with public good the cops could not have shown us that kind of stuff, that they would have been charged with it. There is some kind of logic.

Forgive me, I am blond, but I am not that dumb that they would be charged with the public good. They need this in there for defence, for showing members of Parliament how despicable this stuff is. No, they do not need any defence for public good. They need to show us that. If every member of Parliament watched this for about 45 seconds, we would not have wasted a day of debate here.

We can get this thing under control right now. When the police say that it will not curb it and when the bar association says it will not solve the problem, that is good enough for me frankly. Praise God, I do not need to look at that stuff every day.

I tell the members this. With stepchildren and with the many foster children whom I raised, I am just sick to death to see these people. These are people who these young kids know, who they are related to but most of all who they trust. These people abuse trust day after day.

Before I came here I taught school for 10 years. I understand the position of being an adult and working with children in a position of trust. I see this trust being blown apart by these people every single time they commit these wrong criminal acts. Let us put it right where it belongs. This stuff is filth. There is no way anyone can convince the victims that this has artistic merit. One just has to look at the kids who are being subjected to this. Is this somehow in the public good? I do not think they would say that.

Let us solve this today. Let the government go ahead with Bill C-20. It can trump whatever it likes. I do not care who gets credit for this. All I know is that these kids, who are innocent victims, have any number of pathetic implications that go on for the rest of their lives: sexual dysfunctions, addictions and psychological problems.

I do not know how we can stand here and have this little discussion saying that maybe Bill C-20 will be the answer if the cops and the lawyers say that it is not the answer and we should not worry about what the politicians on the other side say. We should take their word for it and do something about it.

For goodness sake, let us make sure that we call a spade a spade. It is filth. It is disgusting. These people collect it like stamps or baseball cards or something like that. It is wrong. It is criminal. It is evil. We should stand up in this place and say that it is enough already. Let us move forward with this tonight. Let us not talk about it like it is some artistic work.

I do not understand some modern art. Sometimes I stand and look at it and wonder what it is. However I would recognize every single piece of smut that is child pornography for what it is. It is wrong. It is disgusting. It is evil. Let us stand together in the House of Commons as 301 people and do something rather than just yap, yap, yap about it. Let us get this job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the government can figure out better than we can how to speed things up. We see it doing it all the time with its stuff.

The smoke and mirrors that goes on is the first thing that needs to go. The government needs to have willingness to recognize some weaknesses in Bill C-20, fix it immediately and get it on the table in a way that will actually provide the kind of protection for which this motion asks. The fastest way I know is to put the right stuff in the bill, which is already in the process, and get it moving.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-20 the government proposes public good as a defence. It is such a vague term that I think it could take years for that to be defined. Experts at committee have said that the problem with putting a very vague defence into the law is that it does not serve as a deterrent and that we are going to have the courts clogged up with defendants saying that they are not guilty because they think there is a chance of public good. Would the member care to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not always a privilege to have to stand in these kinds of debates, but it is a privilege to stand on behalf of the children of our nation. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Edmonton North.

First of all, I want to talk a little bit about the reality of child pornography. There was a headline story on CTV News on January 16 about a global pornography investigation covering more than 2,300 people in Canada. That is only one investigation and that is how many people they found connected in our country, so we cannot dismiss this problem as being somewhere else in the world.

As a part of the conference entitled “Rethinking The Line: The Canada-U.S. Border”, Dr. Max Taylor of the University College, Cork, Ireland, said that each week his team collects about a thousand child pornography images from 60 different Internet news groups and that there is quite a number of children being added to these sites every week as time goes on. It is a growing problem and we need to remember that.

Bill C-20 has its weaknesses. The bill does not address sufficiently how to get the convictions and how to cut down on this international problem.

We sometimes forget about the plans of the pornographers. We pass over that and we talk about things such as community good or artistic merit.

However, the plans of the pornographers are these. Number one is to familiarize, to familiarize the community and familiarize children with these kinds of scenes because that leads to desensitizing them. The children become less sensitive to those kinds of things. They begin to accept them as normal. In other words, they sanitize. They familiarize and desensitize and then they sanitize it until it seems like that is what everyone else is doing, which then makes it more normal.

So the guard comes down. The red flags are buried. The pornographers can then move on to tantalize and actually tempt people to move into sexual experiences with other kids, with adults and in all kinds of situations that are set out. There is no reason for this kind of pornography to be made other than to use it as a tool to recruit and enlist other victims.

The results of sexual abuse on children are so awful and so terrible that we are very hesitant many times to speak about that. I want to make that the major part of what I want to say today.

I will read a quote for members, the source of which is a book by Tsai and Wagner, 1984:

Sexual victimization may profoundly interfere with and alter the development of attitudes toward self, sexuality, and trusting relationships during the critical early years of development.

It interrupts the development of a child.

Then, from Whitlock and Gillman, in 1989, there is this quote:

Sexuality is regarded not simply as a part of the self limited to genitals, discrete behaviours, or biological aspects of reproduction, but is more properly understood as one component of the total personality that affects one's concept of personal identity and self-esteem.

There is a great impact, in other words, on the life of a child who has experienced sexual abuse.

I asked Kathy Broady, the clinical director of AbuseConsultants.com, for a quick, short list of consequences observable in children who are suffering from sexual abuse. Let me give part of that list and then follow with a quote from Ms. Broady.

She wrote as number one: fear, mistrust, abandonment issues, intense clinginess to the safe person, and no trust in people. Number two: withdrawal from friends or no friends, no normal play, not smiling, and not happy, and the withdrawal from society continues in comparison to how serious the abuse is. Number three: depression, suicidal thoughts and behaviour, anger, acting out, and serious misbehaviour. Number four: eating disorders, self-injuries, and addiction to drugs, alcohol and other substances.

I have heard of how some of these children act when they are being sexually abused; they can be very young and do this. Sometimes we might see a child sitting alone, sitting in a corner or sitting in a private place, and we might see that child rocking. We might see that child displaying nervous symptoms or slapping itself, hitting itself on the head or pulling its own hair. Sometimes that is what happens when children are being subjected to sexual abuse, and that abuse does not even have to be severe.

Ms. Broady has given me this quote:

Severe childhood sexual abuse literally steals a lifetime of productivity, happiness, fulfillment, and peace from its victims.

The Internet and child pornography on the Internet and in other forms is a recruiting tool to reach children and to bring them in to the sex trade on many occasions.

Children who have been severely sexually abused and sold into the sex slave industry experience a great number of negative impacts. I am going to give members only a few of those listed by survivors in a survey that was done by AbuseConsultants.com, a survey, by the way, in which those impacts cover 50 pages in a book. I will give members less than one page.

The first category was “constant fear and no sense of safety or security anywhere, any time”. The survivors listed these points:

One: Constant fear about something, anything, always. Two: No peace, no ability to relax, constant hyper-vigilance. Three: Inappropriate or extreme responses to problems. Four: Always waiting and anticipating the next bad thing that will happen. Five: Very fatalistic thinking, preparing for doomsday--because “bad stuff” did happen so frequently, repeatedly, it was the one constant that could be expected, therefore, “it's best to always be prepared for and expecting the worst”.

Those were comments made by abuse survivors. There is one more category: self-harm. It may come as a surprise to some as to what actually can happen. It is as follows:

One: Cutting--wrists, arms, legs, stomachs, breasts, genitalia, face, absolutely anywhere. Two: Burning--by cigarettes, fire, stoves, scalding water. Three: Stabbing--legs, stomachs, vagina, abdomen.

Mr. Speaker, I remind you, these are the things these victims are doing to themselves. It is not the abuse; it is what they do to themselves because of the abuse.

Also included are:

Five: Slapping face, legs, private areas, anything anywhere. Six: Mutilation of any sort in any place by any means. Seven: Scraping layers of skin off the entire face or genitalia. Eight: Strangulation, hangings. Nine: Overdoses of drugs and alcohol. Ten: Jumping off bridges or throwing themselves in front of traffic.

This problem creates some horrendous repercussions. I will quote from a book by about five authors, not all of whom I will list:

Early identification of sexual abuse victims appears to be crucial to the reduction of suffering of abused youth and to the establishment of support systems for assistance in pursuing appropriate psychological development and healthier adult functioning. As long as disclosure continues to be a problem for young victims, then fear, suffering, and psychological distress will, like the secret, remain forever with the victim

I say that because there is something that resides there and so many people deny the awfulness of this.

What is the responsibility of Parliament? It is the protection of the citizens, protection of the vulnerable; it is to deal with the truth and make value judgments, making sure that the laws of this country are the very best possible.

We cannot allow Bill C-20 or any other bill that would address child pornography to fall so far short of dealing entirely with the situation and that would be to do. In the words of my colleague from Wild Rose, let us stamp out child pornography.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. I know he is a lawyer. When we went through some of the debates on Bill C-20, the issues of artistic merit and public good, these nebulous ideas, came up. I wonder if the member could give us his comments about balancing the interests of two parties, that is, the need to protect the public good and the need to protect those who might argue artistic merit. If there is no rehabilitative progress demonstrated by people who have a preponderance or propensity to be possessors of pornography or to be pedophiles or whatever, is there in our system a bias which would say that if we are going to err, then we should err on the side of protecting the children before the rights of another?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one thing. I hope I did not hear the hon. member correctly. He can correct me if I am wrong. I heard him say that public good ought to stay in as a defence. He must not have heard the opening comments on the motion and he must not have read it carefully, because there is one key word in it, and that word is exploitation. There is no public good in exploiting children through pornography. That is the whole point of the motion. It simply means that public good would not be a defence for anyone who chooses to exploit children.

Surely he does not believe that the police who would have possession of these items would exploit children. Surely he does not believe that psychiatrists or psychologists who have these items would exploit children. They are not included in this. We are talking about individuals in possession of this material and who dare to exploit those children through that. That is the clarity, but it did not come across that way in his speech.

Lastly, let me say that I appreciate the member's support, but Bill C-20 must immediately react to the motion today if his party is going to support this motion. It must happen immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the hon. member for Hillsborough is not saying that the mover of this motion is being opportunistic in bringing forward this issue while we are debating Bill C-20 in another forum. I am not in that party, but I know the member for Wild Rose has been raising this issue time and time again. Any time we can talk about this issue in the House of Commons to bring light to this very serious illness that faces our country, it is a wonderful way to go.

The hon. member for Hillsborough indicated that we should do all we can to stamp out child pornography. I have a private member's bill on Internet pornography that would make providers of Internet services partially responsible for what they provide in terms of Internet services. It means that they themselves would also have to take part in monitoring the sites to ensure that any child pornography that they picked up was immediately sent to the RCMP or local police forces for investigation. Would the member support that type of initiative?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is no priority to rights or freedoms expressed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These rights and freedoms are for all Canadians. There is no priority in it at all.

I will be the first to admit that Bill C-20 is not perfect. If we could do it, we as parliamentarians would like to enact legislation that would stamp out child pornography today, but unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. We are dealing with all sorts of technology, devices and difficulties in prosecution. I believe that Bill C-20 is effective and it is certainly a big improvement over what is presently there.

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question and a general comment on the member's speech. My feeling is that the member's support and encouragement for Bill C-20, based on a broader definition and narrow offences, is not supportable on this side. It still is very confusing. This has been recognized by most all authorities.

The question I want to ask the member more specifically is on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It appears that the rights of the criminals to be free and the rights to somehow clarify and save from litigation freedoms of expression and artistic merit seem to carry much more weight in the expression of the speech he has just made, but what about the right of our children to be secure and the right to be protected from harm? We seemingly are decreasing continually the rights of our children to safety and security while the criminals seem to have more and more rights and weaker and weaker penalties. Whose rights are more important?

How does Bill C-20 alter the provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to better protect our children at the end of the day? Perhaps the member could answer that question.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very important motion. We have heard it during the debate and it goes without saying that the issue of child pornography is a concern for all members of the House and indeed for all Canadians.

All child pornography exploits children. Any defence that would allow for the further exploitation of children should not be tolerated. I believe that the House is unanimous on this issue. We as parliamentarians must do everything within our power to eliminate child pornography in our society.

We are also dealing with some very challenging and complex matters on the whole issue of child pornography. We are dealing with the Internet. We are dealing with emerging technologies. It takes tremendous resources just to keep up with what is going on in society. We are also dealing with the interjurisdictional transfer of pictures and images which makes law enforcement that much more difficult to deal with.

The priority of the government, as was reflected in the Speech from the Throne, is child pornography. Despite what sometimes appears to be a divergence of opinion, which the last speaker talked about and we are going to get that every day here, on the best way to protect children against sexual exploitation, I think all hon. members share the common concern and objective that we all want to better protect our children against this form of sexual exploitation.

The child is exploited when the picture or image is taken and the child is exploited each and every time that picture or image is transmitted wherever. There is no question this is of great harm to our children and it is of great harm to our society.

As I understand today's motion it seeks to respond to the issues that flow from the R. versus Sharpe decision. Similarly Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, which the Minister of Justice tabled on December 5 last year also responds directly to the issues flowing from the Sharpe decision.

It is my view that Bill C-20 directly responds to the issues raised by today's motion. It is appropriate to consider Bill C-20 and this motion together, which is being done. They are parallel situations.

We want to protect children against sexual exploitation. We are seeking sentence reforms. Bill C-20 facilitates the testimony of children and it creates a new offence of voyeurism.

As hon. members will recall, John Robin Sharpe was convicted. A lot of people forget that. He was convicted on two counts of possession of pornographic photographs of children. Unfortunately he was acquitted on charges of possessing written child pornography for the purpose of distribution or sale on the basis that these writings did not advocate or counsel unlawful sexual activity with children as required by the existing definition of written child pornography.

In the alternative, the court went on and found that Mr. Sharpe could avail himself of the defence of artistic merit. Quite correctly and quite rightly there was a public outcry over that decision. Like many of the members who have spoken on debate today, I found the decision disgusting. It certainly was not in accord with Canadian values as we know them.

Bill C-20 was introduced last December. It proposes a number of criminal law reforms that will provide children with increased protection against all forms of exploitation, including against sexual exploitation through child pornography. Two child pornography amendments are proposed that directly respond to concerns flowing from the Sharpe decision.

First, Bill C-20 proposes to broaden the existing definition of written child pornography to include not only material that advocates or counsels sexual crimes against children under 18 years, but also written material that describes prohibited sexual activity with a child where the written description of this activity is the dominant characteristic of the material and the description is written for a sexual purpose. In this way the proposed amendment to broaden the existing definition of written child pornography recognizes the very real risk of harm that such material can pose to children and to society by portraying children as a class of objects for sexual exploitation.

Second, Bill C-20 proposes to narrow the available defences. As has been stated here this afternoon, we currently have two defences, one for material that has artistic merit or serves an educational, scientific or medical purpose, and another for material that serves the public good.

I would suggest that there may be some misunderstanding of what the public good defence does, what it means and what it does not mean. Its meaning may not be immediately obvious to some, particularly for those less familiar with criminal law. It is nonetheless a defence that is known to courts in Canada. It is also a defence that has recently been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the specific context of child pornography.

This defence certainly does not mean that child pornography is good. I do not think any of us would ever say that. It does mean that in certain circumstances a person should not be convicted of a child pornography offence where the act or material in question serves the public good and, this is important, the benefit of that actual material to society outweighs any associated risk of harm.

The last speaker talked about being at a meeting with police officers and I understand there was another meeting held in the House and there was obviously possession of child pornography. Pictures were shown which were repulsive and disgusting, but it was obviously in the public good. They were just trying to show how disgusting this material was and how we as parliamentarians should do something. If the public good defence were not available, I submit that the police officers could have been charged and put in jail, as could the members who were present at the meeting. It would create a strict liability offence. Hon. members should think about it. What is their defence?

It will benefit Canadian society to enable police to possess the child pornography for these purposes which, and I come back to my second test, clearly outweigh the risk of harm that such possession possesses. The law must take into account all possibilities. Bill C-20 does exactly that.

While this again has been debated this afternoon, it still may be possible, although I cannot visualize it myself, for art to be considered under Bill C-20's public good defence. Bill C-20 proposes a different test from the existing test for artistic merit which was talked about in the Sharpe case. Under the existing artistic merit defence, material that is objectively shown to have artistic merit benefits from the defence of artistic merit. That is under the existing Sharpe decision. Nothing further must be shown.

However, under Bill C-20 such material must also undergo a second level of analysis such that even if the material in question can objectively be shown to have some artistic value, it will not have a defence where the risk of harm that such material poses to society outweighs any potential benefit that it offers. I cannot visualize how anyone like Robin Sharpe or a similar offender would benefit from this defence. No defence will be available for any material or act that does not satisfy both branches of the public good defence.

Bill C-20 is not perfect. We do not live in a perfect world, but I submit that it responds effectively to real concerns about child pornography. There appears to be no dispute in the House about the need to deal with this issue and Bill C-20 is a vehicle to make the necessary reforms.

Bill C-20's proposed child pornography reforms directly respond to concerns that were expressed following the Sharpe decision. As I said at the outset of my remarks, I believe this is what today's motion seeks to do. As well, like the other speakers, I want to congratulate the member for Wild Rose for bringing this motion forward and having this debate today because this is a very important and significant issue for all Canadians.

The timing of this motion is opportune as I understand that Bill C-20 is presently before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In closing, I want to suggest that our support for Bill C-20 will in effect help us realize our support for today's motion.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the eloquence with which the member brought forward some of the concerns that he had with the justice minister. He passionately talked about Bill C-20 and how the minister felt that it will solve all the problems. Bill C-20 will not solve the problems; it may become a massive problem.

One of the worst things we could believe in is a sense of security when there is nothing there. We have a sense that something is being looked after and Canadians believe that child pornography will be addressed in Bill C-20. That may be all that the average “Joe Lunchbucket” understands; however, in reality, it is not being addressed one bit.

Every bit of expert advice tells us that child pornography is a risk to children. There is no one who can say that child pornography does not pose a risk.

I believe that Canadians place a higher priority on the protection of children from risk of harm than they place on any defence dealing with artistic merit or public good. If we were to ask Canadians who go to work eight hours a day what they believe is most important, whether to protect children from this type of filth that is on the Internet and this type of pornography or to allow the defence of artistic merit, I think the answer would be very clear.

Defence counsel thrive on inconsistencies, technicalities, holding things up in court, and playing out whether or not this is a legitimate public good.

The justice minister was arguing about the public good and how it would be the protection of what is needed in Bill C-20. I think some of the ways that we can solve the problem with public good is to make it very clear. Does this questionable piece of so-called art or pornography, or whatever it may be deemed, serve a greater public good or is it more pornographic and dealing with illegal types of sexual activities? Is it descriptive of that?

What is best? We have to do the balance sooner or later. Is it more public good or is it more sexually pornographic material?

Those who would argue for public good or artistic merit do not want that type of standard set. They want the small little question placed, is there any artistic merit? And on would go the court cases. The best thing the government could do is to say that it will not be tolerant of child pornography and of those who prey on our innocent.

As a father of a young daughter, 11 years old and a son, eight, it absolutely turns my stomach to see those individuals who would prey on young people. We need a government that will have the courage and boldness to stand up and say that it is intolerable and it will not allow it.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we had to endure the sound and fury of the justice minister this morning. He cannot understand why his proposal, Bill C-20, falls so far short of what the country needs.

I think that our tough questions are an affront to his career and leadership aspirations. We saw him twist himself into a pretzel to justify Liberal ideology under which the country endures, perhaps even suffers.

The pathetic minister bleats virtue while under the same Liberal administration, in their years of power, crime and tragedies have continued for families. In fact, it has expanded. In view of these poor results, it would look like the Liberal government in some sections is secretly compromised.

I would talk specifically about the child porn situation. It worsens and this is the Liberal legacy of inaction. Divorce and family law is a national tragedy for families. Liberals could not deliver upon the masterful work For the Sake of the Children report and the hurt for children continues.

Street prostitution is a stain on our communities. For years now the laws allow easy access for juveniles to get into the whole exploitive sex trade process. This is the Liberal record of inaction for our children.

Last, there is sexual relations with children, the age of consent and the legal problem, and the Liberal record of failure to protect the vulnerable in our neighbourhoods.

I am talking about what the minister said. He hires Department of Justice officials and seeks their advice. Unfortunately, he gets very poor advice. We are saying that Canada needs moral and administrative leadership.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to partake in this debate sponsored by the Canadian Alliance regarding the elimination of all defences for the possession of child pornography.

I am confident that members on all sides of the House and all parties would agree that there is probably nothing more important in their lives than their children or grandchildren. Therefore, the debate today is very important. It is urgent, given that the House, as rumoured, may recess fairly soon and motions such as this will no longer be able to be debated or discussed.

The period of time available to the House to pass necessary pieces of legislation such as Bill C-20 or Bill C-23, the national sex offender registry, is rapidly running out.

We have less than two weeks to ensure that important bills, bills aimed at protecting our children, are enacted before the business of this country is put on hold because we have one Prime Minister who is on his way out to make room for another Prime Minister who is on his way in. Basically, the House will recess early because of the turmoil and disarray in which the government finds itself in the middle of this shuffle.

Bill C-20 has yet to be reported on by the committee. It falls far short of the official opposition's expectations. It fails to adequately protect our children from sexual exploitation, abuse, neglect, and falling victim to child pornography or pornographers. In fact, it falls short of almost everyone's expectations, including those who are on the opposite side of the issue dealing with Bill C-20.

In a submission to the justice committee, the Canadian Bar Association stated that the wording was vague and could be challenged on constitutional grounds. The Canadian Bar Association suggested that Bill C-20 be sent back to the drawing board.

Bill C-20 deals with child pornography, voyeurism and exploitation. It deals with all those issues that we are debating here today.

Meanwhile, those of us on the other side of the issue are concerned about the justice minister's failure to eliminate all legal loopholes that wrongfully justify the criminal possession of child pornography.

Instead, the Minister of Justice has devised a catch-all defence. The Liberal minister has effectively combined a number of defences, including artistic merit in the broadly interpreted defence of public good. This was in direct response to the Supreme Court's consideration of public good in the decision of Regina v. Sharpe.

If Bill C-20 passes, anyone arrested for the possession of child pornography may use what the government considers a narrower defence: the defence within the public good. This replaces the defence of the possessing of child pornography for reasons of artistic merit, educational, scientific or medical reasons and the public good. It has taken that and shrunk it down, but in reality it has become much more broader.

In Regina v. Sharpe, the Supreme Court of Canada found that public good could be interpreted to be necessary or advantageous to the pursuit of science, literature, or art, or other objects of general interest. Here, the court was saying that there is a place for it in literature or in art.

Quite obviously, for all intents and purposes, the defence of public good can and will be interpreted to still include the defence of artistic merit. Therefore, nothing really changes in this bill. Nothing really changes from the current status, except that our courts now will become even further inundated with trials and cases.

These cases will only serve to add to the backlog that is currently clogging our courts, while defence lawyers argue about what does and what does not constitute public good or artistic merit or any of the above.

The Ontario Office for Victims of Crime pointed out the following in its brief to the justice committee only a couple of weeks ago:

Clearly, in order to prevent the expanded legality of possession of child porn, Parliament must craft precise legislation supported by an explicit description of its rationale for doing so in the preamble of the bill. The legislation should attempt to respond to all of the potential “defences” generated by the Supreme Court of Canada or Canadians can look forward to an ever-increasing legalization of child porn possession and use. As expert evidence accepted by the Supreme Court makes clear, that translates directly to increased threat to children.

Bill C-20 is coming forward. There are different groups. One group is in favour of maintaining artistic merit. Many groups, civil liberties and those types of groups, say that the bill would open the door and it is not what they want because it is vague.

We have those who deal specifically with victims who stand back and say that Bill C-20 would not help combat child pornography. The threat would increase and the use and the legalization of child porn would increase.

I implore the government to listen to the victims groups. I implore the government to do everything within its power to stop the proliferation of child pornography, especially as we have seen it unfold over the Internet.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I have been privy to the debates, presentations, opinions, testimonies and to the witnesses on both sides of the issue. Regrettably, I have also been privy to police files that contained literally thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of absolutely degrading and sickening pictures of child pornography.

Pictures were shown by Sergeant Detective Paul Gillespie to a group of members of Parliament but also by the RCMP. Paul Gillespie gave a presentation about the need to help solve the epidemic problem of child pornography. He is with the Toronto sex crime unit. These pictures were unimaginable. They were so horrible and so revolting that a number of members of Parliament left the room. Others looked away not wanting to be privy to seeing the pictures that were put on the screen.

I felt absolutely nauseated thinking about the innocent and vulnerable children all across this country who were being criminally exploited by society's most perverse and sadistic criminals who, under Bill C-20, will not be subjected to sentences that fit the crime because the legislation does not seek to increase maximum sentences for child related offences, nor does it impose any minimum sentences.

When was the last time we saw a judge impose the maximum sentence on any type of criminal offence dealing with pornography? We do not see it. To increase maximum sentences is not the answer to anything. When we are dealing with child pornography, Bill C-20 does not impose minimum sentences.

It effectively means that pedophiles can and will continue to receive fines and conditional sentences, and no jail time. Sadistic types of pornography are being passed on the Internet and the perpetrators get a slap on the wrist. They are told not to do it again and to stay home. It is unacceptable.

Nothing within Bill C-20 would prevent judges from handing out conditional sentences or fines to offenders convicted of possessing or distributing child pornography.

In my opinion, those who possess and seek to possess child pornography are every bit as guilty of committing a crime against a child as those who take the pictures. Therefore, they should be sentenced to minimum terms in prison for committing the offence of aiding and abetting the abuse, torture or sexual exploitation. This opinion is shared by police officers throughout the country.

It was my pleasure today to stand with Staff Inspector Bruce Smollet, the officer in charge of Toronto's sex crime unit, during today's press conference commending him and the entire Toronto police force for their outstanding work and their commitment to public protection.

Under the excellent leadership of Police Chief Julian Fantino, the entire Toronto police force has done an exemplary job of fighting a crime that is becoming much more prevalent in this nation. It is not only in urban areas but in rural areas as well because it can be ushered straight into homes via the Internet.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this supply day motion put before the House by the hon. member for Wild Rose. I know he has been trying for quite some time to get this issue on the floor.

I would like to perhaps make this a little more personal. As a mother and a grandmother, it causes me great concern with the way our society is going as far as protecting its children.

When I was a young woman living in Slave Lake, Alberta, the community was putting together a day care to provide a safe place for young children to spend their day. We had a visit from a police officer from Edmonton who spoke to us in general terms about the abuse of young children. I can remember being unable to comprehend what she was telling us. She told us that young children, even those a few months old, had been sexually assaulted by adults. I found it hard to accept that an adult could do that sort of thing to a baby. She assured me that this was in fact a case file, that it was not a made up story and that cases like that did happen.

Over the last 10 years I have been subjected to people coming to my office who are concerned that the laws of the land do not protect younger children, even those 14 years of age. There was such a case in my own constituency. A 27 year old had taken a 14 year old girl out of her home with her consent and they were living together. The parents of that 14 year old child could do nothing about it.

I am not alone in caring about this issue. I will be sharing my time with the member for Crowfoot who also is concerned as are, I would hope, most members in the House.

A number of issues need to be addressed when we talk about the protection of our children. One of those issues is the fact that we as adults have to take responsibility for protecting children. We have to ensure that society takes that responsibility seriously. Not only do we have to ensure that the police and legal people who take these cases to court take this seriously, but we have to ensure that judges and those people who determine sentences take these situations seriously as well.

There has been a lot of debate as to the legal parameters of when child pornography is pornography and when it is artistic merit. We know that children are being hurt either directly or indirectly when we see a picture or anything depicting children in an inappropriate sexual situation.

As a parent and as a grandparent, I am more concerned about the psychological damage done to young people who find themselves being abused and being made the victim of filming or whatever to satisfy an adult's needs. The statistics show the damage done to those young people. Survivors struggle with depression, low self-esteem, self-blame, dissatisfaction with life, anxiety, disassociations, splitting between the mind and the body and difficulties in relationships. The list goes on and on of how young children end up responding to situations that they have no control over goes.

Being used as an instrument in the creation of pornography is something that a young person knows is not acceptable, yet often that material is used to coerce them into keeping quiet and continuing with the process.

Others before me have mentioned how, through the Internet, invasive child pornography has become. There was a case in the Toronto area where a 32 year old man was arrested for taking pictures of young women at different places in society, bus stops, stores, and even in bathrooms. He was using these images to further whatever. He has been charged. The question is what kind of penalty will he receive in the courts?

Canadians are concerned about that. Statistics will show that Canadians are concerned that the courts are not dealing with this in a proper manner. One source from the Ottawa Citizen says that in 1999 the Ontario Provincial Police pornography investigation unit executed 59 search warrants, laid 110 charges, arrested 28 people and performed 134 investigations. Unfortunately, what happens is these cases do not manage to get through the courts with any meaningful sentencing.

Therefore, Canadians are left with the feeling that not enough is being done, that the laws are not specific enough, that the courts can convict but that they not be taking this as seriously as Canadians do.

A Pollara poll taken last year found that 76 respondents agreed that passing a stronger child pornography law should be a high priority for the federal government. I do not think the government has even dealt with this. I know Bill C-20 is before the House, but most people are saying that it does not come anywhere close to dealing with the issue of child pornography.

Some 86% of Canadians disagree with the recent B.C. decision acquitting John Robin Sharpe of possession and distribution of child pornography. It is quite clear to me, and it should be clear to the House, that Canadians do not feel this government or the courts are doing enough to protect our children.

As was said before me, our most valuable asset is our children. We in the House have a duty to them to do everything possible to ensure that they are protected, and I include 14 year olds. I do not know how many members have 14 year old children or grandchildren, but let me say, they are not very mature. They may think they know what is good for them and they may think they know what they should be doing, but I can assure everyone, they do not.

One place for us to start is to recognize that a 14 year old is a child and that, as a child, they are not in a position of giving their consent to an adult relationship. I am not talking about a teenage to teenage relationship. Other countries have shown, as we have in the past, that close to age consent is something quite different. However, we owe it to our children to ensure that we do not have children in adult relationships that are inappropriate. We owe it to our children to ensure that they are not used as victims to create pornography that is used for purposes, which none of us here can possibly support. We owe it to our children to ensure that we do everything possible to protect them in the future.

I speak with an impassioned plea to those across the way to support this motion and to support the fact that the House broadly condemns the use of child pornography in Canadian society and that we ask the government and the courts to take it seriously because that is what Canadians want.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I appreciate this member and his efforts on this particular issue over the years. I also agree with what he said needs to happen. There is no doubt about that.

Here is my concern. I think the member understands why most of us are concerned about it. He put on the meeting, which he has talked about. I attended and that is when I first had a chance to see the graphics of these pictures and what the videos were all about. Although I have been on this issue for a long time as well, that is the first time I actually got see any of that. That inspired me even more to believe that this has to be dealt with and has to be dealt with quickly.

The meeting was perhaps two years or several months ago. The people who left that meeting, including members on this side of the House and on the other side, agreed that legislation has to come forward immediately to address this very serious problem, because it will get worse if not.

That is why the motion was put forward today. I became very impatient. I kept waiting, and I am sorry, but Bill C-20 does not have what is required to protect our children. The bill is short on that. It is flawed. The bill needs to be fixed.

I am quite certain that most of the members on his side of the House will probably support the bill. It would be rather silly not to. I have a question for the member, then: if they support the bill, can I expect that they would move forward immediately with amendments to Bill C-20, which is before the committee, to address this very serious problem? Or are we going to have to wait another two years or several months before something actually happens? Time is of the essence when it comes to the safety of our kids.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wild Rose ought to know that the member for Mississauga South had to conduct an interview this afternoon on yet another controversial issue, that being the issue of stem cells.

We are dealing with a number of very tough and substantive issues, issues which no doubt will be current not only today but certainly down the road.

I want to thank the opposition for bringing this motion forward. It is not very often we find that members on both sides of the House can agree to an initiative. The wording of the motion itself is not only commendable but indeed quite supportable.

While I say this, there have been some steps that have been taken by the government. Some would treat them as baby steps but nevertheless they are important steps on the issue of child pornography, which probably is the most serious issue confronting this nation today. We have been able to move ahead with Bill C-20 and Bill C-23 and pass Bill C-15, which among other things moved a step closer to ensuring that Internet service providers would have to retain data. Those are some of the measures that have been taken.

For the sake of the debate, I would like to point out that this is not a new issue. I applaud the member for bringing this motion forward and speaking to it very proudly. Not too long ago it was that member who led a committee of several members of Parliament to attend what was supposed to be a one hour session on the epidemic of child pornography and the scourge that exists not only around the world but also here in Canada.

The shocking pictures referred to a little earlier were the same pictures that I had seen when I had the opportunity of working with Detective Sergeant Paul Gillespie and Detective Sergeant Bob Matthews of the OPP. I know they are in very good hands with the work now of Detective Sergeant Bruce Smollett and Detective Sergeant Paul Gillespie.

A number of initiatives must come of this motion. It is clear that there is sufficient support for the motion. I would be very surprised that there would be any attempt to water down what is otherwise a motion that must serve as a constant reminder of the most serious problem that confronts our nation.

The hon. member for Wild Rose will remember that we put together an issues and options paper. In the few minutes that have been given to me, I want to go through several of the items that I think would be cause for where we go after the motion is passed. Hopefully there will be time left in our parliamentary agenda and calendar to fulfill those.

We said that the age of consent should be raised from 14 to 16, while maintaining the close in age exemption. This would amend section 150 to substitute 16 for 14. We would also retain the age of 18 as a consent for trust relationships.

We dealt with the issue of artistic merit. Section 163.1(6) as currently expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sharpe decision exempts child pornography clearly harmful to children as the subject of criminal prosecution.

Our solution at the time, and I believe we had support from all parties, was to eliminate the defence of artistic merit and that the definition of child pornography be included as part of the hate crimes section 319.

In my view, that would be the way in which we try to address this very serious issue.

I think where the government has certainly come a long way is to deal with section 163, to apply a community standards test similar to the Butler case. I will not get into the specifics of that.

Another issue, which would not be news to some colleagues, was the requirement that written child pornography be found to advocate or counsel illegal sexual activity with children permits the exclusion of child pornography that is harmful to children from being the subject of criminal prosecution.

It was felt that if we added “a prominent characteristic of which is the description of sexual activity between a person under the age of 18 and an adult, the primary purpose of which is for sexual gratification of an adult or which poses a risk of harm to a child”, that would serve the test.

We know that in the same decision on Sharpe, the Supreme Court of Canada permitted a number of exemptions. I believe that some of them are downright wrong and must be reviewed by Parliament.

The “private recordings of unlawful sexual activity privately held for personal use” invented by the Supreme Court of Canada permits subsequent exploitation of persons recorded who no longer consent to the use and, given the disparity of age permissible, permits ongoing exploitation of children under 18, or 16, by adults.

Our view on this is to restrict such exceptions to recordings between persons under 18, not engaged in explicit sexual activity involving disclosure, clearly indicating both knowledge and consent that the activity is being recorded, not kept in a manner where it is capable of distribution to others, and the possession is for the exclusive personal of the person in possession of it.

Another issue is one that we also tackled that evening--many of these things were by consent--the expressive material exemption, again an exemption to what is otherwise unlawfully expressed child pornography and invented again by the Supreme Court of Canada, is capable of being used to permit material harmful to children to be created and possessed, including animated, computer generated, morphed images, mixed and edited videos, and audio recordings mixed with the above. We felt that it was important to eliminate the personally possessed expressive material defence whenever that should pose a harm to children. I note that the government has done this in some of its legislation.

Perhaps the most controversial but nevertheless most important issue from a police resource perspective is the Stinchcombe decision. The Supreme Court of Canada some time ago imposed rules of disclosure that necessitate police providing copies of every image seized from an offender, frequently in the tens of thousands and more as a result of the Internet and the nature of sexual deviance, thus needlessly depleting resources, delaying prosecutions and potentially disseminating material harmful to children. It is our view that a simple way to achieve this would be similar to how it is done with drugs, and that is simply to get a sample and admit that as evidence, and that could be written in as opposed to going through every single issue.

Another issue is the whole area of lawful access, and I know that the only people who will buzz to that are obviously people in the police community and those in the justice department, who I hope will be listening to this. It is clear that Canada is losing the battle with evolving technologies. We simply do not have the ability when people are using various forms of encryption, new technologies and disposable telephones, you name it. The government needs to proceed with binding and effective legislation that allows police modern and up to date information.

Also, and I should point out that this is a critical point, if we want to beat the child pornographers and stop the 40% of people who see this material and go on to offend against and exploit children, as is currently the convention in this country, then the way in which we do that, I would submit very honestly, is to ensure that if an Internet service provider or, for this case, a company that is involved in the use of telephone lines, should provide the information to lawful and local authorities, it should be based on warrant. They should not be charged the going rates. This is not about making money. This is about protecting children. It is time that the telephone companies and those involved in communications get on board. We do need that.

I know that only a few minutes on this very important question will be provided to me. I do want to issue the challenge again to all colleagues to hear the voices of those who believe that we do need to amend the definition of primary designated offence and provide for the taking of DNA samples. This should, in my view, of course be retroactive. That may be impossible to do, but we must start that as soon as possible.

Sentences imposed for crimes involving child pornography are disproportionately low for the harm they cause and the risks posed to children. In my view, and indeed I think in the view of the majority in the House, we should create a mandatory minimum penalty for second or subsequent offences under section 163.1. That would of course allow as well the opportunity to create a mandatory consecutive penalty akin to section 82.1 for firearms, for conviction of an offence under section 163 or committed in conjunction with another sexual crime, or committed while on parole for sexual crime against a child under the same section.

I believe that some of these bills and some of the ideas that we have talked about for some time would go a long way. I cannot think of a better opportunity we would have for all of us at some stage to understand that if we are to take seriously the protection and the safeguarding of this country's most precious constituency, the laws that we have in this country are of no force or effect or in fact of no meaning if we cannot protect those who eventually will assume the very burden of making this a greater nation.

Young people in the tens of thousands from around the world are only faces. We cannot put names to those faces. We understand the concerns that have been raised by those who say we need to have a balance, but the balance must not come at the expense of rewriting our charter. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I ask the House, whose rights are we to protect and whose freedoms are we to safeguard? It is very clear to all in the House and to any ordinary individual that the benefit of the doubt must always inure to those who are the most vulnerable and least in a position to defend themselves.

The exploitation we are talking about is all the more important given the advancements in technology, the ability within a nanosecond to transmit a face around the world. The Internet, Interpol and a number of agencies have been involved with trying to make sure that a document about a certain activity and a behaviour that is occurring in Canada is not simply sent to the country or sent to a few agencies around our great nation, but that in fact those police forces and those agencies involved would have the resources to be able to understand, to disseminate and to make sure that we protect children.

That is the bottom line. I thank the House for the motion.

Child Pornography

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

Mr. Speaker, when nine year old Cecilia Zhang was abducted from her bedroom last week, it seemed as if not only her family and her community but also our entire country started holding our breath. We are all praying for her safe return, but Canada's children need more than prayers. They need good laws to protect them from abuse. Instead, this Liberal government has put forward Bill C-20, which still allows the defence of “public good” for child pornographers.

We need to give our police the tools they need to catch child abusers. Instead, Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino recently told an international group that he was ashamed of Canada's weak efforts to protect our children.

Finally, we need judges to sentence child abusers to maximum penalties instead of some actually getting house arrest.

This Liberal government is totally out of step with the concerns of Canadians in its disgustingly weak efforts to protect what we all hold dearest: our children.

Supply

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a very important one. We have discussed this subject matter on a couple of occasions. Bill C-20 brought substantial debate to this place with regard to matters such as artistic merit, public good, exploitation, et cetera.

The essence of the motion is that all defences for the possession of child pornography be eliminated. It is an excellent idea and we should do it. We understand that law enforcement officers and others who are working to resolve or deal with the issue would be authorized to have possession, but it is those who would exploit children through that possession who are the targets.

I am told that a total crackdown on child pornography is happening in other jurisdictions, for example, in the U.K. From the type of responses it is getting, it is sending out a strong message of deterrence and a message that embraces public protection. It is probably the biggest change from what I can see in the Canadian experience. That is why I believe that in itself it is what we should be doing in Canada.

In our justice system sentences available to judges should send a message of deterrence, keeping in mind the balance necessary at least to try to rehabilitate. In this case, with regard to the issues of child pornography and individuals who engage in the manufacture, production and proliferation of child pornography, just as those involved in pedophilia and sexual assaults, the chances for rehabilitation are very small.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention I am going to split my time with the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.

If there is very little chance of rehabilitation, then clearly the emphasis has to be put on public protection. I think that is what the member for Wild Rose has been telling this place for years. It is about time we listened to him.

There was a question posed during the debate on Bill C-30, which I think in itself was a very good debate. The question was what possible public good or merit could be found in something that exploits children? How is it that lawyers actually come up with this terminology? How do they think the public would respond when someone is trying to play both sides of the fence rather than taking a position? What ever happened to a proactive legislative system that addressed problems in a proactive way, rather than trying to be all things to all people at all times? It means that we more often fail than we pass the test of whether or not our legislation is effective.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite impressed with the speech of my colleague. I was particularly impressed with the graphic description and stories that some people tell about their lives.

I cannot help but recall the provision in Bill C-20 that amends the Criminal Code to actually agree that there shall be a defence of the possession of child pornography if it is in the public good.

I ask every colleague in the House, having listened to the kind of stories that my hon. colleague has expressed to us, how could anyone in their right mind ever consider anything like that to be in the public good? How could that somehow lift the moral feelings of people? How could that somehow encourage ethical behaviour? How could it somehow create greater commitment to family life, greater love and appreciation for members of the family? How could anything like that ever be in the public good?

Would my colleague speak to that? It seems to me there is something extremely warped in making that kind of a comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is a lack of leadership by the Liberal government. We are looking at their inability to stand up and say to Canadians that they will do something right for a change. The Liberals are taking the lamb position and saying that they will follow what the minister is telling them to do. They will not do what is right for Canadian children.

The hon. member for Wild Rose brought the police officers from Toronto and all that was needed was to see the pictures of those beautiful little children being abused so badly. I will never get that little girl's blue eyes out of my mind for as long as I live. I will never forget the beautiful little girl with the blonde curly hair being abused so badly.

That the Liberal members do not stand up for our children I think is indefensible. For them to state that Bill C-20 will handle these atrocities is a disgusting display of what the Liberal members believe in.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave some heart wrenching stories.

The real issue at heart in our debate today is that we are not dealing with only another bill or law. It is at a completely different level than when we debate whether or not taxes should be at 16% or 17%. Today we are dealing with the very heart and life of individuals.

When I think of the implications of the outcome of the vote today, I cannot think of any reason why anyone on the other side would hesitate to vote in favour of the motion and then do everything possible to implement the terms of the motion.

Does my colleague have any comment on the fact that the Liberal members at this stage seem to have dropped out of the debate? There has been nothing but speeches from the Canadian Alliance for the last number of hours. The Liberals have had nothing to say. Obviously they are caught in a quandary. They cannot defend Bill C-20, yet for some reason they are hesitant to participate and say that this is a good motion and let us go for it.

I would appreciate my colleague's comments on the lack of participation by the Liberals on this very important issue.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for those who are listening, we are having one of those but discussions in the House of Commons; that is, I agree but something else is changing my mind.

It is a wonder Canadians can listen to this. It must be frustrating for them. What is wrong with this philosophy is that members on both sides agree and yet the government stands up and says that it agrees but that it cannot do that right now for some reason. The difference between this side and that side is that we want to see some action, not just words.

I have long felt that the country is into a moral and ethical crisis on a number of issues, some of which were mentioned. Even on the issue of prostitution, which the government says should not be legalized, the Liberals have a bill in the House right now that would anticipate legalizing prostitution under the name of harm reduction. We have heard that before on drugs.

I am here to say that prostitution is not a form of harm reduction. It is a form of abuse of women. The difficulty I have is that on that side the members say that they do not feel that prostitution should be put into legislation, and yet they are working on it. That is one of those but discussions.

It is the same with the age of sexual consent. I just heard the parliamentary secretary say that the age of sexual consent was too low and that she was more than prepared to raise it but that we could not do it right now because we have to work on that one. The Liberals have had 10 years in government. If they are prepared to raise it, why can they not raise it?

I could give a litany of the issues I have dealt with concerning younger kids under the age of sexual consent who are living with four or five men over the age of 30 and 40 who are using them to sell drugs, using them for sex and using them to sell themselves. Does the House know why they do it? They do it because 14, 15 and 16 year olds are young offenders.

The government says that the age of 14 and over is the age of sexual consent. That is the problem with it. We have been explaining that for 10 years. Yes, the Liberals agree with it but they will not change it.

We have seen a litany of other issues in the House. Drugs is one of the issues in which I have been involved from day one. The government says that it does not agree with drugs and that it does not want to promote that idea, and yet it promotes the idea of an injection site, not just in Vancouver but in Toronto and Montreal as well.

What the government is saying is that it disagrees with people using drugs but then it promotes the idea of having a place to shoot up in a bubble zone around that place. What kind of contradiction of terms is the Government of Canada presenting to us? These are contradictions.

I want to talk about pornography but I also want to mention the sex offender registry, the legislation that I actually wrote three and a half years ago. When we as an opposition party introduced it in the House of Commons all we heard was that we do not need it because we already have it. Guess what the Liberals did? They created a sex offender registry, after being dragged through the knot hole by every victim's rights groups, police associations and the Canadian Alliance. It is unbelievable that they can stand there and say that we can have this, but.

I want to talk about pornography which is the topic of the motion introduced by my colleague. One of the interesting things in Bill C-20, the bill on pornography, is the issuance of maximum sentencing. The government did the very same thing with the marijuana legislation; maximum sentencing.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

Maximum sentences are okay. However it is minimum sentences that are the problem. When we bring up issues in child pornography legislation and say that we will toughen it up and give maximum sentences, that is the upper limit.

I want to bring forward a case, and although I do not like reading it I ask the House to consider it. If the government were to give maximum sentences for child pornography and not minimum sentences, then why on earth would a judge hand out such a sentence. Let me read this case to the House.

Members of the OPP child pornography unit are outraged that the Ontario Court of Appeal shot down the crown's attempt to appeal a house arrest given to a Newmarket man convicted of possession and distribution of vile and disgusting child pornography.

Randy Weber, the man who had the pornography, was convicted last February of possession and distribution of images of little children being bound, gagged and forced to have sex with men. He was given a conditional sentence of 14 months, otherwise known as house arrest. He was basically told to go home and think about what he had done.

The government has been telling us that it is going to give maximum sentences. What is the good of a maximum sentence if the judge will not apply it? A conditional sentence for something of this nature is unacceptable.

To continue on, among the images viewed in court by the justice was one that revealed a four year old child, weeping and struggling, with her hands bound and her neck leashed with a dog collar while an adult male sexually assaulted her. Another image revealed an eight year old girl, tied, gagged, blindfolded and hung upside down. The video clip with sound revealed a toddler who could be heard weeping and yelling “stop, stop, stop”. The judge on that case gave the minimum sentence: a conditional sentence. The man was told to go home and think about what he had done.

If the government really believes that child pornography is a bad thing, then it must do something constructive about it. It should not talk about giving maximum sentences if the courtrooms of Canada are only giving minimums.

What I just read to the House is totally unacceptable. The government should be doing something about this. It should raise the floor on the sentences. People with this kind of disgusting behaviour should not be let off with conditional sentences.

What is wrong is that there are many of these cases. The government has said that Bill C-20 would provide maximum sentences but that is not good enough. That is just a charade.

The government has talked about providing maximum sentences in drug cases. The Prime Minister has agreed to maximum sentences but that an individual can have a joint in one hand, a fine in the other and pay that fine any time he wants and nobody will pay any attention to the drugs. Maximum sentences are not good enough. Minimums are the order of the day.

A control room operator at the Bruce nuclear plant was sentenced to one year in jail yesterday for possession and distribution of disgusting, degrading and haunting computer images of child pornography and nude women who appear to have been hideously murdered. The court heard that computer images showing children being raped by adults were among some of the things that had actually happened. The fellow received a year in jail and will be out within six to seven months. That is all the time he has received for that crime, and yet the government has said it is looking after this issue and will give maximum sentences.

The problem is that our society has a moral and an ethical crisis on its hands and the legislation being delivered into the House of Commons is not adequate.

I will give members one last situation.

I visit prisons on fairly frequent occasions. I walked into a maximum security prison the other day where sex offenders are imprisoned. On the floors, the ceilings and the walls of these cells were very explicit pictures of women and children. I asked the warden why this was so. After all, they have rules that say they cannot have these on the cell walls. He apologized and said that they would be taken down. Where are the rules from the government?

I know my time is over. I can only say, that these bills, which come through the House, are so much drivel unless they actually mean something to the average Canadian and victims on the street, and they do not.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member directly whether she will be voting yes to the motion tonight. She said that she supports it but that she also supports Bill C-20. Some of us have been left with the impression that perhaps that may be an out; that supporting Bill C-20, the government's bill on this issue, would then allow for her to take an out on this.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made myself clear but obviously I did not. I think the motion is a good motion and that it should be supported, as Bill C-20 should be supported. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children.

I agree with that and I think Bill C-20 does exactly that. Now I understand that the members in the official opposition do not agree that Bill C-20 does in fact do what their motion calls for but I disagree with them. I think Bill C-20 does do what the motion calls for.

Therefore I think the motion is a good one. I support it and I support Bill C-20.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the privilege of actually following the case the member is talking about. When I say following the case, I mean actually following all the testimony during the trial itself and then the verdict and the reasons for the verdict.

However, on that issue, obviously it is horrendous for any child to be taken advantage of sexually, but putting that particular case aside and simply dealing with the question of age of consent, I am a mother. I have a daughter who will be 11 years old next year. As a mother, and I do not mean to trivialize the question, I would love to have the age of consent at 25. For me personally as a mother, I do find that the age of consent at 14 is too low. I would be more than prepared to look at raising the age of consent, possibly to 16.

However, I do not think at this point in time that this is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with Bill C-20. We are dealing with sexual exploitation of children. I think that age of consent has to be dealt with in another debate. The reason I say it would need to be dealt with in another debate is that I am aware that depending on which province one is in there is a different age requirement for marriage, for instance. I think we have to look at all of that issue.

I would not at this time address the age of consent, as the member opposite would like, in Bill C-20. I would say that we as Parliament and as a society should begin a debate on the issue of age of consent, making it separate from Bill C-20. If there develops a real consensus among Canadians that the age of consent should be changed from where it now stands, then we would take in the appropriate legislative changes. The legislative changes would not just be those that are addressed by Bill C-20. There would be a whole host of legislation. In some cases that legislation may actually be civil legislation and come under provincial jurisdiction.

So on the issue of whether or not there should be a debate on age of consent for sexual activity, yes, it is a debate that we certainly could have in our society and in this House, but I do not think that now is the time. I think we need to support Bill C-20 and get it adopted so that the criminal dispositions that will protect our children will be reinforced.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the official opposition for moving this motion in the House.

As already stated, the motion from the opposition proposes to eliminate all defences for the possession of child pornography which allows for the exploitation of children.

We on this side of the House believe that this is what we are proposing to do with Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act which was introduced by the Minister of Justice on December 5, 2002.

I am pleased that the hon. member from the opposite side chose to raise this very important issue because it allows me an opportunity to inform Parliament and Canadians of the important work that the government is doing to protect our most vulnerable citizens, our children. We agree with the opposition that our children are our most vulnerable citizens and require the most protection.

I would like to build on a few of the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Justice relating to some of the efforts that the government has undertaken to combat the sexual exploitation of children, particularly on the Internet.

I realize the motion in question relates specifically to Bill C-20 and the public good defence, but now is a perfect opportunity for me to highlight the collective work that we are doing to address the troubling problem of child pornography.

I would like to take issue with statements made by the member for Provencher where he claimed that Canada is wild, open country for child pornographers and that the message going out internationally is that people can do business in child pornography here in Canada.

Most of the studies that I have read and most of the statements that I have either read or heard from law enforcement agencies is that the United States is the source of much more child pornography than Canada.

I am sure we are all aware that the sexual exploitation of children is sadly not a new crime. We have been working for many years on this issue. Canada has some of the toughest legislation and policies in place dealing with the sexual exploitation of children. We are challenged with keeping pace with the rapidly evolving technologies, including the Internet, that make it easier for people to sexually exploit our children.

We are all aware of the benefits of the Internet and the increased access to educational resources. However, the Internet also makes collecting, distributing, accessing and making child pornography easy to do. It is extremely difficult and complicated to investigate, according to our law enforcement experts.

Despite the complexities of these crimes, we have been active nationally and internationally on this issue. In fact, this year the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice, along with their G-8 counterparts, endorsed the G-8 strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. This strategy has provided a framework for action by all member states. I am pleased to report that we are taking this initiative seriously and we are working to develop Canadian initiatives that meet the broader G-8 objectives.

On the law enforcement front, for example, the Solicitor General of Canada in the spring of this year asked the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police to create the national steering committee on Internet based child sexual exploitation. The committee has representation from law enforcement across Canada as well as representation from the federal departments of Solicitor General and Justice.

The steering committee is providing direction to law enforcement efforts to better address this problem and is working closely with many specialized units, and many other integrated teams in the provinces and municipalities.

Building on the work of the steering committee and the various provincial initiatives,--because there are provincial initiatives that are to be lauded in the area of prohibiting and investigating sexual exploitation of our children--I am happy to report that we have taken the first steps toward the creation of a national coordination centre at the RCMP.

While it is still in its infancy, this centre is currently in operation, and is coordinating national investigations and liaising with international partners. We are hoping to build the capacity of the centre so it can provide even greater national leadership in this area.

The Canadian government has also been active in the establishment of cybertip.ca, an online reporting centre for reports of Internet based child sexual exploitation. Run by Child Find Manitoba, this pilot project provides a valuable service to law enforcement by forwarding reports of child pornography and also providing educational materials to the public.

The Solicitor General of Canada had the pleasure of announcing $55,000 in funding from his department for the initiative in August of this year and along with other federal departments, including Justice and Industry, we are actively working to find ways to provide cybertip.ca with sustainable funding to build on the current pilot project to make cybertip.ca a national resource.

Children are our greatest asset and Canadians can be assured that we are doing everything in our power to better protect them. Canadians can be assured that law enforcement in Canada is working to complement our strong criminal law framework, which we are hoping to strengthen with Bill C-20. Canadians can also be assured that the government takes the protection of children seriously and is ensuring we keep pace with technological advances.

I would like to address some of the government initiatives to protect our children from sexual exploitation. If we look at Bill C-20, among the various provisions, it proposes to limit the existing defences for child pornography. It proposes to strengthen the Criminal Code by expanding the current definition of written child pornography. It also proposes to increase the maximum penalty for sexual exploitation of children from 5 years to 10.

It maintains Canada's status as having some of the toughest child pornography legislation in the world, but we have done other things. Members who are sitting in the House now may remember that on December 11, 2002, the government tabled Bill C-23, the sex offender information registration act. It is before the committee on justice. I am pleased that we dealt with it this morning and hopefully it will be reported back to the House either today or shortly.

Bill C-23 proposes to establish a national sex offender database. The database would contain information on convicted sex offenders and would assist police across the country who investigate crimes of a sexual nature by providing them with rapid access to vital current information of convicted sex offenders.

We have Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, which received royal assent on June 4, 2002. What are some of its provisions? It created a new offence to target criminals who use the Internet to lure and exploit children for sexual purposes. It made it a crime to transmit, make available, export and intentionally access child pornography on the Internet. It also allowed judges to order the deletion of child pornography posted on computer systems in Canada.

This was a power or an authority that the judges did not have prior to the royal assent of Bill C-15A. It allowed judges to order forfeiture of materials or equipment used in the commission of a child pornography offence. Here again, this provided new authority to judges which they did not have before.

It also enhanced the ability of judges to keep known sex offenders away from children by making prohibition orders, long term offender designations and one year peace bonds available for offences relating to child pornography and the Internet.

Finally, another of the provisions amended the child sex tourism act, which had been enacted in 1997, to simplify the process of prosecuting Canadians who sexually assault children in other countries. I think that is testimony to the gravity and the seriousness with which the government takes its responsibility to protect our most vulnerable citizens, our children.

That is not all. Since 1993, we have introduced other changes designed to protect our children or to enhance the protections that we have for our children, such as, for instance, amending the Criminal Code to toughen the laws on child prostitution and child sex tourism, which I just mentioned. We strengthened it again under Bill C-15A. We amended the Criminal Code to ensure that peace bonds keep abusers away from women and children. We passed legislation to enable criminal records of pardoned sex offenders to be available for background checks. We passed legislation to change the parole and corrections systems so that sex offenders serve until the end of their sentence.

Those are just a couple of example of provisions, measures, steps and legislative changes that the government has taken to strengthen the protections that we have for our children in order to ensure that we do everything we can to eliminate sexual exploitation of our children, and that when we do uncover it and find it, it is properly addressed and those who commit it are properly punished.

It is so important for us to look at and deal seriously with this issue. I honestly believe that our government has done so. I have not listened to all the speeches or the participation in the debate of all members of the opposition and members on the government side who have participated; I have only been able to listen to that of the member for Provencher. I found some of the issues he raised to be very pertinent, but I disagree with him when he says that they are not addressed by Bill C-20. I believe they are addressed.

There is one issue that I think most if not all of the witnesses who came before the justice committee spoke to. I am a member of the justice committee and I have had the privilege of participating in these sessions where we have conducted consultations on Bill C-20. It is the issue of the public good defence. There has been some confusion on the part of some witnesses, but there has been clarity on the part of other witnesses. It is clear that the clarity brought forward by what I would say is a consensus of witnesses is that the government may do well to look again at the dispositions or the sections in Bill C-20 that talk about public good and bring more clarity to them to ensure that the bill does in fact ensure protection of our children from sexual exploitation. On that, I think the member for Provencher gave an accurate accounting of what we heard from a large majority of witnesses. I think the government would do well to look at that piece of it.

However, on the rest of Bill C-20, I think that the overall majority of the witnesses who came before us, if not all, said that this is needed legislation. They commended the government in going forward on the legislation. They were in agreement that the legislation is needed, that it is a positive measure and that they wanted to see Bill C-20 adopted. However, they wanted to see clarity brought to the public defence issue. On that issue, there was agreement among a lot of the witnesses.

I will conclude now. I still have five minutes but will not repeat what I have said as I think the statements and points I have made are very clear. I think that any member in the House who listened to what I had to say would understand very clearly where I am coming from and what issues I feel are important and are being addressed by Bill C-20. As well, they would understand the measures and the steps that the government has taken since 1993 to continually strengthen the protection of our most vulnerable citizens, our children, and to strengthen Criminal Code provisions to ensure that those who would sexually exploit our children are properly caught, properly charged, have a fair hearing before the proper courts and, when convicted, receive the proper sentencing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I constantly hear the minister talk about the leadership that Canada is taking on all these judicial issues and how his government is leading the rest of the world. I find that to be a strange comment as I understand Canada is the only country of all free democracies that has the age of consent at 14, when the rest have the age of consent at least at 16 or older. Is that leadership? We are the bottom of the heap.

I would like to ask the member, from his experience if this particular motion were to pass through the House and most members found it acceptable, how difficult would it be to immediately incorporate the motion into Bill C-20?

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague speaks with a great deal of knowledge being the former attorney general of the province of Manitoba.

I want to ask the member a specific legal question with regard to what the Supreme Court said in the Sharpe case. The Supreme Court said with regard to the public good clause that while the public good defence might prevent troubling applications of the law in certain cases, it would not do so in all.

My colleague mentioned that in his speech. I would like him to elaborate on that. I was chagrined and dismayed when the justice minister earlier today seemed to say that the fact the Alliance has brought the motion forward was a bad thing. I say it is a good thing. We need to discuss the problems with the government and its Bill C-20.

I would appreciate my colleague's comments on the public good defence as referenced in the Supreme Court decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. He was right on. He has done an excellent job on this particular issue of Bill C-20.

I will ask him a question that I know he probably cannot answer which is in regard to raising the age of consent. I heard the same message from the Liberals that it was not raised to the age of 16 because of certain cultural groups in our country who prefer to keep it at 14 yet no such group can be found.

Can the member possibly give me any reason why the Liberal government refuses to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16? Is there any possible reason that he could name?

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, as members of the Canadian Alliance, we find ourselves in a position where we have to defend the rights of the most vulnerable group of people in our society, our children, against a Liberal cabinet fixated on protecting the interests of dangerous sexual offenders.

Past experience should tell us that this need not be much of a challenge, given the fact that Liberals tend to govern by opinion polls, and the evidence is clear that Canadians overwhelmingly support giving children the most effective legal protection possible against sexual predators.

Nevertheless, to this point the legislation put forward by the minister continues to defend the interests of sexual predators rather than Canadian children.

However it appears that some of the concerns that have been consistently raised by the Canadian Alliance, members of child advocacy organizations and the police may finally be catching the attention of the government.

Recently we heard the Solicitor General admit that he may have erred in his opinion that including convicted sex offenders in a national registry would violate their charter rights. Perhaps it is not too late to hope that the Liberals will also eventually admit that there is no justification for the criminal possession of child pornography and amend the laws accordingly.

Over the course of parliamentary debate on this issue I have often been struck by the contrast between the fact that Canada's Criminal Code provides no defences against certain types of hate propaganda, yet the defences for the possession of child pornography are alive and well and broader than ever. There is zero tolerance for hate propaganda against vulnerable minorities, and rightly so, yet the most vulnerable minority of all, our children, are not similarly protected.

By now most Canadians are familiar with the case of the notorious child pornographer, John Robin Sharpe, and the material that originally sparked this debate on our child pornography laws. After being caught with material glorifying violent sexual acts between adults and children, Sharpe began a court challenge in the mid-1990s arguing that his charter rights were being violated by Canada's legal prohibition on child pornography. Eventually the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the law but said that artistic merit should be interpreted as broadly as possible. A British Columbia superior court judge later did just that and let Sharpe off the hook for two possession with intent to distribute charges on the basis that the material had artistic merit.

Let us be clear about what kind of material we are talking about, the kind of material that allowed this judge to apply artistic merit to acquit Mr. Sharpe of those charges. We are not talking about literature, art or anything that could reasonably be described as such. Seventeen stories that Sharpe had written were given as evidence. Detective Noreen Waters of the Vancouver police department characterized those stories as follows:

They're extremely violent stories, the majority of them, with sexual acts involving very young children, in most cases, under the age of 10 engaged in sado-masochistic and violent sex acts.... And the theme is often that the child enjoys the beatings and the sexual violence....

John Robin Sharpe was acquitted of those charges. Clearly, after the Sharpe cases, there was a legislative gap that required immediate attention. Canadians were outraged but it took some time and considerable pressure to convince the justice minister to bring forward legislation.

Last December, when Bill C-20 was finally tabled, the minister was proud to declare that the existing defences for child pornography had been narrowed, implying that the artistic merit defence was no longer there. No one was fooled. In fact, instead of eliminating all legal loopholes that justify the criminal possession of child pornography in Bill C-20, the minister simply combined these defences and hid them in the broadly interpreted defence of public good.

However, despite the minister's attempt to sell Bill C-20 on the basis that the artistic merit defence no longer applies, he admitted on September 25 in the justice committee that it was still included under the now broader public good defence.

The Supreme Court briefly commented on the public good defence in the Sharpe decision stating:

It might be argued that the public good is served by possession of materials that promote expressive or psychological well-being or enhance one's sexual identity in ways that do not involve harm to others.

If this commentary is any indication of how the public good defence will apply in the courts, it clearly will not fulfil the aim of protecting our children.

The Supreme Court of Canada does not make comments like that idly. It is signalling what it may well do in the future. It is too big a risk for Parliament to leave that particular phrase as open as it now is in the bill. It has become clear that the public good defence has not been precisely defined and will be subject to broad interpretations by the courts.

Mr. David Matas, a well-known lawyer and a member of the board of directors of the child advocacy group, Beyond Borders, said the following during committee hearings on October 7 in reference to the public good defence:

The practical problems of putting a very vague defence into the law is this:

He was referring to this public good defence. The quote continues:

It doesn't serve as a deterrent. If you read what child abusers say, they think what they're doing is in the public good. They promote sexual activity of children. It also is going to lead to a lot of not-guilty pleas. We're going to get the courts clogged up with defendants saying that they're not guilty because they think there's a defence of public good. The defence, of course, will be defined over time, but differently in different provinces until it gets to the Supreme Court of Canada. So we'll have many years of uncertainty about the law.

Given what the Supreme Court of Canada has said, I think know where this court is going to take this particular definition.

The same day, detective sergeant Paul Gillespie of the Toronto police also said:

--trying to, as a front-line officer, determine what the public good is will prove to be impossible.

We are putting evidentiary burdens on the police in addition to those they already have that they simply will not be able to meet.

The representative from the Canadian Bar Association also expressed doubt that the public good defence would be effective stating:

The issue is one of how the courts are going to interpret for public good. This is not an easy concept and it is one that does incorporate the community standard that the court rejected in their interpretation of artistic merit in Sharpe, but there's a real issue of whether or not it's indeed going to solve the problem.

That is exactly what I have said on earlier occasions. The Supreme Court of Canada has already emasculated this particular defence. Why does it think that by resurrecting it in this new bill it will do any better?

From the side of the spectrum that tends to favour freedom of speech over all other social objectives, Mr. Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association also expressed serious misgivings about the public good defence. He said:

Then they talk about the defence of public good, Bora Laskin described it as anomalous, the Supreme Court of Canada has expressed misgivings and the same court has also held that the comparable term “public interest” is constitutionally vague. That's what we would be left with if those amendments were enacted.

What we essentially have is almost every witness, other than the justice minister, coming before the committee and telling us that the law will not work, it will not be effective and, more important, it will not accomplish its objective of effectively prosecuting child pornographers.

In a further complication of the child pornography defences, the Supreme Court carved out two exemptions to the child pornography law in the Sharpe case: that materials, such as diaries and drawings, created privately and kept by that person for personal use; and visual recordings of a person by that person engaged in lawful sexual activity, again kept by the person for personal use.

Although at first blush those types of defences for personal use appear to be reasonable, the latter exemption has the potential to expose children age 14 to 18 to further exploitation by child pornographers since they would be engaging in a legal activity.

What that means is that a 40, 50 or 60 year old man can have sex with a 14 year old girl as long as she consents to the activity, and that man can legally make a visual recording of that activity. Of course it still remains illegal to distribute it but then there is a permanent record of that child that no doubt will eventually be put out into the public domain.

Our age of consent laws also enable child sexual predators to legally use the Internet to lure children over 14 who are online.

One of the more dubious objections to raising the age of consent from 14 was provided by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the member for Northumberland, who stated in the House of Commons on November 5, 2002 that there were “many social and cultural differences that have to be reflected in the law”.

That certainly was news to many Canadians. Many members of Canadian ethnic groups were offended and angry that the government was trying to hide behind so-called social or cultural considerations on the age of consent issue, and never have the members opposite ever asked which cultural group consented to the exploitation of their children. No such cultural group exists in Canada, and that activity should clearly be against the law.

As Liberal ministers keep making weak excuses for not moving to raise the age of consent, they will continue to be discredited by Canadians who have common sense ideas and are committed to the protection of their children even if this government is not.

Under our current laws, children and teenagers easily become targets of pornographers, Internet sex scams, pedophiles and sexual abuse, and parents have no legal recourse with which to shield their children from these dangers.

So far the committee has heard strong recommendations from several witnesses to ignore any excuse from the government in its refusal to raise the age of consent; particularly from police representatives Detective Sergeant Gillespie from the sex crimes unit of the Toronto police service, who has done such a fine job trying to make the children of this country safer, and Mr. Tony Cannavino of the Canadian Professional Police Association. They continue to come to Parliament to remind us that we are failing our children and that Bill C-20 certainly fails our children.

Instead of raising the age of consent, the bill creates the category of “exploitive relationships” aimed at protecting people between the age of 14 and 18. Overwhelmingly, child advocates have urged committee members to reject the provisions of Bill C-20. This new category is a vague provision that fails to create the certainty of protection that children require. It will not serve as a real deterrent. It will simply result in longer trials and more litigation by putting unnecessary, undue prosecutorial burdens and evidentiary burdens on our crown attorneys and our police.

Mr. Normand Boudreau, also a member of the board of directors for Beyond Borders, urged members to reject excuses against raising the age of consent. He reminded us of the story of the little aboriginal girl in Saskatchewan. This case occurred in Melfort, Saskatchewan.

A 12 year old aboriginal girl was preyed upon sexually after being made drunk by three adult males. A 26 year old man sexually assaulted the 12 year old girl with his two friends outside his truck on a gravel road. The 26 year old man received a conditional sentence. The other two, however, were found not guilty. In the case of those two, the jury found that the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain that the girl was at least 14 years of age. In effect, in this particular case, the age of consent was 12 years old. These individuals were acquitted because they took all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the individual may in fact be 14 years old. That is shameful and disgusting.

A side issue on this particular debate that is nevertheless an important one is what is to be done with sex offenders once they are convicted. Currently, Canada's methods serve as little more than a weak reprimand. The list of dangerous sexual offenders who receive no jail time is long. I can quote a number of cases where serious sexual offenders won. For example, the Toronto Sun reported that a Mr. Oswold, who had a record of sexual assault, sexual interference and had attempted to obtain the services of a 10 year old boy, received a conditional sentence for breach of a probation order.

These are the kinds of laws the government has passed. They are not only weak laws in terms of sentencing, but to add final insult to the injury is to try to pass a law such as Bill C-20. The list goes on.

Those who suggest that mandatory prison sentences do not deter crime are mistaken. We know that as long as they are secure behind bars, they will not reoffend.

One witness, I believe it was the Civil Liberties Association, said “What do you expect child pornographers to do, collect stamps?” I say they can collect stamps if they want to as long as they are doing it behind prison bars. They should not be released to be able to exploit our children on the Internet or otherwise.

Only a Liberal would suggest that society should take a chance with its children by releasing those individuals into society without first requiring a period of incarceration. A strong message from Parliament to the courts and from the courts to the offenders that the abuse of children will not be tolerated will have the appropriate effect. Unfortunately, Bill C-20 and the Liberal government fail to send that message.

The lack of funding also continues to be a vital problem for those who are tasked with enforcing the laws. In March 2003 Chief Julian Fantino of the Toronto Police Service said that he was:

--deeply disappointed by the recent comments by [the] Solicitor General that police are adequately resourced in the area of child pornography. The Toronto Police Service has received no funding or resources from the federal government in this area. We have, however, managed to move forward thanks to a $2 million grant from the provincial government.

It was the former conservative government in Ontario that showed concern when the federal Liberal government did not.

That will conclude my comments. I would be prepared to answer questions.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks and his contribution in the justice committee as well. He has been here many years and has seen legislation seemingly take forever. If we look at the street level, some of these horrifying things are still happening year after year, decade after decade.

I would like to ask him a question with regard to his comments that he just made about the court system. Who in the world can determine such a subjective thing as artistic merit and what is in the public good? I have a difficult time doing this because of course it is a sliding scale. Everybody has his or her own definition of what that might be.

It seems to me that where young children are being forced into nudity and sexual acts with adults, there is no way on God's green earth I would ever be convinced nor surely would anyone else in this chamber nor anyone in the Supreme Court of Canada nor any of the legal people that this somehow falls under artistic merit. If we look at the devastating ramifications and implications this has on children as they grow up to be adults, I think we are seeing something rampant here that in the next generation we will only know the devastation it has caused.

What is the member's feeling and what are his thoughts on the justice minister coming here this morning and ranting about how Bill C-20 will actually solve everything? In fact a press conference is going on right now in the press room with police and law enforcers saying that this is not going to cut it.

What does he think we could do to convince the justice minister that it is not just us on a political basis here saying we do not think that Bill C-20 will be the answer to all the ills, but the police themselves are saying it just will not hold up? What could we do about that?

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to say a few words on the opposition motion tabled by the member for Wild Rose.

The whole issue of child pornography is an extremely important issue. First, I want to begin by thanking the justice committee. A few minutes ago in the justice committee, members dealt with Bill C-23, the national sex registry. The committee agreed to an amendment I made to have a review of the registry in two years.

I am pleased that the chairman of the justice committee broke the tie. There were opposition members and some government members in support of the amendment and some opposed. The amendment as passed will provide for a review of the national sex registry in two years time. That is a good thing to do. It will make the role of parliamentarians more meaningful in terms of our political system.

The debate before the House today is one that is very important. We are dealing with Bill C-20 in our justice committee. The minister and his officials have been before the committee. We are trying to find an effective way to ensure that we are tough with people who are involved in child pornography and the abuse of children.

I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for people who abuse children in the way that they do. I know the minister feels exactly the same way.

We saw some very moving video from the RCMP on some of the most horrific child pornography and the abuse of children that could possibly be imagined. It is the kind of abuse that brings tears to people's eyes. There is no doubt whatsoever that we have to deal with this in the toughest and most effective way possible.

The problem we have with the legislation before the House, and one which people are wrestling with, is clause 7, the public good, the definition of the public good and the whole question of freedom of expression, artistic merit, what a museum can display, what researchers can research and so on. There is a differing legal opinion, as the minister knows, as to clause 7 and the public good.

I want to begin by saying that there is a serious difference of opinion. The Canadian Bar Association, for example, believes that the public good test is too vague and too broad to give this legislation any real effect.

In other words, the Canadian Bar Association is saying that it is not really sure what the public good test really is. It could be too broad or it could be too narrow. It could be too narrow in terms of dealing with child pornography and those who abuse children. It could be too broad and catch in the sweeping definition in the courts genuine artists and researchers, museums or medical research in the country. We do not know what will happen. The jurisprudence will evolve through the courts. In effect what Parliament is doing here is giving the authority to the courts to define what is the public good.

I wish the member for Wild Rose was here. I wonder if he would agree that what we should is remove clause 7 from Bill C-20, with instructions that Parliament define what is the public good. Then the intent of parliamentarians would be clearly signalled to the courts. If we do not do that, the courts will make the definition of public good.

I am one who is very much in favour of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution. However, I am also one who has been a bit nervous about the evolution of more and more power to the courts, where the courts and not legislatures make more and more decisions in our country about public policy.

I respect the courts and judges. However, they are not elected. It should be us as parliamentarians and provincial legislatures that determine policy in terms of what direction our society wants to go.

This is really the whole debate that we are now having in the justice committee. The debate is what is freedom of expression. I see the member for Dauphin—Swan River who is a decent parliamentarian and human being. He believes in freedom of expression. If he went to a movie theatre tonight at nine o'clock and there was a very popular movie on, if he jumped on the stage half way through the movie to make a big long speech about how wonderful such and such was, he would be in contempt because freedom of expression has certain limitations. He could not do that because it would be a limitation on freedom of expression.

Section 1 of the charter is the limitation clause. It shows there are limitations, but it has to be demonstrated that these are in the public good or the common good. It has to be demonstrated. The whole debate in the justice committee is what is artistic merit, what is the public good?

We want to make sure we have tough child pornography laws that deal in a very tough way with people who abuse children in this country. Some of this stuff is horrendously offensive and is almost beyond imagination. We have to deal with it in an extremely tough way. However, in the sweep of the law we have to make sure that genuine artistic merit and expression does not become a criminal offence. That is a concern many have.

The Canadian Bar Association is about as credible an organization as possible in terms of expressing an opinion on a certain law before the House. Its concern, as I said before, is that the use of the public good test is much too vague and broad to give the legislation any real effect.

We should be instructing the government, instructing the justice committee, instructing Parliament, to make sure that we say what is the public good and what we mean in terms of the law and how it will be carried out.

I see in the House the member from Edmonton, the former Alliance House leader. I am sure she would agree that we often leave too much power with the courts, with unelected judges, when parliamentarians should make the decisions.

The scope of the public good, as I said, is too broad according to some lawyers, and too narrow according to other lawyers. We should clarify what we mean. The police will do a better job and make more sound decisions in their investigations of suspected child pornographers to protect children if there is a very clear definition of what we mean in terms of how we want to protect the children. On the other side, if we have a clear definition of what the public good means, then artists, museums, researchers and others will not be prosecuted for legitimate artistic expression or legitimate research in their field of endeavour.

One of my colleagues on the government side, who is on the justice committee has just walked in. He knows the debate that has been raging in the committee as to what those fine lines are.

We need clarity in what we mean by the definition of the public good. We have to give some guidance to the courts as to what we mean as a parliament by the public good. We have to stop delegating that power to an unelected judiciary. We parliamentarians should write the law and clearly signal to the courts what we mean when we tighten the law against those who commit pornography and abuse children, what we mean by the freedom of expression, what we mean by artistic merit and the right of museums to display certain pieces of art, what the fine line is and what the message is that we want to send to the court.

The bill before the justice committee, which I understand will be dealt with again tomorrow afternoon, is simply too vague on too many fronts on that particular point. We have seen that by the clash of interpretation among different witnesses and the clash of interpretation among different lawyers.

My main reason for intervening today is to say that it is extremely important that we are not derelict in our responsibilities. We as parliamentarians must make sure that we take clause 7 out of the bill as it stands.

We would be better off getting rid of the clause altogether than to have a vague clause which no one can guarantee what it means in the end and leave that power to the unelected courts. Once the jurisprudence and the precedents are built up by our legal system, we may have a very good law. On the other hand, we may have a law that one way or the other does not have the intent of what Parliament means. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to make sure that is done. I think this is an issue on which Parliament can unite, that it should be us and not the courts who define what we mean by the public good.

Artists should have the freedom to express what they want to express and not be fearful of being charged under the Criminal Code in terms of legitimate artistic expression. People should be able to do legitimate research and museums should be able to exhibit legitimately without fear of being prosecuted and convicted under the Criminal Code. At the same time the Criminal Code must have more power to prosecute and put away those people who abuse children or those people who are involved in child pornography that is so offensive to any kind of civilized society.

I hope we can come to that consensus, that it should be Parliament and not the courts that makes that determination. We can debate what the fine lines are and signal clearly to the courts what the House means.

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

He has been simply handcuffed by his own people.

We have a government that is moribund. In fact, we will be voting on the principle of lack of leadership or the lack of government, or the duality of government that exists on that side of the House.

This House will rise in about a week or so and will not be back until the new king is crowned. That is pathetic. It means that this bill will die on the Order Paper.

In the meantime, what toll will that take on our young Canadians? The government is in a position to do something, but is doing nothing with guys like Mr. Sharpe, the serial pedophile. It is doing nothing with a bill that could eliminate those people from doing those horrible deeds against our children. We could do something in the House. That bill could pass very quickly if there is a willingness on the part of government to do something.

The faint hope clause could be eliminated, so when these people go before the courts, they could be sentenced appropriately and they would not be given the ability to do it again. They would be locked up behind bars, where they deserve to be.

We have to tighten up those loopholes in the Criminal Code. We can do that with Bill C-20. That is something the justice minister has been very reluctant to do.

If the members remember, one of the defences in the Sharpe case was the idea of artistic merit, believe it or not, because the pornography he was displaying or the personal pornography he had was for his own enjoyment. That is a pretty weak defence when a guy can go loose or be on the streets simply because of artistic merit.

The minister does not even address that loophole in the bill. In fact in some of the testimony provided by the minister himself at the committee hearings, he basically admitted that it would not close that loophole. In fact that loophole of artistic merit will still exist in the bill as presently written.

The question is, why would the minister not address that point? Why would he allow a bill like this to go forward if it does not close those loopholes? Why does he fail to stand up for the families that deserve to have their children protected? That is as simple as the argument can get and as basic as the argument has to get. Why would he not do that? He is victimizing our children.

When the justice minister, the one person in Canada who can make a difference, just simply sits there and does not address the needs of Canadians and the protection of young Canadians why should he be there? He is there because he will coast to office I guess on the Martinite train and that is the only reason.

The ministers are not simply there because of their ability to get the job done. They are simply coasting through office. It is time that Canadians take them to task for this and I believe they will in the next election.

Maybe it is time for the limousine Liberals to be derailed. Maybe it is time for Canadians to examine their record very carefully in terms of social justice over the last 10 years. What have they accomplished? We know they have coasted on the economy but they cannot coast forever. This legislation deserves to be passed and should be passed. However some of the recommendations that we have suggested should be in the bill.

At that, I rest my case and look forward to questions and comments from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the two justice critics in the House for the work they did on the bill. Our own justice critic, who is the leader of the PC Party, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the Canadian Alliance member for Provencher did a tremendous job on the bill to improve it.

The fundamental question in terms of protecting our children goes right back to the inability of the government to do anything. It is a habit it has developed over the 10 years it has been in power. There is no question that because of some of the things that previous governments did--and I was a member and sat on the government side on some of the big initiatives that we took to get the economic house in order--the current government has coasted on those over the years. I am talking about such things as free trade and the GST. In fact, it did have money to do things but did not have to pay any attention to detail.

Assuming and accepting that argument, we would expect that. It is what most governments do when the economy is sorrowfully chugging along and going fairly nicely without any major initiatives, in other words, when it is not taking up a lot of its time. I challenge any member on that side of the House to get up and tell me any big economic initiative, trade or taxation policy that the government had to bring in to deal with fiscal difficulties it was facing. The fact of the matter is that it had to do nothing, just keep house and allow the machinery of government to run. And run it did.

The fact is the government had time to pay attention to social and justice issues and it has not done that. In fact, Bill C-20 has practically no support anywhere on this side of the House and very little support on that side of the House. Bill C-20 will never be passed in the life of this Parliament.

When the new leader comes in, the Martinites will take over. I hate to use the term Martinites. I would like to call them termites because they have secretly eroded the foundation of government for the last year and a half to two years.

Now we have a government that is moribund. It does not know how to do anything and there are many examples of that. It is not just Bill C-20. We can look at the fiasco that is taking place with the $700 million announced for rail service on the trade corridor between Windsor and Montreal. There is no clear indication that it will ever happen because the termites, the Martinites, are secretly undermining the government. In fact, we have a justice minister who has been caught up in that as well.

How would you like to have a record like his coming to the House, Mr. Speaker? He is sitting on a bill that could do something, but will do absolutely nothing. He will be sitting there for a long time before that bill is passed in this House simply because there is no will on the part of the government to pass it. In the meantime our children will suffer.

We saw last night the police chief of the City of Toronto, and the pain and hurt that police officers see every day of their lives. How the Government of Canada could miss that message is beyond my belief.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning in the House to take part in this very important debate on the supply motion of the official opposition. I will be dividing my time with the member for New Brunswick Southwest. Let me begin by reiterating the motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children.

They key element of the supply motion is about protecting our children. I am sure that Canadians have been waiting intensely for years for the government to put in legislation that in fact will protect our children.

I have just come from the justice committee where we were doing amendments this morning, clause by clause, for Bill C-23, on the sex offender registry. Already we find that there is one weak point. There is no retroactivity element in the bill. In other words, if the bill passes it will be applicable only to those who are in the process of judicial activity, but there will be no retroactivity. In other words, convicted sex offenders in this country will not have to register anywhere in this country unless they reoffend.

I also want to take my time to give some balance in terms of the debate. Again, I have been fortunate to take part in a lot of the hearings with Bill C-20, which is about child pornography. We have heard from many witnesses. We need to get a balanced presentation on this debate today. I would like to begin by quoting from some of the documents. One witness from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada submitted a presentation that stated:

In conclusion, we are pleased that this legislation [Bill C-20] takes steps to improve the protection of children in Canada and to reduce exploitation of them. We support the amendments that strengthen the child pornography provisions by adding a new broader definition of written pornography and a more narrow defence of public good.

The presentation goes on to state that the increase in maximum sentences for child-related offences is commendable, although the fellowship believes that minimum sentences “would be more effective”. It concludes by saying:

Any reasonable initiative that will make courtroom experiences less traumatic for child victims and witnesses is commendable, as well. We support this provision of Bill C-20.

The presentation then states:

However, we note that Bill C-20's new category of sexual exploitation necessarily places child victims in a courtroom experience and requires them to provide details of their intimate relationships in order to ascertain whether exploitation has taken place. We are concerned that this provision will either further victimize exploited children or be ineffective. A far more effective way to protect young Canadians from sexual exploitation would be to raise the age of consent to sexual activity to 18 years of age.

That is from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Let me proceed to make some statements about what the CBC had to say. Again, members of the artistic community are concerned as well how legislation on pornography will affect them. The recommendation of the CBC is that both specific journalistic defence and in defence of the public interest be included as defences for the offence of voyeurism. It suggests the following wording:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence serve the public good, are in the public interest or the acts were those of a person engaged in journalistic activities for

(i) any newspaper or other paper containing public news, or

(ii) for a broadcaster or internet web news provider licensed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to carry on a broadcasting transmitting undertaking or benefiting from an exemption order of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

Most people in Ontario have heard of Project Guardian. Carrie Kohan appeared before the committee and she had many interesting things to share as she has firsthand experience with sexual predators. In her presentation to the standing committee, she said:

Because we all share in this plight, it is our societal responsibility to put children's rights first. It is our duty to focus our efforts not only on the protection of the child, but also to provide, at the very least, the same level of rehabilitation as that provided today to the child rapist while incarcerated.

She went on to say that:

It is our conclusion that our legislation needs to become tough on this crime. Yes, removing the rights to freedom of the convicted pedophile may seem harsh to the vocal minority, but to the emerging majority it is a logical and necessary step. We need penalties worthy of second thought in Canada, or more specifically we need penalties that will cause pedophiles to have second thoughts about child abuse in Canada, because child rape is a most heinous crime and is deserving of the most severe penalties.

She concluded by saying that if a child victim who had experienced this crime had the opportunity to sit before the committee today, she was sure that he or she would agree with her as well.

The Canadian Conference of the Arts also submitted a brief to the standing committee. Its concern was in relation to the elimination of the artistic merit defence and that it would create confusion and punish artists. It stated in its presentation:

The CCA opposes the elimination of the artistic merit defence in s.163.1. Eight years after s.163.1 was inserted in the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court in Sharpe gave an extensive definition of the artistic merit defence. The CCA was greatly relieved by this development because the definition is broad enough to ensure that young artists or artists working with novel or transgressive subject matter would not suffer the ignominy of being prosecuted in the criminal courts. Although the Court also went on to carve out two exceptions to the offences of possessing or making child pornography, it did so in order to avoid having to strike down the entire law on the ground that it was an overbroad infringement of the freedom of expression. As a result, the child pornography law has largely been “saved” and is wide enough to capture virtually all situations in which expressive material could lead to harm to children.

Let me close by quoting the Writers' Union of Canada. It had great concerns about defences for child pornography. Its summary stated:

We believe that the proposed changes to the child pornography provisions of the Criminal Code set out in Bill C-20 are overbroad and infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They will greatly increase the likelihood of the arbitrary exercise of prosecutorial discretion to lay charges against creators of written and visual material falling within a broadened definition of child pornography, particularly without the existing defence of artistic merit. Our greatest concern is that the sole remaining defence of the public good will not be interpreted by courts to encompass a defence of artistic merit or purpose because Parliament has deliberately chosen to remove this defence from the existing legislation. We submit that the proposed changes to the law will lead to increased self-censorship by writers and other artists and cast a chill on expression of ideas.

In closing, Canadians look forward to legislation that will certainly protect the children of this country.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will have some idea how odd it is for me to be asked a question on the intentions of the minister of justice. I am not one of his confidants, far from it.

The best way to respond is to invite members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and then the members of this House, to be constructive in their criticism. Some of the criticism of the bill has been justified. I said that again today in committee. I believe that, with good will, we can complete consideration of a bill in the House before November 7, since we are probably going to stop sitting on November 7.

Instead of saying that this is no good, must be scrapped, set aside, I think we have a duty to bring in amendments, in committee or here in the House, that will allow it to achieve its purpose. I would like the Alliance members—the hon. member for Wild Rose in particular, who has been working on this issue for years—the members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP, as well as the Liberals, who also have some questions and reservations on Bill C-20, to work together on this.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is working very hard on this already. We are sitting endlessly. Let us improve this bill along with the justice minister, whom I invite, beg even, to be open to any amendments we might suggest. Let us ensure that, after November 7, thanks to this bill from this House, our children will be better protected than before. That is my goal.

I will not come to the defence of my colleague, the justice minister. If, however, he accepts the amendments the Bloc Quebecois proposes, the bill will be more solid, will be a better bill, and will protect our children better. That is the objective of all members of this House.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the justice minister claims, Bill C-20 simply will not provide adequate provisions to protect our children against those who would exploit our children through the use of child pornography.

Why does the Minister of Justice refuse to listen and remove the artistic merit defence under the public good clause of Bill C-20?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech given by the hon. member from the Bloc. I know where he is coming from in terms of the motivation behind the support for the motion.

I believe it is this member who has twin boys who are about five years of age. I can understand why he is so adamant about making sure that whatever we do in the House we get it right. I think that is the message he tried to deliver in his speech: whatever we do, let us get it right. I certainly thank him for his support on this motion, because I think that is what we all want to do. I think that is what you want to see, Mr. Speaker, and I know that is what I want to see accomplished. I think even the justice minister wants to see it and is attempting to do it through Bill C-20.

However, the word is out fairly strongly from the experts. I have not listened to the witnesses at the committee, but I have talked to the same individuals in person when doing my research. They simply say that Bill C-20 needs a powerful lot of improvement and is ineffective in its present form.

Would the member comment on what needs to happen to Bill C-20 to make it effective such that it would have the same intent that I have with this motion?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on this final allotted day on the business of supply. It is worth noting that last year the final opposition day was in early December. This indicates the government's firm intention to avoid the embarrassing situation that would arise if the member for LaSalle—Émard were to return to the House after his coronation on November 14 as de facto head of the federal government.

The Canadian Alliance motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children.

The wording of this motion could give rise to a number of questions. I will start by addressing its intent, and will move on to the wording later on. It is rather a rare occurrence for the Bloc Quebecois to be so strongly in agreement with the Canadian Alliance, whose repressive and regressive approach generally does not correspond with the vision of Quebec.

Nevertheless, no one could oppose the highly sensitive subject we are addressing today, for the simple reason that it is a basic matter of protecting those who are fundamental to the continuation of our society: our future, that is our children.

In my opinion, the sexual exploitation of children is the most vile and perverse form of pornography. Parliamentarians have a moral duty to protect the must vulnerable members of our society, our children, who also constitute our greatest treasure. In my opinion, of all deviant behaviours, sexually deviant behaviours that is, the exploitation of children is the one that is evidence of the most vile and profound psychological disturbance.

It may be astounding to some of us that certain individuals entertain sexual fantasies involving children, the same sort of angry shock we feel when cases of pedophilia and child pornography are made public. Unfortunately, this is the sad reality, and the advent of new communications technologies has made possible a dramatic increase in this phenomenon, in the more anonymous, as it were, setting of the Internet.

There is no doubt whatsoever in the minds of any of us who have had the misfortune to see just what horrors, what disgusting material, can be found on the Internet, that action must be taken, action that must be as firm and immediate as possible.

Bound children, tortured children, exploited children, wounded children who will remain damaged all their lives, that is what we can find much too easily today, on the Internet and elsewhere. As parliamentarians it is our duty to say, “Enough. Stop it now,” and to put into place all the necessary legislative measures to protect our children and provide the police with the tools they need to fight this plague.

Pornographers and pedophiles often succeed in infiltrating what are called “e-circles”, clandestine, transient, electronic networks, which grow up and die off quickly, making it more difficult for the police to infiltrate them.

Of course, some perverted people will inevitably make a mistake that gives away their identity, but too often, many more get away.

According to Cpl. François Doré of the Sûreté du Québec, the Ottawa Interpol office dealt with more than 500 cases of juvenile pornography on the Web during 2001, which was double the previous year's total.

In an article on January 21, 2002 in La Presse , the same Cpl. Doré quite rightly observed:

That is not just an increase; it is an explosion.

He calls upon us to act. That is one more reason why governments, with all the means at their disposal, must fight to eliminate this plague that attacks the most vulnerable and most fragile among us, our children.

Internet chat rooms are also favourite places for sexual predators, who often lure young people into virtual conversations, or chats. In these virtual forums it is all too easy for a 50-year-old to pass for a 13 year-old boy and strike up erotic or sexual conversations with girls or boys the same age.

The purpose of the Canadian Alliance motion is to eliminate all possible forms and means of defence in the legislation on child pornography, for anyone possessing the material targeted by the law. Here we must be very careful.

As we know, the House is considering Bill C-20, which deals specifically with amendments to the Criminal Code. This legislation has been debated and studied for some time in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The Bloc Quebecois has developed the best approach to the issue, in my view, because we have taken into account specific situations that could prevent the spread of this scourge. We also listened carefully to all the experts, particularly the police experts, who appeared before the committee and shared their point of view.

As we have said, we are in favour of Bill C-20 because we feel that this bill touches on several important aspects of criminal law and introduces new provisions that have become necessary because of the technology around us.

However, obviously some of the provisions raise questions, doubts and reservations in our minds, particularly with respect to the sensitive issue of possession of child pornography.

I cannot emphasis strongly enough the profound perversion associated with child pornography. However, it is important for parliamentarians to question the need, for a therapist for instance, to possess a certain amount of this material for the purpose of clinically treating sexual deviances.

To encompass some possible defences, the government introduced the concept of public good. We have not expressed any reservations with respect to the concept of public good in Bill C-20, but we will have many reservations if the concept is not defined better. We are going to present many amendments in committee in order to establish a clear definition of public good, if it is to stay in the bill.

I have examples of clarifications to be made to the concept of public good. We all agree that the possession of pornographic videos involving children would be considered a criminal offence. However, a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of pedophiles could justify having such videos in his possession for treatment purposes because his possessing such tapes serves the public good. In this case, the possession of videos is more helpful than harmful.

Another example which I find justified or justifiable concerns the law enforcement agencies specialized in cracking down on child pornography. It seems normal to me that these agencies should have access to a certain amount of material in order to track sexual predators on the web, or Internet, and convict them.

The next example concerns medical research or teaching, police officers for instance, those called on to fight this scourge, what child pornography is all about and how it can be detected, or teaching future psychiatrists and psychologists in university possible treatments for the sexual deviances or perversions affecting child pornographers.

Without going as far as proposing an amendment to the motion of our colleagues from the Canadian Alliance, I would encourage all hon. members to give some thought to what I have said as they reflect on the motion. I encourage them to consider in an open yet in-depth manner this bill, which the justice minister himself described as subject to improvement.

In addition, I encourage the government to be open to constructive amendments from all sides of the House, because we must all work hand in hand, as parliamentarians, in order to eradicate this scourge in our society.

Finally, while the wording may not be the most appropriate, I urge my hon. colleagues to support the motion anyway, because its basic intent is clearly to protect our children. This intent of protecting our children could be acted on by improving the bill brought before us through constructive amendments to ensure that our children, the most precious and vulnerable members of our society, are protected as much as possible, because they represent our future.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Please let me finish.

People are hearing from witnesses. People will have their say as well and the chance to propose some amendments. We do not pretend that the bill is perfect. As I said, we believe it is a fantastic piece of legislation. If we can improve it, we will. I would be more than pleased to have very positive proposals.

However, what I cannot accept and I will never accept is an opposition party that says “no” to passing an important bill such as Bill C-20, when a minister of the crown has asked for it to be passed. Today the opposition members will have to stand up and tell Canadians that they will support Bill C-20. They will do their jobs at the justice committee and if they do not, they will have to explain to Canadians why they have refused to offer the best protection possible for them.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 touches on the question of child pornography. It has new measures as well with regard to the protection of the most vulnerable in our society.

First, we are touching on the question of the sentencing. As a government, we respect the process in place. The member knows very well that the bill is before the justice committee and members are hearing witnesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister rattle on and on about Bill C-20 as the placebo, as the answer to all our ill will here.

The problem with Bill C-20 is that we have had a majority government for 10 years and it has not moved on it. If child protection is a priority, I would hate to see something that is not a priority. This is a snail's pace, even worse. We are going backwards according to police associations and the justice community. They are saying that Bill C-20 does not do it.

The big thing the minister goes on and on about, and I have to reply to a petition I have here on child pornography, is the increase in maximum sentencing. It is not the maximum that needs to be increased. It is the minimum that needs to be increased. That is not addressed at all.

I have a short question for the minister. Where is the truth in sentencing in Bill C-20? Where is the consecutive sentencing for perpetrators of child pornography in Bill C-20?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

It is true for this government and even though sometimes they make comments, I believe that members on the other side of the House have exactly the same aim and goal.

Look at what we have done as a country over the past few years. First, I said in my remarks that we have one of the best pieces of legislation in the world nationally speaking. We have to be proud of that.

Also, look at what took place in the United States. About a year ago they were discussing the question of virtual child pornography which was maybe or maybe not covered by existing legislation following a judgment of the U. S. supreme court. With the existing legislation that Canada has, virtual child pornography is strictly criminal. As I said, there is no place for such an offence in Canada or anywhere else in the world.

As well we have proceeded as a government with Bill C-15A which created the new offence of Internet luring. It has been used successfully in order to charge people using new technologies. Bill C-15A is quite a nice piece of legislation which ensures that those people committing such an offence will not be able to use new technology in order to exploit the children of our nation.

Look at what we did within the G-8. Canada is actually one of the leaders in trying to increase cooperation to create and develop new tools in order to make sure we deter people from getting involved in such a crime anywhere in the world. We have been working over the past few years and we are going to keep working hard.

Opposition members know very well that we have also established a pilot project with the government of Manitoba and my counterpart the justice minister, Gordon Mackintosh. We have been working together in order to establish Cybertip.ca, which is a tip line for people to get in touch with Cybertip. Let me say that when we look at the stats, it is amazing what they have been able to do working together, working with the population.

From September 2002 to July 2003, 324 reports were made to Cybertip.ca. Ninety per cent of these concerned child pornography on the Internet and 9% dealt with the question of the new offence of Internet luring. Of the total, 152, or 42%, were forwarded to law enforcement agencies for action and resulted in four arrests. Thirty-five other cases are under active investigation.

We on this side of the House, the Liberal government, are working hard in order to take concrete action, concrete measures. Now we are facing a new step which is Bill C-20, an answer to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sharpe decision, making sure that we will increase the protection of our children, making sure that we will have better legislation as well.

Today I am asking as justice minister those people on the other side of the House to support Bill C-20. What I am asking is that they stand today and say that yes, they will support Bill C-20 because they believe in the future of this nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that the justice minister would go on with that rhetoric.

Since 1993 the government has been in charge of this issue. It is now 2003. For the member's information, it is a lot worse in 2003 than it has ever been. That is what the police departments told the committee. I know the minister knows it. He has heard it time and time again. He has heard it from the lawyers throughout the country time and time again. Bill C-20 does not cut it. The rhetoric goes on. It is not the answer. We need more than that.

The minister talked about public good. Of course if a journalist wants to investigate a pornography ring to break it up and bring it to light, that is for the good of the public. Nobody denies that. All the hours of hard work the police are doing and having all of what they confiscate in their possession, of course that is for the good of the public. One does not have to be very smart to figure that out. People who try to figure out why people do these things against our kids, the psychologists, psychiatrists, or whatever they are, and they have the material in their possession for research and whatever, of course that is for the good of the public. Nobody argues that.

At the present time it sounds to me that the police departments that have this material in their possession once again will have to spend hours going through the material to make absolutely certain that it is not for the public good, piece by piece, like they do now for artistic merit. That has not been taken care of.

I find it strange that the justice minister would jump up, point a finger over here and say we are saying it will never happen. It is the police and the lawyers who are saying that the bill is not good enough. The only ones who are saying it is good enough are the justice minister and others in that front row. If they cannot get it right, they should redo it. They have the opportunity by supporting a motion like this one.

The exploitation of children must come to an end. Bill C-20 will not accomplish that, as testified to by all the experts. I am no expert. I am repeating their words. And by George, the minister is no expert either. He ought to listen to them. Why will he not listen to them?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I cannot believe what I just heard from the other side. I am counting on members to support me and pass Bill C-20 in order to ensure that as a country we keep giving our young the best protection in the world. The member just said that the passing of Bill C-20 will never happen. This is a disgusting comment.

We believe that Canada as a society needs Bill C-20 in order to increase the protection of children. As well we need Bill C-20 in order to answer the Sharpe decision.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand what the government is doing. We are working for the future of our nation. Listen to what was just said. He said no to the passing of Bill C-20. He should be ashamed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on a subject the government holds to be fundamental, that is, ensuring that we, as a society, can provide all the protection our young people deserve against people who commit the hideous crime of child pornography. It is a crime that has no place in Canadian society. And when I look at our relationships with the G-8 countries, I can say it is a crime that has no place in the world.

I am looking at the motion put forward by our colleagues in the Canadian Alliance. Essentially, this motion asks the government to eliminate all possible defences for possession of child pornography, which allow for the exploitation of children.

The basic motivation behind this motion is the desire to protect our children from all forms of sexual exploitation. I believe, when I look at all the parties and all the hon. members of this House, that each one of us has the same desire and that is that we want to take whatever action is possible to make sure that we can provide young Canadians with this kind of protection.

As I said before, this objective is at the heart of the government's ongoing commitment to protecting children from exploitation and all forms of mistreatment. This commitment was recently expressed in Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, which I introduced myself on December 5, 2002.

The preamble to Bill C-20 echoes the importance of the issues addressed by the motion. In particular, the preamble notes:

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

As hon. members know, there are five key components of Bill C-20: first, strengthening the child pornography provisions; second, providing better protection to young persons against sexual exploitation; third, strengthening sentencing provisions related to offences against children; fourth, facilitating testimony by child victims and witnesses and other vulnerable witnesses; and fifth, modernizing the criminal law by creating a new voyeurism offence.

I welcome this motion because I believe Bill C-20 delivers what is proposed by the motion.

Currently, the Criminal Code provides a defence for material that has artistic merit or serves an educational, scientific or medical purpose. It also makes the public good defence available for all child pornography offences.

Hon. members will recall that the constitutionality of the offence of possession of child pornography was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001 in the Sharpe case. In its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed Parliament's goal of protecting children from sexual exploitation through child pornography.

A key element in the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the overall child pornography scheme was the existence of the current child pornography defences.

Bill C-20 is consistent with the Supreme Court decision. It is intended to simplify and reduce the number of defences that now exist, merging them into one defence based on the public good. In each case, the validity of this defence will be determined in two stages.

First, does the material or act in question serve the public good? If it does not, then there will be 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 will be no defence. In other words, does the risk of harm posed by an act or material in question outweigh any potential benefit to society? If it does, no defence will be available. This is what today's motion proposes.

Let me explain what is meant by public good because this concept has been misunderstood by some.

In the recent Sharpe case, the Supreme Court of Canada considered a public good defence specifically in the context of child pornography, including the meaning of public good. The Supreme Court noted that the public good had been interpreted as including matters that were necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice, the pursuit of science, literature, art or other objects of general interest.

This interpretation is perhaps more clearly understood if one considers how it might operate at a practical level. For example, the administration of justice would include the possession of child pornography as part of a police investigation of a child pornography offence, the possession of child pornography by crown prosecutors for the purpose of prosecuting a child pornography offence and the possession of child pornography by police and prosecutors for the purpose of providing training to police and prosecutors on the conduct of child pornography investigations and prosecutions or even for the purpose of providing educational session to parliamentarians on the harms of child pornography.

All these purposes fall within the administration of justice and all of them necessarily require police and prosecutors to possess child pornography to do their job, a job which the government recognizes as serving the public good.

Bill C-20 recognizes that law enforcement officials must be able to track down child pornographers and protect victims. They are performing a difficult job which serves the public interest and, therefore, they should have the protection of the law.

Consider another example: a journalist who is doing an investigative news story on a child pornography ring. In the course of exposing the child porn ring, this journalist may come into contact with material that constitutes child porn. Again, this expose serves the public good and, as a society, we value this kind of work. Again I believe that this approach is consistent with today's motion.

The proposal in Bill C-20 of a single defence of public good also adds another criterion that is not currently provided for in the artistic merit defence.

Under the current artistic merit defence, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, any objectively established artistic value provides a complete defence. From that perspective, there is no requirement to balance this merit, or good, against any potential harm to society.

Under Bill C-20, the courts must also take into account a second criterion, namely whether the “good” served by an act or any material related to an act offsets potential harm.

Just because there is only one defence, based on public good, does not mean that the legislator is suggesting that child pornography is acceptable. Clearly this is not the case. The government has taken very tangible steps, which denounce child pornography in no uncertain terms.

Bill C-20 proposes another reform with respect to child pornography. It proposes broadening the definition of written child pornography to include materials that advocate or counsel prohibited sexual activity with children, and also materials that describe prohibited sexual activity with children where the written descriptions of that activity are the dominant characteristic of the material and the material was written for a sexual purpose.

The bill includes this proposal because the government recognizes the harm this type of material can cause to children and to Canadian society by describing children as objects of sexual exploitation.

As well, I want to emphasize that the proposals in Bill C-20 seek better protection against sexual exploitation through child pornography in a manner that will withstand charter scrutiny.

The government takes very seriously its responsibility to protect children against all forms of sexual exploitation, including child pornography, as well as its responsibility to uphold the charter. I repeat that it is not a question of doing one or the other. Bill C-20 does both.

The purpose of Bill C-20 is to refine all the prohibitions already in place in Canada with respect to child pornography, prohibitions which are among the strictest in the world.

Since 1993, it has been an offence under the Criminal Code to make, print, publish or possess for the purpose of publication any child pornography, to import, distribute, sell or possess for the purpose of distribution or sale any child pornography, or to possess any child pornography.

Since July 2002, and as a result of Bill C-15A, it has also been an offence under the Criminal Code to transmit, make available or export child pornography or possess child pornography for the purpose of transmission, making available or exporting, as well as to access child pornography.

The same set of reforms also allowed the courts to order child pornography deleted from computer systems, including websites in Canada, and created the new offence of using a computer system in a way, such as through the Internet, to communicate with a child for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against that child.

In addition to these important legislative measures, the government continues to work with its G-8 partners in developing a common strategy to counter the exploitation of children via the Internet. This strategy is comprised of measures to improve international cooperation, prevention, public awareness and local actions in other countries.

There is one extremely important point to be made here. We in Canada have one of the toughest laws in the world, born of our desire to fight tenaciously against this crime, which is so fundamentally heinous and has no place whatsoever in our society, or indeed in any other.

We are well aware, however, that this crime is now taking on a new dimension, a new form because of the variety of means of communication now available, including the Internet. Because of these new technologies, crime is no longer limited by borders.

It goes without saying that perhaps what is required first and foremost to remedy this situation properly is good international cooperation. At the last G-8 meeting in Paris, we had an opportunity to discuss stepping up cooperation and to examine certain studies carried out, precisely with a view to determining solid bases for that cooperation.

We also had the opportunity at that time to hear the views of others involved in international investigations. Once again, they demonstrated the importance of working together internationally in order to ensure that we are able to seek and destroy these networks wherever they are established, even if they work out of countries that may be somewhat less vigilant as far as their legislation or police intervention is concerned.

As Minister of Justice it is my responsibility to ensure that our criminal laws, our policies and indeed the criminal justice system itself reflect evolving Canadian values and emerging justice issues.

The government recognizes the importance of ensuring a strong and effective criminal law response to child pornography. Our children represent our future. We will not allow the most vulnerable in our society to be victimized by pornography. That is what Canadians expect us to do.

The protection of children bill is currently before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I call on hon. members to protect our children by supporting Bill C-20 and to ensure its swift passage. This will enable Canada to continue to be a world leader in the fight against child pornography and the protection of our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has brought up an important point. It is the very issue that I started my speech off with concerning the key word in the motion which is exploitation.

We know that the police have possession of child pornography. We know that many psychologists and psychiatrists throughout the country might be doing research in this area and will have possession of it. However, we know that they are not the exploiters of child pornography. There would be no reason to bring a charge against these people because they are not exploiting children through this material.

I do not believe there is a police officer or a crown prosecutor or even a judge in this country who would entertain the idea of bringing any of those people to court. Somewhere along the line some common sense has to enter into the picture. If individuals were to have this material in their possession for reasons other than the exploitation of our children, then the police should examine those reasons. The police will know what to do with it. The point is that the seriousness of the exploitation that is going on is completely out of control. If there is a better way to word that, then I would like to know what it would be.

From the articles that I have read, many lawyers and bar associations around the country are saying that Bill C-20 will never meet the charter test. This might possibly be challenged under the charter. If the huge majority of people who run this country make the decision that, regardless of what challenges may be brought forward, this particular material must cease to exist, that decision must be made loud and clear to the courts. They must tell our courts that this material must be removed from the face of the earth and will not be allowed.

If it comes to the point where the charter interferes with that decision, then maybe it is time to consider the notwithstanding clause. I do not believe that the people who created the charter of rights ever dreamed for a moment that it would protect child pornographers. Possibly, some of the things in the charter may not agree with what Canadians believe in, and so there is an out. If we are worried about this, the notwithstanding clause is our out.

Mr. Trudeau and all the fellows who put the charter together were wise enough to know that there may be conflicts so they put the notwithstanding clause in to be used. However, I understand that a large number of people on the government side absolutely refuse to ever use that clause. When it comes to this kind of issue, this is the time to use the notwithstanding clause.

We must put an end to this evil. That is what we are attempting to do today. I believe that through the collective wisdom of the House we can do it and do it right. If it comes to a point, because of judicial activism, that this is declared unconstitutional, then we have an out. We need to consider that out, and we should think about it right from the get go.

The kind of country that we want to live in should not be determined by the judges of our land. That should be determined by the people, either through direct or indirect democracy. They must decide what kind of country they want to live in.

I am sure the member will agree with me that probably 99% of the people of this land do not want to live in a country where child pornography is a major industry. We must end it. However we do it, we must do it and do it quickly.

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to speak on this particular issue. I have been trying to achieve this day for a long time and we are finally here. I hope this will be the day on which we will able to accomplish a real and true victory for the children of our country, because that is what this motion is all about. It is about our kids and the difficulties facing them regarding so many issues in our system that allow crimes against them to be committed.

I want to read the motion to the House. Once again, it states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children.

There is a key word in this motion, which I want to point out to all members, a word that is so important because the arguments against such a motion would not reflect this key word. If people stop and think about it, they will understand why it is so essential that we have this kind of system in place. That word is “exploitation”.

The reason I say this is that when we have discussed child pornography in the past, a number of questions have arisen from members in the House who claimed that any laws that would tighten up this child pornography law to the extent which we are asking for today would mean that parents who had at home a picture of their small children taking their first bath could be prosecuted. I even heard in this House that if some student was carrying around Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet , that could be interpreted as pornography. Or if doctors had nude pictures of a child in their offices for medical reasons, or if psychologists or psychiatrists wanted to do some research in this field and had in their possession certain items of child pornography, that could get them into trouble.

But all those examples do not exploit the child. This is why it is so important to remember that word.

The exploitation of our children has become of epidemic proportions throughout this country. We need only go to our neighbours in Toronto, to the Toronto police force and its sex crimes unit, where they will tell us, as Julian Fantino and other members of the sex crimes unit have stated time and time again, that this is becoming a very serious problem. It is jeopardizing the lives and the welfare of so many kids that it has to be addressed and it needs to be addressed immediately.

This is why I am pleased that we could do this today. I believe that October 28 ought to mark the day when every member in this House says to the people of this nation that October 28 is the day on which we decided, all 301 of us regardless of political stripe, because it is not a political issue, that today we are going to provide victory for the young kids of our country.

For 10 years I have been here and for 10 years many of us from all sides of the House have attempted to address this particular issue, to do something about it, because we do not want to hear about any more young children being abducted and sexually assaulted and then later found murdered.

I talked about Toronto. I think of the incident that happened to the Jones family and their little girl Holly. It absolutely sickens me to think that a young child had to face such a tragic ending to her life. I cannot even imagine what would be going through the hearts of the family of this young girl and those acquainted with her.

We have very good evidence. All of us should have had the evidence presented to us at one time or another. I know my colleagues from Okanagan—Shuswap, Fraser Valley and Calgary Northeast, who have travelled the country and visited penitentiaries, will tell everyone that when we personally visited with those who were in prison for sexually assaulting or murdering a young child, nine out of ten of them said that the reason they got to that point was because they were absolutely hooked on child pornography, and that eventually pictures, images and stories no longer fulfilled their inner needs and they had to act out their fantasies. Their compulsion was overwhelming and it caused them to do what they did.

That has been proven through all kinds of studies. All kinds of people who are involved in the work of psychology or criminology will say that child pornography has played a major role in affecting those adult individuals who have and who will eventually attack our children. There is no doubt about that.

If there were any kind of chemical or substance of any kind, whether it be food or whatever, that would be dangerous to our health, we would react immediately and remove that item. We would get rid of it because we do not want to bring harm upon anyone. For the life of me I cannot understand how a nation can sit by and watch pornography, particularly child pornography, go to the extent it has where it has become a billion dollar industry.

For heaven's sake, people are making big bucks on selling some of the worst garbage anyone could ever imagine and we have allowed it to get to the point where the chiefs of police in various parts of the country are saying that it is getting out of control. They want to do something about it. They want to remove it just like we would remove rotten food from the menu of this place, but their hands are tied because we have not provided them with the ability to do so.

Why do we even want to take the chance of something like that being challenged. Why do the 301 of us not declare today, and today is the day to do it, that child pornography will no longer be part of this nation's environment and that we will eliminate it. The 301 of us from the highest court in the land should send the message to the judges throughout the country that this is the way it will be and that the people in the courts, whenever this kind of material is brought to their attention, will lay charges when it exploits our kids, because that is what it is all about. It is about our kids.

We must not continue to tie the hands of the police. We must give them the tools and the ability to do their jobs so they can do what they want to do most, which is clean up this mess and provide real protection to our kids.

In Toronto, in the sex crimes units, particularly those sex crimes against children, they have confiscated over two million items of child pornography. It is because of the laws that we have on the books now and because of Bill C-20, which will be presented some time in the near future. I understand the justice minister wants it passed before Christmas. However that bill is not the answer. The police have to go through every one of the two million pieces to make absolutely certain that they do not have artistic merit or there is not some public good. Can anyone imagine those officers spending 10 to 12 hours a day only looking at material like that, material that displays a 14 month old baby in diapers being raped and tortured by two adult men, or one and two year old little girls being brutally treated by adult men?

I do not want to get into the graphics of what I have seen. I am sure a lot of members in here have seen what I have seen. It is available to us. We just need to examine what these people are having to do. Can anyone imagine what we would be like after a month or two of that? No one should have to be subjected to that kind of thing.

A law should be in place saying that this kind of material exploits our children and it is not allowed. It should state that people cannot have it in their possession, they cannot produce it, they cannot distribute it and, if they do, they will pay a heavy price through the laws of our land because it is no longer tolerated.

In answer to a question that I asked the justice minister yesterday, he made a statement that the member well knows that Bill C-20 addresses that problem and that the member well knows that the government will do something about this issue. The member for Provencher will address Bill C-20 at greater length than I will, but I can tell the minister that, no, I do not know that, the police do not know that, the courts do not know that and the prosecutors do not know that. It is only the justice minister who thinks he knows that but he has not convinced anyone. He certainly has not convinced the police who to me are the most important people in the land. They should at least be the ones who know that what they have in their hands will be sufficient to put an end to this tragic event that is going on day after day.

This stuff is not just confined to cities. It is now leaking into the rural communities. I have 16 RCMP detachments in my riding and I have contacted most of them. They have said, yes, they have had complaints brought to them regarding child pornography but that the only thing they can do is refer them to the city police for help because they do not have the training, the expertise or the knowledge on how to deal with it.

Let us give them the opportunity. Let us start a national strategy. Let us put some dollars into a worthwhile project. Do not tell me we cannot find the dollars, not when we brag about a $7 billion surplus. Let us put that money to good work by protecting our kids and providing them with some safety.

Statistics have shown that in Canada one out of every two females and one out of every three males will be sexually assaulted in our land. Those are not very good odds. And, yes, it is true, a lot of it is within the family. It is not just strangers on the outside. It may be because mom or dad or both got hooked on some fantasy regarding child pornography and it developed into sexually assaulting their own children.

Some families may focus on the idea of the big bucks the industry brings in and decide to use their own kids and exploit the daylights out of them to get certain things in some material, whether it be a film or picture, and make money through distributing and selling it.

However the reasons do not matter. The point is that we have thousands of families who are victims of severe, horrendous, heinous sexual crimes against kids. What a life they must lead from that point on. What a tragedy and a tragedy that could be prevented.

Chief Fantino said “if only we had the courage, the conviction and the will the problem could be addressed”. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that Chief Fantino and my colleagues have the courage and the will and we want it done today.

I know for a fact that many members throughout the House on all sides have the same feeling. Today is the day to put our feelings aside and put them into action by supporting the motion and passing it in the House of Commons. All of us have kids in our lives, whether we are moms, dads, grandfathers, grandmothers, aunts, uncles or just friends. We all have a connection to some young kids and we want them protected.

Let us not leave here today cheering that we have done this and then nothing happens for awhile. Let us get at it and make it happen. I have seen too many motions passed in the House. I saw a motion on the rights of victims pass in the House but it never went anywhere. The sex registry motion was passed by the House and almost two years later we are still waiting for something to happen.

We cannot wait. Lives are at stake. The safety of the children you know, Mr. Speaker, is at stake. It is time we took some serious action for the sake of our kids. We know the story behind all this and how it has got out of hand. Why do we want to be part of the problem? Let us be the solution today.

Let us put it to the nation that as of October 28, 2003 child pornography and the exploitation of children will no longer be an acceptable activity in this country and that people who engage in it will be in a lot of trouble. Let us stamp it out once and for all. It am not talking about a crime or even something that is bad. I am talking about something that is downright evil, evil that is happening to our children, and it has to stop.

I plead with every mother, grandmother and every other person who feels the way I feel on this issue to contact their MPs and let them know they want action, not just words or a friendly vote at the end of the day, but that something be put in place today. If we have to stay here until 6 o'clock tomorrow morning to get it done I will be here because it is worth doing. Let us get it done before Christmas. I ask the Justice Minister to join the parade. Let us really mean it. We do not need more phony legislation that will not deal with it. If we are going to do it, let us do it right and do it right now.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we should make sure that we pass Bill C-20 as soon as we can. Bill C-20 is in answer to the Sharpe decision of the Supreme Court, as we know very well.

Over the past few years we have enacted new provisions and new offences within the Criminal Code in order to increase the protection of children. I am talking about the question of Internet luring, which is a brand new offence. We have created, jointly with the Government of Manitoba, a new tool for police forces called Cybertip.ca, which is a very effective tool.

We will keep working together in order to offer young Canadians the best protection possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know nothing of the sort, nor does Chief Fantino.

I would like members to listen to what else he had to say. He said that regardless of Bill C-20 and political assurances to the contrary:

--Canada lacks both the vision, the determination and the moral courage to address this issue.

When will the minister find some courage and start leading the fight against child pornography, instead of sitting on the sidelines and never even bringing up the rear? Will the minister commit today to eliminating all defences for child pornography?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question on the protection of children in our society is very important.

The member knows full well that Canada has one of the best pieces of legislation in the world and it is one that we are actually improving. He also knows that Bill C-20, a bill ensuring that we offer much better protection to our children here in Canada, is before the justice committee. I invite all parties in the House to support Bill C-20 and ensure the bill is passed as soon as possible.

Child Pornography

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

Mr. Speaker, following the B.C. court decision in the case of John Robin Sharpe, “artistic merit” was replaced with “public good” instead of all defences for production and possession of child pornography being eliminated.

Police forces across the country have had enough problems when it comes to arresting and convicting child pornographers. Now, each piece of pornography has to be examined to make sure that it is not for the public good. This is complex, labour intensive and expensive. The Toronto police have confiscated pornographic material from over 800 people in the last year, but to date only 65 cases have been taken to court.

Canada needs a strategic national response to the growing problem of child exploitation and the Internet, better funding, specialized training for police, and computer technology that is up to date.

We are falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to fighting this horrific crime against children. This is a growing problem, spilling out into our rural areas, and it is not being addressed by this government, especially through Bill C-20. Let us join together and stamp out child pornography.

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today and present a petition on behalf of constituents in Prince George--Peace River, notably from the rural areas of Cecil Lake and Buick and the communities of Mackenzie and Chetwynd and the city of Prince George.

These constituents would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians. They believe that the Liberal bill, Bill C-20, does not adequately protect our nation's children. They believe that the Liberal government has not prevented artistic merit from being used as a defence for the production and possession of child pornography. Therefore they call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify child pornography are outlawed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to present petitions on behalf of my constituents of Prince George—Peace River.

First, I have two petitions that deal with the issue of child pornography, signed by constituents primarily from the town of Chetwynd and the cities of Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. My constituents would like to draw Parliament's attention to the fact that they believe the Liberal Bill C-20 does not adequately protect our nation's children. Therefore they call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify child pornography are outlawed in law.

Points of Orders

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the payment by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency of ex gratia payments for the heating fuel rebates, and specifically the ongoing payments that are being made under a program that we all thought had been brought to a conclusion.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada paid out over $1.4 billion in heating fuel rebates that the government said were urgently needed in January of 2001. To obtain the spending authority to make such payments, a Governor General's special warrant was granted because Parliament had been dissolved for the general election of November 2000 and had not yet been recalled. Unfortunately, payments are still being made even though that spending authority under the special warrant lapsed at the end of the 2000-01 fiscal year pursuant to section 30(2) of the Financial Administration Act.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you will find from the evidence I provide today that the Government of Canada does not have the authority to continue providing heating fuel rebates since its authority has lapsed. As Marleau and Montpetit state at page 697:

No tax may be imposed, or money spent, without the consent of Parliament.

Marleau and Montpetit also state at page 704:

--appropriations are always made with a time limit; the spending authorization provided under an appropriation act expires at the end of the fiscal year to which the Act applies.

Bill C-20 of the first session of the 37th Parliament states that it was “An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2001”.

Section 3 of the act deals with the confirmation of the payments for special warrants for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, and states:

The payment from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the sum of $3,509,910,912 for the purposes set out in the schedules to the special warrants signed by the Governor General pursuant to section 30 of the Financial Administration Act and orders of the Governor in Council of December 13, 2000...January 9, 2001...and January 23, 2001...and published in No. 52 of Volume 134, and Nos. 4 and 6 of Volume 135 of Part I of the Canada Gazette dated December 23, 2000, January 27, 2001 and February 10, 2001, respectively, is hereby confirmed.

I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the point that these warrants are for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001 and Bill C-20 was for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001. However the spending under this program continues.

Beauchesne's sixth edition makes a number of references to the expiration of spending authority, specifically citations 933 and 934. I made reference to these citations and citation 968 on June 8, 1999 at page 16053 of the Debates when I raised a point of order regarding the title of a supply bill and its reference to two fiscal years.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, while the government has the authority to make ex gratia payments, Parliament has to appropriate the funds for them. During Parliament's dissolution when there is no opportunity for appropriation for a payment that is urgently needed for the public good, Parliament has authorized the use of the Governor General's special warrants which must be confirmed in a supply bill placed before Parliament, which was in this Bill C-20 that I referred to earlier.

A brief history of the situation regarding the heating fuel rebate payments under the Governor General's special warrants is on pages 9 to 13 of chapter 13 of the 2001 report of the Auditor General of Canada, and I quote selectively. It states:

In the October 2000 Economic Statement, the government announced that it wanted to provide some relief for increased heating expenses. It proposed that those eligible to receive the January 2001 payment of the goods and services tax credit would also receive the relief for heating expenses. The amount of the relief would be $125 for individuals or $250 for families. The total estimated cost was $1.345 billion. On 19 October 2000, the House of Commons approved a Notice of Ways and Means motion that included the government's proposal.

It goes on to state:

On 22 October 2000, Parliament was dissolved for the general election. Legislation to authorize the payments had not been introduced before Parliament was dissolved...

On 12 December 2000, the Governor in Council approved an order-in-council to authorize payments for increased heating expenses. The recipients of the payments would be those eligible to receive the January 2001 payment of the goods and services tax credit...

On 9 January 2001, the Governor in Council directed that a special warrant be prepared to authorize the payment of $1.294 billion for relief for heating expenses. On 23 January 2001, the Governor in Council directed that another special warrant be prepared to authorize the payment of a further $227 million for the same purpose...

On 31 January 2001, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency started mailing cheques to about 8.6 million recipients. The total cost of the relief for the year ended 31 March 2001 was $1.459 billion. The payments were charged to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's operating expenditures vote and are included in Other Transfer Payments in the Public Accounts of Canada...

It goes on to state, “The special warrants were reported to Parliament on 12 February 2001 in a document entitled “Statement on Governor General's Special Warrants”.

That is the end of the selective quotes from the Auditor General's report.

On page 30 of that statement on Governor General's special warrants, there is an amount under vote 1 for Canada Customs and Revenue Agency of $1,706,171,342 of which $1,521,819,000 was available to the government under the heating fuel rebate program. According to the Public Accounts of Canada at year ended March 31, 2001, the government had spent $1.459 billion, leaving a balance of $62,819,000 authorized but unspent.

As you will agree however, Mr. Speaker, there was no authority for the government to carry that amount forward to a subsequent year, and that is the point which I am arguing.

In Marleau and Montpetit at page 747 there is a short dissertation on the use of Governor General's special warrants. I know, Mr. Speaker, of your particular interest in the use of Governor General's special warrants. On page 747 of Marleau and Montpetit, it summarizes section 30(1) of the Financial Administration Act, and states:

In a very special circumstance, the Financial Administration Act allows the Governor in Council... to issue a Special Warrant...provided that the following conditions are met:

Parliament is dissolved;

A Minister has reported that an expenditure is urgently required for the public good; and

The President of the Treasury Board has reported that there is no appropriation for the payment.

In short, all three principles must be present for a special warrant to be issued.

Therefore, I was very interested when I received a letter as chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts from Mr. Richard Neville, the Deputy Comptroller General of Canada, dated April 23, 2003, which states, among other things:

I am seeking the endorsement of the Public Accounts Committee for the following waivers to the publication of details related to ex gratia payments.

He goes on to say:

As the heating fuel rebate was based on the eligibility for the GST tax credit, additional payments will be made as periodic re-assessments for GST tax credit eligibility occur.

However that authority has long since expired for these payments.

Mr. Neville appeared as a witness before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on May 12 to formally ask for a publication waiver in the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year 2002-03 for a variety of items, including the heating fuel rebate. At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Mr. Neville stated that for the fiscal year 2002-03, the amount paid out for heating fuel rebates totalled $13,086,165 and he indicated that the government would be paying out additional rebates for the fiscal year 2003-04.

I therefore went back to the previous year to see if there had been a request to the public accounts committee from Mr. Neville on this issue, requesting a publication waiver for heating fuel rebates. Mr. Neville in a letter dated May 14, 2002 to the public accounts committee stated:

We seek your continued support for the publication waiver of names associated with the residual payments of these two programs over the life of the programs.

He was referring to the heating fuel rebate and to a special benefit program for the merchant navy veterans.

I had no idea that when we were talking about what I thought were a few residual payments, we were talking about 277,000 claims for a total of $42.2 million in the fiscal year 2000-01, all paid out without authority. This is scandalous.

I mentioned earlier that there was an amount of $62.8 million that had been confirmed under Bill C-20 but unspent, but the authority to spend that money lapsed on March 31, 2001. The heating fuel rebate program is not a statutory program. There is no legislation which states that the payments for the heating fuel rebate must continue ad infinitum because the warrant was issued since the government had determined there was an emergency and Parliament was not sitting. There has been ample opportunity for the government to make a new request for supply and the emergency has long since passed.

Treasury Board seemed to believe that the passage of a special warrant allows the government to pay money year after year for a program that was supposed to be a one time occurrence and urgently required for the public good.

Moneys appropriated by Parliament may be only spent in the year in which they are appropriated. Speaker Parent in his ruling of June 8, 1999 at pages 16065-6 of Hansard clearly stated:

The House is quite aware of the concept of the fiscal year which runs from April to March, and the concept of the yearly appropriation bill which must be based on the estimates for a fiscal year and which must be adopted by parliament to cover the government's expenses for that fiscal year. We are very familiar with these notions of fiscal year and annual appropriations, which are the cornerstones of our parliamentary financial process.

Indeed, Speaker Parent took exception to the title of the appropriations act in Bill C-86 which referred to two fiscal years. He qualified the reference as “not needed” and “misleading”. This is also referenced in Marleau and Montpetit at page 741, footnote 268.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask that you reduce Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's vote 1 by $55,296,790 in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004 to reflect the situation, unless the government apologizes for this affront to the House and rectifies the situation.

The House and its Speaker have expressed dismay several times in the past when it has been determined that the House has not been properly informed. This situation is another blatant attempt by the government to bypass Parliament, ignore Parliament's express rule that (a) money cannot be spent without Parliament's approval, and (b) money is granted for only one year.

In order to maintain the dignity of the House, I ask that you rule in favour of my point of order and reduce the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's vote by $55,296,790, reflecting that $42,210,625 spent without authority in 2000-01 and the $13,086,165 spent in 2001-02.

In addition to this, Mr. Neville advised the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that he anticipated additional payments during this fiscal year ending March 31, 2004. I therefore ask that you order the government to cease all further payments under the heating fuel rebate program until the proper parliamentary authority has been sought and given.

Supply

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

Mr. Chair, dear colleagues, this is the second time that I have the opportunity to present the estimates for the Department of Justice. I must say that I still find this quite an interesting exercise. Every time, colleagues and members of Parliament have had some constructive input to offer.

I am pleased to present the spending estimates of the Department of Justice Canada to the House.

As I just said, this is the second time I appear before you to deal with the estimates. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight our current priorities and to discuss the latest achievements of the Department of Justice. I would also like to go over some of the challenges we are facing.

First, as we have seen today, one of the priorities of my department is the reform of the cannabis legislation, which I have tabled as the cannabis reform bill.

I want to be clear from the beginning that we are not legalizing marijuana and I have no plans to do so. Marijuana remains a controlled substance and offenders will continue to be punished by law.

What we are changing is the way we prosecute certain offences of possession through the use of alternative penalties.

The bill I introduced earlier today amends the legal provisions with respect to the possession of small amounts of marihuana, which will become a ticketing offence instead of leading to criminal prosecutions.

While introducing these new legal provisions, the Government of Canada will continue to proactively implement its renewed drug strategy to discourage young people from using drugs and to go after traffickers in order to reduce both the demand and supply for illegal drugs.

Through the renewed Canada's Drug Strategy, we will review the legislation to take into consideration the modern viewpoints of Canadians. The strategy seeks to ensure that the provisions concerning possession offences are more consistently enforced and that the penalties fit the seriousness of the crime.

In order to promote health, the use of marihuana must be discouraged and cannabis possession will remain illegal in Canada. However, the new measures reflect the opinion of the majority of Canadians who no longer accept the permanent stigma of a criminal record or a prison sentence that the people found guilty of possessing small amounts of cannabis have to bear.

The debate over modernizing our marijuana laws has been on and off the public agenda for three decades now. The time has come to act. We need strong, enforceable laws that make sense for Canadians and make sense internationally, laws that will send a strong message to our young people, a message saying that marijuana is harmful and will remain illegal.

This reform will address the current lack of consistency in the enforcement of cannabis possession offences across the country and ensure that enforcement resources are focused on where they are most needed by allowing police to enforce the law, but without the complications of going before the courts for minor offences.

The decision to reform the law was not taken lightly. It came as the result of an enormous amount of research, consultation and debate. Cannabis consumption is a complex issue and is first and foremost a health matter. However, one thing is clear, the time has come for us to reform our laws in this area.

The House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs recommended that cannabis be decriminalized. The Senate special committee on illegal drugs recommended that the production and sale of cannabis be legalized.

Recent polling indicates that a majority of Canadians believe that convictions for possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use should not result in criminal penalties.

Again I want to be clear that the government has no plans to legalize the possession of this drug but clearly the current laws do not serve the public good.

However, the commercial growing of marijuana is no doubt a serious indictable offence that has serious and negative consequences on society. Commercial growers generate huge profits for criminal organizations and other stakeholders in this trade.

These growers are everywhere in cities and in houses rented in the suburbs, among other places, and often the owners are not aware of these illegal activities.

Marijuana growers resort to water and electricity meter jumping, which means they rob public utilities and pose a serious threat of fire.

Several law enforcement agencies have found very sophisticated traps designed to endanger the lives of competitors, police officers and firefighters. We must obviously protect the lives of women and men who represent our first line of defence.

I believe that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which was recently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, will effectively serve as a deterrent. Indeed, it would amend section 247 of the Criminal Code regarding the placing of traps that are likely to cause death. The amendment would provide that, if a trap is used for the purpose of committing another indictable offence, the term of imprisonment would go from five to ten years.

If bodily harm is caused to a person, the term of imprisonment would be 14 years and, if the person dies, the maximum penalty would be life imprisonment, whether the place was used for the purpose of committing an indictable offence or not.

Bill C-32 would also ensure that our laws keep pace with the rapid evolution of the Internet. The amendments in the bill would allow citizens and businesses to take reasonable steps to protect their computer systems and the valuable information that they contain against computer hackers and sly electronic communications that might contain viruses.

The amendments to the Divorce Act contained in Bill C-22 address a top priority of Canadians, ensuring that the best interests of the child remain paramount in decisions made following their parent's divorce or separation. I understand that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights expects to resume hearings on C-22 shortly.

Canadians have already stated clearly that changes to the law are not enough. Improvements must also be made to services, such as mediation and education. Canadians have also demanded a simpler, more efficient court system to accommodate the needs of parents and families struggling with separation and divorce.

In December we responded by proposing the child centre family justice strategy. Together with the provinces, territories and non-government organizations, we have embarked on an ambitious and multi-faceted program of change that includes increased funding for family justice services, expansion of successful initiatives, such as unified family courts, and legislative amendments, such as Bill C-22.

The Department of Justice will make substantial investments in this strategy. In December I announced $163 million over five years to modernize the family justice system in Canada.

Now, another very important issue raised by Bill C-20.

This bill deals with the protection of children and other vulnerable persons. Protecting children is obviously a high priority for Canadians, and the government is listening to them.

Bill C-20, which was introduced recently, provides better protection for children against all forms of exploitation. It reflects the broad consultations and close cooperation with the provinces, the territories, non-governmental organizations and the general public.

The proposed reforms are designed to give children better protection against all forms of exploitation, including sexual abuse and child pornography, and to meet the needs of children and other vulnerable persons, such as victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, more effectively.

Canada's criminal laws against sexual abuse of children, including child pornography, are among the strictest in the world. Bill C-20 will go even further in strengthening our prohibitions with regard to child pornography. It also proposes creating a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation for those who are between 14 and 18, which will require the courts to examine the nature and the circumstances of the relationship, including the age difference.

Another purpose of Bill C-20 is to make it easier for young victims and witnesses to testify. It proposes to strengthen their ability to provide a clear, complete and accurate description of the events while ensuring that the rights of the accused will be protected and respected.

Another topic that I would like to talk about concerns the protection of Canada's capital markets. I believe that improving the fairness of our system extends well beyond matters of liability and into our capital market. Recent scandals involving corporate malfeasance in the United States have spurred officials in my department to review Canadian laws. I hope to table a bill on this matter in the very near future.

My department will be investing resources and playing a significant role in the integrated enforcement teams that will be investigating and prosecuting the most serious corporate frauds and market illegalities. Justice officials will partner with their peers in finance, industry and the office of the Solicitor General in this coordinated approach.

The other important topic I would like to talk about now is the criminal liability of corporations. Improving fairness in our justice system is indeed an ongoing priority.

The Department of Justice has been working very hard to draft new legislative provisions on corporate criminal liability taking into account the recommendations made by the many commissions and studies on the Westray mine disaster. A series of amendments to the Criminal Code would make business executives more responsible for the safety of their employees.

Another important topic I would like to raise here is access to justice; as we have said, this has been an ongoing priority of my department, which wants to ensure that Canadians, no matter where they live, can use the official language of their choice in all their dealings with federal legislation. This is the whole issue of official languages.

We have made great strides in that respect, working closely with our governmental and non-governmental partners in the provinces and territories, and I am confident we can still improve access to justice in both official languages.

Under the government's action plan on official languages, my department will invest $27 million over the next five years to meet its obligations under the Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act and the Federal Court's decision on the Contraventions Act.

Another $18.5 million will also be invested in a fund in support of access to justice in both official languages. Together, these initiatives represent a $45.5 million investment in the area of access to justice in both official languages.

Legal aid is another significant component of the access to justice. The government is strongly committed to ensuring that economically disadvantaged Canadians have equitable access to criminal legal aid. I am pleased to report significant progress on initiating criminal legal aid renewal.

The recent federal budget announced increases to the criminal legal aid base fund and committed additional funds for innovative programs developed and implemented by the provinces and territories. Federal funding for criminal legal aid will increase by $89 million in the new criminal legal aid agreement. Of this amount, $83 million will go directly to the provinces and territories.

Over the next three years the government will invest $379.2 million in legal aid. These funds will help ensure that economically disadvantaged Canadians have access to justice.

Now let me deal with another important topic, crime prevention. To work effectively, our justice system must be relevant to all Canadians. It must be directly connected to and be an integral and familiar part of every community.

I am convinced that a relevant system must help citizens recommend, develop and implement effective solutions to community problems. Even though such solutions may go beyond the regular limits of case law, often they are powerful engines of social change.

The national crime prevention strategy has proven to be especially successful at improving the relevance of Canada's justice system. This strategy involves providing financial support for innovative local projects that reduce crime and victimization, and target issues of local concern.

For example, in Surrey, British Columbia, a literacy project would enable disadvantaged Canadians to acquire new skills and jobs. In Fort McPherson, a summer camp program would help instill a new sense of pride in young people at risk. In Ontario, a partnership project with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police would help combat auto theft by educating youth about the negative consequences of that act.

These projects are just a few current examples of our collaborative approach to crime prevention, an approach that has succeeded in enlisting an increasing number of Canadians in the fight against crime. These projects also establish vital links between Canadians and their system of justice. I am pleased to say that over the next three years the national crime prevention strategy will invest $225 million to make our communities safer.

In conclusion, while I am pleased with the accomplishments of my department, I recognize that much work remains to be done to create a system that is fair, accessible and relevant to all. We must broaden our collaboration with the provinces, territories, and with individual Canadians to improve our justice system, prevent crime, and reduce the effect of victimization.

Petitions

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition asserts that Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act does not go far enough to protect children in Canada.

It calls upon the government to split Bill C-20 so that child pornography can be voted on separately from anything else in the bill. Again, this is signed by several hundred residents in my area.

Supply

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as legislators, where do we fit in the entire perspective of the charter? As a government, what we are doing now is what we will continue to do, and as I stated in the House today, we are very clear. We do not disagree with the fact that child pornography is wrong. We are against child pornography.

However what we are trying do, within this legislature, is to find an effective way that meets a number of interests. I know that sometimes people look at the way in which we are approaching it in Bill C-20. They refer to the fact that we are using and have put in the only defence, a public good defence. They look at that and ask how anything about pornography can be good. I do not disagree with that. There is no good in pornography itself.

The question that we are really struggling with is freedom of expression. How do we deal with the ability of, for example, those who teach in a university, to teach about pornography? How do we do that if in fact it is absolutely and completely illegal to even talk about pornography? It cannot be discussed. The police officers would not be permitted to deal with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that probably a big majority of Canadians are quite fond of the Charter of Rights and the principle of it, and it is certainly supported across the land. I support those principles.

I was also pleased that the 20 people or so who put this document together were wise enough to remember that there could be times when the public values, and the public in general, could be in conflict with the decisions that the courts made based on the charter. Recognizing that possibility, they put in section 33, the notwithstanding clause.

If I have heard it once, I have heard it a hundred times, and strongly from that side, that it was deplorable to even think about using section 33 in regard to the charter. However the public has risen up and tabled thousands of signatures begging Parliament to literally put an end to child pornography, to close the loopholes. They are demanding this and asking for it. However the courts make a decisions that leave the loopholes. Obviously the government is not going to change the law because it has not done it with Bill C-20. In its feeble attempt, it left “public good” in legislation as another loophole.

When do we use section 33? Should it never be used? Members of the Liberal party said that today. It will be quoted in Hansard over and over. When are we going to recognize, that yes in a judicial sense the Supreme Court is the highest court of the system, but Parliament is the highest court of the land and it is run by the people of Canada, not by me, not by that member or by you, Mr. Speaker. It is run by those who elected us.

They are demanding, and there is no doubt about it, that the safety of our children be top priority and that child pornography be stamped out . Why is the government so reluctant to do that? Why does it to continue to hide under the decisions of the court and under the idea that there could be some artistic merit or public good, or whatever, to child pornography? It just does not make sense.

I would think that the member has relatives, children of some kind, in his household. Does he not believe that our most elemental duty is to make every effort possible and to make absolutely certain that we do our utmost to protect the little ones in the land? What is wrong with that? I think there is nothing wrong with that and the public thinks there is nothing wrong with that. However I can guarantee, based on what I have heard throughout the day, the government will not even consider clause 33. It seems to be very reluctant to go against any decisions that the courts make. Why?

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

Madam Speaker, the member did a pretty good job of answering the question himself when he said that the number of convictions was zero. Other countries, Sweden for one and Australia for another, have programs in place following these kinds of activities. They are making arrests, convicting and sending criminals to jail. They are getting them off the streets to protect society as a whole. It can be done.

I do not know why the government sits idly by and does not engage in these kinds of activities with other countries. It has been invited. We have the technology. We have the money. It is not that expensive. We could do it. Why is there not a priority on it? It comes up with the idea that it is priority and that is why it brought in Bill C-20. The Liberals cannot seem to get it through their heads that Bill C-20 does not close the loopholes. There will be loopholes. The public good is there.

There are two million cases of child pornography in Toronto alone. I could not even begin to name the number of cases across the country. Every one of these items individually could be declared as public good by whoever owns, possesses or distributes them. If it has to go to court, we let the judges determine who is right or wrong. Let us send a message to the judges of our Supreme Court real quick. The people of Canada want child pornography stamped out and banned entirely but the government must take the initiative because it is in charge. We will support it.

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

And so popular. It would probably get anybody some votes.

Contrary to what the NDP says about this party not being interested in major issues, child pornography and the safety of our children is a major issue in the hearts of Canadians. If members of the NDP do not think it is, I would ask them to please start reading the hundreds and thousands of signatures on petitions in this place alone which beg us to do something about it.

What are we facing in regard to all of this? I started reading some letters that come in from the public. These letters are only a reflection of the hundreds of letters in regard to this issue. One letter reads, “Last week I heard on the radio that we do not have enough money and people power to prosecute child pornographers but we have a billion dollars to establish a long gun registry to keep trapping and sporting tools of law-abiding citizens. What is wrong with this picture? Firearm owners are not potential criminals. Those who prey on young children are already criminals”.

That is a very good point. The government is going after millions of people because it thinks there is a potential problem but in the one area that we have identified, through the help of other methods, it is not doing anything about it.

We are not helping our police departments. In case the people over there do not know it, Toronto is a huge city. I think it has three or four officers to deal with two million pieces of evidence regarding child pornography. They are begging and crying for help.

Members of the RCMP in my own riding have told me that they are getting complaints about child pornography from various sources but that they do not know what to do about it because they are not trained. They give those cases to the police departments in Calgary or Toronto.

We should stop and think about how right the guy is who wrote the letter. He goes on to say, “I don't know why I bother going down to the law court buildings any more to watch our so-called justice system in action. I only get more frustrated and disillusioned every time I go”. He then goes on to talk about the number of child predators and child pornographers who are convicted. “In every case”, he said, “they were given house arrest and community service”.

It is too bad we have to spend so much time talking about this issue. Now we have to wait until Bill C-20 goes to a committee. Even the Conservative Party critic, much to my dismay, said that we had no choice but to support this because we had to get it to committee to try to fix it.

Getting a document to committee means it will take weeks and months and it could probably die. In weeks and months thousands of kids could die. It is time we decided to do something about it. The Liberal Party is the government in power. It has the ability to bring forward the initiative. What is it waiting on?

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

Let us have the courage to do it. We know we have the support to do it.

If there is one thing that I have been able to determine in my visits across the country it is that the individuals in the police departments who are assigned to the child pornography units, who are doing their best to fight it, are crying out and pleading with this government to give them the sources and the resources that it is going to take to set up a national strategy to deal with this once and for all, a national strategy that would reach out to other countries to form an international effort, which is well underway in a lot of other countries already. Let us join their efforts to do this.

There has not been one commitment in the form of the budget, not one commitment in terms of dollars and cents that has shown up in any one of the police departments or any one of the areas of jurisdiction that are making an effort to put an end to this terrible thing that is going on in our society. We could start by committing a certain amount of dollars to that cause. Then we could come together as a group of 301 to ask how we are going to accomplish this, spend a day or two to make sure we get it right, and then go forward with it. This would send a loud message to the predators and the child pornography distributors all across the country: “Folks, your time is coming to an end because it is not going to be allowed”.

Instead, what has happened is that the government has tried to come up with legislation that will appeal a decision made by a court, which allowed pornography to continue because there might be some artistic merit to it. In its wisdom, the government came up with a paragraph in its document that says we will get rid of that and what we will do is put in “public good”. Once again the minister has left in the hands of unelected and unaccountable judges the determination of what constitutes public good.

I can assure the House that the Toronto police department, which has approximately two million pieces of evidence in the form of child pornography, is really going to enjoy trying to go through two million pieces of this to determine whether it has any public good. We can almost be certain that any time a charge is brought against a person for having possession of or distributing that particular item, the person will be able to claim the defence of public good. Our courts will be jammed day after day and we will never get anywhere because we have allowed the courts to leave a loophole. No one will be charged.

The government has come back and is reinforcing that loophole with Bill C-20. I say, close the loopholes, listen to the people who have signed their names on the petitions that have been tabled in the House of Commons. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are begging us to take up legislation that will put an end to the torment and the exploitation of our children across this land. They want it stopped. They have appealed to us to do it because they believe that we are the body of people who can do it.

I have to ask every member in the House of Commons, from every party, whether they would agree that we can do something about this problem. If they do agree, then we must do something about this problem. The last thing I would ask is whether they have the courage to move forward immediately and set this particular item on the table all by itself, not to muddle it with all other social issues but to get it underway and help our police departments across the land to deal with it, to set up a national strategy program and fund it.

Funding is no problem for the government. It found $100 million not too long ago to help out the City of Toronto regarding SARS. I can assure the people in the House that there are police officers who would love to get their hands on $100 million to help them in their fight on child pornography. No one can say for a moment that one is worse than the other, because I can assure members that the number of victims of child pornography far exceed the number of victims of diseases.

I do not think there is anyone here who would not agree that it can be done, so let us do it. We were elected to bring about the will of the people, and I can assure the members who are in here today that the will of Canadians is to stamp out child pornography once and for all, to get rid of it, and to make every effort we can to do it and not muddle it with clauses that leave loopholes.

Child pornography has no artistic merit and does not serve the public good. Every Canadian, except for the 2,500 pedophiles who have been identified, would attest to that to the highest degree.

I find it discouraging that this topic comes up over and over again. In the last six months I do not know how many times I have spoken to this very issue.

I find it discouraging that adult men and women, who are in a position to really do something that will protect our children, cannot come up with an idea or the dollars to do just that but have no problem inventing all kinds of ways to implement a gun registry program, for example. I do not think the almost $1 billion they are going to spend on the gun registry will have much impact on the safety of our children, not nearly the impact that fighting child pornography would have. The police departments would be the first ones to tell us that. The things they see are devastating.

The other problem is that the images we talk about in child pornography are not drawings or sketches. The majority of these images are photographs. These are real people. These are children who are alive and exist, and we do not even have a thing in place to identify who these children are so we could possibly rescue them out of their situation. Whether it be in Canada, in Europe or in the U.S., it does not matter, these children need to be rescued from this horrible plight.

There are countries that have gone to the extent of doing something about that. Sweden sort of set up the initial part of it. Canada was there and observed what it was going to do. It has a program which, generally speaking, is beginning to work. This thing was spread out to other countries, including the United States.

As a result of that program, the police have been able to identify some of the victims and some of the predators. While we sit on the sidelines, not participating in this kind of activity, a project in place in other parts of the world called “snowball” has identified for our police departments in Canada over 2,000 predators who reside in Canada. They know their names and where they live.

We should be participating in this program to help identify the victims, the predators, the distributors and the people who are making millions of dollars in profit off this evil thing, and start to wipe it out. That is an action we could take that would be so positive.

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

Madam Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to rise and speak to the issues in regard to the motion today.

Just before I get into that, though, I must say that some of the members I heard speak here today have been very effective at confusing me. I heard one member say that we must abide by and live under the Constitution of Canada and then deplore section 33, which is part of the Constitution, if I am not mistaken. I do not understand where the member is coming from. She deplores section 33 but she loves the Constitution of Canada. That section is part of the Constitution. Maybe one of these days we will have to meet somewhere and she can explain that one to me.

By now everyone will know that I am going to stick to one issue that is on the agenda of this supply motion. That, once again, is child pornography, an issue that is burning at the bottom of my heart and which I think must be dealt with and must be dealt with quickly.

I think everyone in this House, the 301 members of this place, would agree that they do not want any child pornography to exist; I do not think we would find one member who does not. I also think they would agree that in their own ridings probably 90% or more of the people deplore child pornography and would like to see it abolished and banned in its entirety. I do not think there is any quibbling about that.

The question is, do we as a Parliament have the ability and the authority to achieve this? In my opinion, we most definitely do. It would take leadership. It would take determination. It would take a commitment to put all party differences aside and work together to deal with an issue which we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is affecting thousands of children across this country alone, not to mention what it is doing internationally all across the world. The people most vulnerable to abuse are the young people, the kids. I am talking about kids all the way down to the age of two months who have been identified as victims of sexual abuse or sexual predators and pornographers.

If we were to stop and think about that for a moment, I am sure we all would like to say we would like this to disappear tomorrow, we would like to see it gone. We know that is not going to happen, but I think that collectively we can work together to make an effort to do our very best to get that show on the road to abolish and ban it in its entirety, because that is one thing that not only Canadian children but all children across the world deserve: to be free from child predators and this kind of abuse.

As well, if I have heard this once I have heard it a hundred times: “The trouble with the member for Wild Rose is that he is not interested in getting to the root causes of these kinds of problems”. The root cause of these kinds of predators existing and being active across this world is, as has been determined by a number of psychologists, a number of psychiatrists, people working in the medical field, people on the front line and by predators themselves, the root cause of most of these abuses is child pornography. So let us stop the rhetoric about getting to the root cause. It has been pretty well documented and determined that child pornography is the root cause of this kind of problem. We have discovered that now, so let us stop the rhetoric about getting to the root cause. We know what the root causes are. We have good evidence of that.

Let us go after the root cause. The root cause being child pornography means that 301 members of Parliament, on behalf of probably 32.5 million Canadians who would love to see this happen, must come together on that one issue and stop muddling that issue by putting it in a bill such as Bill C-20 with other issues that are going to take a lot of discussion and time. Let us separate it, set it on its own and say we are going to deal with that.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I usually begin a speech by saying that I am pleased to speak on a certain subject, but today, I must admit, I am not pleased with the motion. In fact, I find it rather ridiculous. I think it is unfortunate and I will explain why, that we are spending so much time—a whole day—on a motion that is not even votable.

First, it is obvious that my political party is not a great admirer of the Canadian Constitution. Not only are we sovereignists, who want to get out of the Constitution rather than amend it, but also, most importantly, we believe that the Canadian Constitution, especially in its 1982 form, is illegitimate. It was imposed on Quebec. We remember the “night of the long knives”. No Quebec government since 1981 has wanted to sign this Constitution which was imposed by a conspiracy involving the federal government and the governments of nine Canadian provinces. I think that is the first essential point we wish to make.

My second point—and I will speak to the three points raised by the hon. members of the Canadian Alliance—is the following. In the motion, we are asked to bring in measures to reassert the will of Parliament. I then have the following question: where do the will and business of committees come in?

Let us begin with the first point, the definition of marriage.The Standing Committee on Justice, of which I am a member, is working very hard on this issue, and has been doing so since January. We have heard witnesses in Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton, Moose Jaw, Steinbach, Sudbury, Toronto, Montreal, Iqaluit, Sussex, New Brunswick, and Halifax. We are working on it.

So, what is the Alliance trying to do? It is trying to set aside the work of the committee by presenting such a motion. The Alliance, which prides itself on being very democratic, and which commended the democratic process chosen by the committee in going to consult the people across Canada, now comes here with this motion, saying in effect, “Never mind the hundreds of witnesses we have heard; never mind the hundreds of briefs they have submitted; never mind the honourable work done by all the hon. members from all political parties who sit on this committee; none of them matter”.

I am a bit frustrated that the House is being told today that the adopted definition and other things are being threatened, when the Standing Committee on Justice is addressing this very issue. I am sorry to have to say this, but this is an obvious example of the Alliance's lack of respect for this committee's work. By presenting this kind of motion today, it is showing a lack of respect.

On the definition of marriage, the government has said, given the three decisions by the lower courts, that Parliament must address this issue. A discussion paper has been provided to the members and is available to the general public. The public has been asked to tell us what it thinks about the four options.

It will not come as a surprise when I say that, of the four options presented by the government, two are unconstitutional due to the division of powers.

One of the four options is allowing civil unions. However, I would remind members that, under section 91.26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government has jurisdiction over marriage and divorce, and the provinces and Quebec have jurisdiction over all other matters relating to family law. This means, for example, that anything Parliament wants to do relating to family law, if it does not concern marriage or divorce, falls outside this Parliament's jurisdiction. For marriage, Parliament has jurisdiction only over its basic conditions. So, the idea of civil unions must be set aside based on the division of powers.

The other option is for the state to withdraw from marriage and leave this up to organized religion. Persons solemnizing marriages in the provinces get their licence from the provinces. For example, in Quebec, priests, rabbis or imams solemnizing marriages are officers of civil status. Consequently, it is not up to Parliament to tell Quebec and the provinces who has the power to solemnize the union of two people. So, these two options must be set aside given the division of powers.

The committee therefore has to choose between keeping the current definition of marriage—in other words, the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others—or changing the definition. On this, I would simply like to point out that the courts, such as the British Columbia Court of Appeal most recently, have ruled that the current definition is discriminatory and that this is not justifiable in a free and democratic society.

People can complain as much as they want, they can criticize this idea of judicial review, they can do whatever they want. The fact is that the principle of judicial review forms the very foundation of how our democracy operates. I will remind the House that this idea in Canada goes back to an old principle adopted by Chief Justice Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1835. Canada could not use the example of the British Constitution because it is unwritten, so this notion of judicial review came from the United States.

As I was saying, they can complain about it and criticize it, but the fact is that today our society operates this way. This is the constitutional arrangement that we have set up. Being a sovereignist, I hope that when Quebec becomes independent, we will also have some way of protecting minorities from decisions of the majority. I also hope that the constitution of an independent Quebec will contain a judicial review process. This a key element for the rule of law and one of the fundamental elements for healthy democracy.

That was the first point. The second point refers to house arrest for child sexual predators, which allows them to produce and possess child pornography. Obviously, as a father of young children, I completely agree with all those who defend children as our greatest resource and say that we must protect them. That seems quite obvious to me. I think it is unfortunate that they would play politics on this by accusing other member of the House of not having the interests of children at heart.

I have been in politics for 15 years now, and I was elected almost six years ago now. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that there is not one person in this House, from any of the five different political parties here, that does not have the interests of children at heart. No one can say that.

It is all right to criticize the government's approach, for the opposition parties to criticize each other, but to say that someone in this House does not have children's interests and protection at heart is bad faith and demagoguery. In politics, I believe demagoguery always backfires on the one who uses it.

We are all aware that this part of the motion by the Canadian Alliance refers to the Supreme Court judgment in Sharpe , with which the members of this House are rather familiar. Apparently, the Alliance was upset by two particular aspects of this judgment. First, the Court's interpretation of the defence of artistic merit. In fact, a large part of the decision was taken up with this. The court interpreted this defence as follows:

I conclude that “artistic merit” should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art. Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence. Simply put, artists, so long as they are producing art, should not fear prosecution under s. 163.1(4).

This judgment indicates that two types of material must be excluded from the definition of child pornography:

(1) written materials or visual representations created and held by the accused alone, exclusively for personal use; and (2) visual recordings created by or depicting the accused that do not depict unlawful sexual activity and are held by the accused exclusively for private use.

We presume that the text of the motion refers to one of the above two points, although I cannot read the minds of our Alliance colleagues. Since I have trouble understanding the intervention by the Alliance, however, I must base my intervention on a premise, and this is the one I have chosen.

We have trouble understanding how the Alliance could apparently overlook the fact that the government introduced a bill last December 5 that was specifically aimed at amending the Criminal Code as it relates to child pornography. The amendments proposed by the government address precisely those two aspects. They are the focus of the bill.

First, there is a proposal for a new public good defence and, moreover, the bill tightens up the definition of child pornography, which will cover aspects it did not use to cover.

While we in the Bloc Quebecois question the constitutionality of such a change to the definition of child pornography, we intend to do serious work in committee, considering the proposed changes and listening to testimonies in this regard.

I think much greater respect for parliamentary procedure and for Parliament per se would have been shown, had committee work taken place before such a motion were put forward. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights should have been given an opportunity to hear testimony from victims, lawyers, constitutional experts, peace officers, and artists before such a motion was put forward.

We believe that studying Bill C-20 in that environment will allow a much more serious and intelligent consideration of the issues raised in part (b) of the motion with respect to child pornography than the present debate does.

I will now address conditional sentences. Naturally, we deal with many things, and cannot deal with everything at once. But again, I would like to remind the House that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is considering conditional sentences and that we are not done putting our recommendations together.

Once again, for the third time in as many points, if the Canadian Alliance wants to be respectful of the legislative process and Parliament, it should do a good job in committee.

The Alliance should make sure it does its work in committee thoroughly, seriously and studiously, instead of presenting a motion such as this.

The Alliance motion is probably referring to the Supreme Court decision in R. v. L.F.W. In that case, the Attorney General appealed a conditional sentence of 21 months given to an offender convicted of indecent assault and gross indecency.

In this case, the offences were committed between 1967 and 1973 and the complaint was filed in 1995. At the time the offences began, the victim was six years old and the accused was 22.

The Supreme Court was divided in its decision but the Attorney General's appeal was rejected.

The Bloc is of the opinion that trial judges and courts should have all possible latitude in determining sentences for each case they hear, on a case-by-case basis.

They are in the best position to determine sentences. Any given sentence does not have the same impact on everyone; the impact varies from one person to another. In committee, I raised certain other questions—sometimes by questioning the witnesses—that we will continue to raise and to examine as part of the committee's business. Instead of holding a debate here on a non-votable opposition motion, a motion that is all over the place and serves as a sounding board for the Canadian Alliance, it would have been more appropriate to do this work in committee, and do it more seriously.

I see that I have only three minutes left. I have so much to say in such a short time. To conclude, I will talk about granting prisoners the right to vote.

In the case of Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)—a 2002 decision—the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule on the constitutionality of section 51 of the Canada Elections Act, which disqualifies persons imprisoned in correctional institutions serving sentences of two years or more from voting in federal elections.

The issue the Court considered in this case was the following: does this provision infringe the rights guaranteed by section 3, namely the right to vote, and section 15, equality rights, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The court, and this is important to remember since it is obviously a difficult subject for both parliamentarians and judges alike, overturned the previous decision by five to four. The majority opinion, signed by Justice McLachlin, ruled that the right to vote is fundamental in our society and cannot be lightly set aside.

The court found that to deny prisoners the right to vote is to lose an important means of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility. That is the purpose of sending people to prison, to tell them, “You have done something wrong. We want to rehabilitate you so you do not stay in prison for the rest of your life”. At least, I hope that no one in this House wants to see anyone remain in prison for life without any chance of getting out and becoming a full-fledged, law-abiding, responsible citizen who will find a job and contribute to society.

The government's novel political theory that would permit elected representatives to disenfranchise a segment of the population finds no place in a democracy built upon principles of inclusiveness, equality, and citizen participation.

The court adds that the argument that only those who respect the law should participate in the political process is unacceptable. Denial of the right to vote on the basis of attributed moral unworthiness is inconsistent with the respect for the dignity of every person that lies at the heart of Canadian democracy and the Charter.

The court ruled in the Sauvé decision that the Canada Elections Act provision denying the right to vote to inmates serving a sentence of two years or more infringed section 3 of the Charter and was not justified under section 1.

The Bloc believes that it is not appropriate to seek to amend this decision. Furthermore, it should be noted that inmates already had the right to vote in provincial and municipal elections in some provinces, including in Quebec.

In closing, I think that this is a waste of time, that this motion is badly structured, and that it shows a lack of respect for the committees, particularly the justice committee, which is working on three of the four issues mentioned in the Alliance motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the issue of the motive behind all this is an interesting one, which obviously is what the hon. member is asking.

On the first part of the hon. member's question, the propositions, if they are related at all they are very far stretch. They are largely unrelated, that is true. I suppose the motivation of the hon. members who put the motion is probably to describe that all these things may be examples, in their view, of a role they think is too big for the judiciary. Maybe that is their argument but they can make it themselves. Maybe that is what they are invoking.

Obviously the propositions are very unrelated. One of them, as the hon. member, the House leader, has just raised, is an issue being studied by a committee of parliamentarians obtaining and soliciting opinions of Canadians. Another one is an issue that involves a decision made by the Supreme Court within the parameters of the charter and to which the House has already responded by way of legislation, Bill C-20. The third one is completely outside of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and goes beyond that. Therefore they are very unrelated propositions.

On the issue of inmate voting, to be totally fair it does not go quite as far as what the hon. member has just said. The original Supreme Court decision of some years ago, the one that said that everyone who was incarcerated could not vote, was thrown out. However that is not the one that was thrown out lately. Following that first effort, Parliament re-enacted the law but put in the provision, I believe it was two years, so those who were short term incarcerations, overnight and something like that, perhaps even wrongfully charged or whatever, those people were not covered by the law; only those who were in penitentiaries and longer term incarcerations. That in fact was the decision that was eventually given for which the government appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and lost in a five to four decision. However it did not involve at that point the short term stays in incarceration, only the long term ones, the other one having been disposed of several years earlier.

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

Mr. Speaker, it depends on what the hon. member is asking. If he is asking whether the Supreme Court is supreme in rendering judicial decisions, I think its name answers that question. It is called the Supreme Court because it is the supreme court. If it were not the supreme court, it would not have been called the Supreme Court. People made that decision long before I or the hon. member sat here.

Was it at one point appealable? Yes, it was appointed to a judicial committee of the Privy Council. The decisions of the Supreme Court were not appealable to the House of Commons. I do not know if that is what he is suggesting today. I do not ever recall, in my limited knowledge of constitutional history, that there ever was an appeal to the Canadian House of Commons of Supreme Court decisions. That has never existed.

Is he asking that we restore the system that was there before, which means that we could appeal in England the decisions of the Canadian Supreme Court? I do not think that is what he is advocating. If he is saying that something was changed to create this and he wants to restore the condition that was there before, that is in fact what he would be asking to restore, which of course would not even do that which he is asking anyway, as I indicated.

I want to respond to the second part of his question, regarding the Sharpe case.

The legislative package, in other words Bill C-20 and other legislation, responds to the concerns about the defence of artistic merit and the definition of written child pornography. The defences that were there before have been reduced to a single defence of public good. As well, the definition of written child pornography would be expanded to cover material that was not even covered under the previous legislation, and would include material that contains written descriptions of prohibited sexual activity and all those kinds of things. That is all included in the legislation which the hon. member says he did not want, even though that was the legislation for which they asked.

What does the public good mean? The public good defence means that any material or act in question must serve the public good and not exceed what serves the public good. That means that unlike the defence of artistic merit, the one that was there before, the new subclause (6), I believe, the public good defence would require a two stage analysis: Does the material serve the public good on any of the recognized areas and, if so, does it go beyond what serves the public good. In other words, no defence would be available where it does not serve the public good or it poses a risk of harm that exceeds what serves the public good.

I believe I have answered his questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have just been hearing comments about the need for Parliament to protect itself against certain court decisions. I must say that, having heard my hon. colleague's speech, it is my impression that we should instead be having a motion to protect society against speeches such as the one we have just heard.

Some members of the House have suggested that the courts are assuming a role that is not contemplated in the Constitution. That is close to ridiculous. Such comments may cause people to question the legitimacy of the courts. In a society where we value the law, comments like this coming from parliamentarians run totally contrary to the principles we are called upon to defend in this Chamber, collectively and individually.

Of course criticism and debate are necessary elements in a healthy democracy. That is what gives members the right to make statements, but is certainly not an excuse to make statements that are neither informed nor responsible.

The impression created by the speech we have just heard is misleading and could risk damaging the credibility of the institution of the Canadian courts and the public's confidence in our system of justice as a whole.

It is clear that the power of judicial review has always existed under the Constitution. It is not as if the Prime Minister three weeks ago kicked out the former Supreme Court justices and appointed a fresh batch of them with a new mandate under a new Constitution. That power of judicial review has existed since 1867.

In first year university we were taught issues such as Russell v. Regina. It had to do with who had the authority to dispense liquor licences. I studied that a long time ago. I even had a different haircut then. This is to say how long that right of judicial review has existed. The boundary between Ontario and Manitoba was decided that way several years later under Premier Mowat.

The hon. member across the way refers to the right to vote of women and I am glad he made that point. Maybe he could talk about the right of women to sit in Parliament, namely in the Senate. In fact it was part of our judicial system that eventually gave them that right. The judicial committee of the Privy Council made that decision.

I wonder at that time, had it been left to people who think the same way as we just heard in the speech a moment ago, whether that right would have been achieved then. To ask the question is almost the same as answering it. It probably would not have existed today.

As I have said, the courts have always played a significant role in reviewing government legislation. This is a longstanding principle of the common law. There is no question that the role of the courts in interpreting the Charter has given them a higher profile and a more direct effect on the daily lives of Canadians.

However, even though the courts exercise considerable influence on the shape or the interpretation of Canadian law, they do so in accordance with well-established rules of constitutional and statutory interpretation, and not in a vacuum. Decisions are not reached on the basis of any personal bias on the part of judges, be they in the Supreme Court or in the other courts of Canada.

Where the courts signal to a legislature that the Charter of Rights is not being protected, as is the case with some of the things that were raised today, and that does not cover everything that was raised this morning, elected legislatures are free to choose how to respond within the framework of the Constitution. Case in point is the issue of child pornography. It is not as if Parliament did not respond to that issue. We passed Bill C-20 over the objections of some people in the House who claim today to be defending our children in the case of Bill C-20.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

moved:

That this House call upon the government to bring in measures to protect and reassert the will of Parliament against certain court decisions that: (a) threaten the traditional definition of marriage as decided by the House as, “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”; (b) grant house arrest to child sexual predators and make it easier for child sexual predators to produce and possess child pornography; and (c) grant prisoners the right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to sponsor this motion on behalf of the Canadian Alliance.

The Canadian Alliance is concerned and Canadians across the country are concerned that recent court decisions do not represent the view of Parliament nor the values of Canadian society as a whole.

The three issues outlined in the motion are of particular importance to the constituents in the riding of Provencher and indeed to ordinary citizens across the country, citizens whom I speak to and whom I receive letters from on a daily basis.

Under the assumed authority of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the courts have moved beyond their traditional role as arbiters of legal disputes and into the realm of policy making. Indeed, they have become politicians.

While it was anticipated that the charter would grant the courts new powers to review the constitutionality of Parliament's decisions, it has become clear that the courts have taken for themselves an authority that Parliament either expressly withheld from the courts at the time of the drafting of the charter or an authority that no reasonable interpretation of the provisions of the charter could support. Specifically, recent decisions of the courts such as those related to marriage, our laws governing the protection of children and prisoner voting rights are not decisions that are properly grounded in the constitutional jurisdiction granted to the judiciary by Parliament.

An unaccountable and unelected judiciary has simply and erroneously appropriated the jurisdiction to legislate by judicial fiat matters of social policy.

In the opinion of the Canadian Alliance, and indeed in my personal opinion, this was never intended to be the jurisdiction of the courts. Political decisions related to social policy must remain the exclusive jurisdiction of a democratically elected Parliament.

While Canadians enthusiastically support the charter they are becoming increasingly concerned about the political direction of the courts. Nevertheless, judges in Canada have taken on a greater role in shaping government policy, an area that was previously reserved for elected officials.

In many cases where the judiciary has confined itself to its proper constitutional role its decisions have had a positive effect. However in many other cases, such as the Sharpe child pornography case, the effect has had detrimental effects on our society and our ability to protect our children.

Whether or not ordinary Canadians agree with conclusions reached by the courts, it is apparent that Parliament's social policy leadership is becoming irrelevant since its choices are limited by the political choices of the courts as Parliament is ordered to comply with judicial policy directions in all existing and future legislation. As a law-making body, Parliament is becoming less relevant, less creative, less effective, and less vigorous as a result of this shift in power.

Recently, three provincial courts have ventured into the realm of social policy and have ordered Parliament to redefine the institution of marriage. It is important to note that Canada is the only country in the world whose courts have determined the issue of same sex marriage to be a rights based issue. The two countries that have legalized to some extent so-called same sex marriage, the Netherlands and Belgium, have done so as a matter of public policy through the legislative process, not on the basis of judicial compulsion.

In respect of this issue, this new wave of judicial activism appears to pay little heed to either Parliament or indeed the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada as set out in prior decisions. In the Egan Supreme Court decision in 1995, Justice La Forest, writing for four judges for a nine court panel, specifically rejected the idea that the traditional definition of marriage improperly discriminated against same sex couples. Rather, he concluded that Parliament was properly entitled to make a distinction between marriage and all other social units. In his words:

...the distinction made by Parliament is grounded in a social relationship, a social unit that is fundamental to society. That unit, as I have attempted to explain, is unique. It differs from all other couples, including homosexual couples.

The other five judges chose not to base their decision on this issue and in the result the decision of Justice La Forest, together with the judgment of Justice Sopinka who concurred in the result arrived at by Justice La Forest, forms the authoritative basis of the decision. Although both Justice La Forest, on behalf of those who addressed this issue, and Parliament have clearly expressed their support for traditional marriage legal challenges continue to mount.

Last week, when the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that prohibiting same sex marriage was discriminatory, it joined two other recent lower court rulings in Ontario and Quebec. I was surprised, perhaps I should not have been, but I was certainly disappointed to hear the justice minister suggesting the possibility that he may choose not to appeal the British Columbia decision, particularly since he along with the majority of his cabinet colleagues voted in support of a Reform Party resolution in 1999 that stated:

...marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

The Liberals are now deserting their commitment that they made to the public of Canada. The former finance minister who hopes to be Canada's next Prime Minister has failed to articulate a clear position on this issue. He has said that he would support the decision of the courts and would not use the parliamentary override, the notwithstanding clause, to preserve traditional marriage.

This is astounding considering that he voted to take all necessary steps to do so four years ago. He is failing to show leadership. He is deserting the commitment he made to Canadians four years ago. Knowing that public opinion is divided on this issue, the Liberals may find it convenient to leave this hot potato with the courts in order to shift the responsibility for this matter onto the unelected and unaccountable judiciary that cannot be voted out of office.

However, if the Liberals decide not to challenge this court decision, as they have apparently done, they will have failed in their responsibility to demonstrate leadership on this important social issue.

As the chief law officer of Canada, the justice minister has a clear obligation to Canadians to appeal the B.C. Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. If the Supreme Court then chooses to abolish traditional marriage by overturning the Egan decision in the comments of Justice La Forest, then the minister is obligated, in keeping with the promise he made to Canadians in 1999, to invoke section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At this point the decision is properly back in the hands of parliamentarians and not in the hands of those who would improperly take this jurisdiction away from the elected representatives of the people. Those parliamentarians who choose to allow the courts to make these decisions, because they do not have the courage to make the decisions themselves, fabricate an excuse by saying it is the Constitution that makes us do this.

Let us make it perfectly clear that section 33 is, in fact, an appropriate mechanism by which Parliament retains supremacy in this country. Although the courts may successfully be pressured by interest groups into a position on marriage based on what may be new and fashionable, it is the duty of Parliament to await the test of time through rigorous debate. This is particularly true because these views and theories on marriage are so oddly out of step with the views of ordinary Canadians, and indeed historical and sociological precedents on marriage across the world.

In the case of John Robin Sharpe, our ability as Canadians to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation has been seriously eroded by the courts. Parents breathed a sigh of relief after a January 2001 Supreme Court decision substantially upheld Canada's laws against child pornography. Unfortunately, the exception created for personal writings was defined in such a broad way that violent and anti-social text that glorified the sexual exploitation of our children by adults like Sharpe could be justified under the law.

We would never tolerate that kind of abuse of minorities in this country. We would not tolerate that kind of abuse of women in this country. Yet the Liberal government is prepared to tolerate the abuse of the most vulnerable people in our society, our children. We did not see this immediately, but a year later, when Sharpe was re-tried in the B.C. Supreme Court, the judge interpreted Sharpe's pornographic works involving children, the sexual abuse of children, as having artistic merit. It is shameful.

Not surprisingly this was the same judge who had originally struck down the law as unconstitutional in 1999. Clearly, what he could not do by declaring the law unconstitutional, he simply did by applying an absurdly broad definition of artistic merit. Sharpe's writings are not art by any reasonable standards. His writings depict sexually explicit material that glorifies the violent sexual exploitation of children by adults. The loophole of artistic merit remains in the new Liberal bill, Bill C-20.

Although the Liberal government has used smoke and mirrors to pretend that it has made the loophole disappear, a prominent Liberal lawyer, David Matas, who represented Beyond Borders, has in fact said the new Liberal legislation would create a larger loophole than artistic merit. Yet these members opposite claim that they have addressed the problem. They have not done anything in Bill C-20 that purports to abolish the defence of artistic merit. They are misleading the public when they suggest that the defence of the public good is a satisfactory answer.

The other issue of importance is the law that allows convicts, including child sexual predators, to serve their terms in the community, otherwise known as house arrest. The Liberal government instituted this policy in 1996 in order to reduce incarceration rates. Whatever happened to the overriding concern about the protection of society?

The Liberals have become bureaucrats who say that we need to reduce incarceration rates. What about the protection of children, people in the streets, our cities, towns, and rural countryside? Serious criminals who still pose a risk to the community have abused these sentences and the government has done nothing to take steps to prevent that.

For example, in 2001 a New Brunswick man was handed a six month conditional sentence and 18 months probation after he pleaded guilty to possession and trading of child pornography on the Internet. The pornographer dealt in pictures involving children between the ages of 10 and 12. Although the law directs the courts to impose the sentence only in those circumstances where serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community, that principle appears to have been long forgotten by the courts.

The courts have ignored the federal justice minister's stated intention that these house arrests would not apply to violent crimes. Even the concept of imposing a prison sentence to deter others no longer seems to be applied as a result of the Liberal law.

In another more recent case the supreme court overturned a 1993 law passed by Parliament prohibiting prisoners serving a sentence of two years or more from voting in federal elections.

In another more recent case the Supreme Court overturned a 1993 law passed by Parliament prohibiting prisoners serving a sentence of two years or more from voting in federal elections. It was found that the law infringed section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which gives Canadians the right to vote. As a result, the motorcycle gang member and convicted murderer who challenged the law won the right to vote. In the days and weeks following the ruling, polls showed that the overwhelming majority of Canadians disagreed with the decision.

In the upcoming May 12 byelection in Perth--Middlesex, a prisoner has been placed on the voter's list who recently was convicted of stabbing his wife to death while their children watched. Canadians are outraged that murderers and violent criminals can take part in the democratic process for which they have shown contempt.

By the court substituting its political opinion, and I emphasize it is a political decision on the part of the court, this is not a legal decision, for that of elected parliamentarians, Canadians have no reason to believe in the legitimacy of democratic government and the rule of law. Unfortunately, although the Canadian Alliance introduced a motion last year that would end prisoner voting, the Liberal government refused to support it, suggesting that it would deal with the problem in some other mysterious way. In actual fact the constitutional amendment, as outlined in the motion, is the only way by which Parliament can reverse the effects of this damaging and ill-conceived court decision.

If a member of Parliament makes laws with which Canadians do not agree, that member of Parliament may not be re-elected. However Canadians do not have the opportunity to remove judges who make significant decisions that do not reflect the values of our citizens and our country.

Once the Prime Minister appoints a judge, by virtue of our Constitution a judge may remain in his or her position until age 75. Because of the important decisions our judges are called upon to make, many people in Canada believe that the closed door process for choosing judges, controlled by the Prime Minister, should be changed. In fact Canadian Alliance policy specifically calls for Supreme Court of Canada judges to be chosen by a multi-party committee of the House of Commons after open hearings. Others would like to go further. A recent survey taken by the polling company Environics suggested that two-thirds of Canadians believe that Supreme Court judges should be elected.

Regardless, I believe the closed door process for choosing Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges is in need of review. Although the Prime Minister consults with interest groups such as law societies, bar associations and individual members of the legal associations and the legal community including judges, as well as the justice minister himself when making appointments, given the significance of court decisions since the advent of the charter, it is increasingly necessary for these appointments to come before Parliament in some fashion so that a broader spectrum of Canadians are involved in this decision.

I dare say there are not many members of the House who could name the nine Supreme Court judges who have so much power over the lives of individual Canadians and our democracy. I doubt if one person could stand in the House and name all nine. At the very least, Canadians have indicated that judicial appointments must allow for greater direct input by citizens to help ensure that those we appoint as judges properly reflect the values of Canadians rather than simply the political interests of a particular Prime Minister.

My time is drawing to a close, but I would direct the readers or the listeners to go back to some of the earlier Supreme Court of Canada decisions where the courts said in very lofty terms that these rights and freedoms were not to be interpreted in a vacuum, but they needed to be interpreted in the context of our historical and cultural roots. The courts have cut off those roots. They have gone on a frolic of their own. It is time that it stops. Ultimately it is the duty of Parliament, as a federal legislative body, to bring our public policy and our laws into line with the views and values of Canadians, and so I encourage all members to support the motion.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the courts are doing a very poor job on this particular issue. For example, Bill C-20 does not close the loophole for artistic merit and does not create tougher sentences for these predators. However, the Liberals are ramming it through with the help of a Tory justice critic who spoke in favour of it, saying we have no choice. We do have a choice.

When will the Liberal government finally get tough, close all the loopholes, and put child predators behind bars so our children will be safe?

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

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the only way we will save costs on this program is to scrap this registry and put the money into public safety.

The minister should be ashamed of himself for coming here with a whole bunch of costs and not being able to answer my questions on what this will cost and when it will be finished, but this is typical of the government. I am hardly surprised because this reflects its entire criminal justice agenda. It has nothing to do with public safety. Instead, it is just wasting money and being soft on crime.

We have Bill C-23 which frankly should be renamed the sex offender protection act because the only people in the country it protects are sex offenders. We have Bill C-20 that has loopholes for child pornography. I could go on and on. Under its watch the government has allowed convicts the right to vote.

Can the government explain why it is so soft on criminals and is never prepared to take real action on crime?

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-20 and the amendment to the bill. I also want to congratulate the hon. member who just spoke on his new grandchild.

I have a big problem with what exactly the government is trying to do with regard to the bill. We all know, or should know, and maybe the problem is that we do not all know, that the government's first and foremost responsibility is the protection of its law-abiding citizens. However it seems that the government has decided to take an easy way out of this. I should explain this to the people at home.

We now have in Canada what is known as judge made laws. The government has allowed that to take place because it lets the government off the hook. Governments are supposed to make laws, judges are to interpret them and lawyers are to debate them. It is easier now for the government to say that it did not intend something to happen in a law and that it was the judge who was at fault for giving that type of sentence.

Therefore, as a member of Parliament, the government in its own stupidity--I cannot put it any other way--decided to give me an out as a member of Parliament when I go home and have to face some tough questions from my constituents, such as the Sharpe decision in regard to child pornography. I can now go home and say that it was a judge who made that decision, not the government.

The fallacy is that we can now lay the blame on the judges, even though the government appoints most of them, because they are not accountable. They do not have to come up for re-election. They do not have to be voted in. They do not have to explain to the population why a decision was made.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of things to say on the bill. I think it would be appropriate for me to begin by making a very important announcement.

One hundred and seventy-five hours ago we saw another Epp baby come into the world. I am a grandfather for the fifth time. I will use a term which is unparliamentary but not offensive, it is my name. In the Epp tradition, the baby came into the world just perfectly. He even had a little hair over his ear to match grandpa's, which was very nice.

This grandchild is little Micah. He is the baby brother of Noah and Hannah. When I see him and his older sister and brother I cannot help but think how totally deplorable and depraved it would be for anyone to engage in any activity of a sexual nature with these innocent, young, beautiful children. Nor can I can understand how anyone would get any pleasure whatsoever from depicting, either by written words, by pictures. cartoons or whatever, that type of activity.

I find that totally deplorable. In fact, I do not know of any words in the English language or in either of my other two languages that come anywhere close to describing the absolutely horrific nature of such an activity.

Along come the Liberals and they say that they will introduce Bill C-20. It is a Criminal Code amendment designed to safeguard children from sexual exploitation. It is a very hapless title. It reminds me of the days when I drove a truck. I used to haul big loads with a big rig on the highway. Every once in a while we did not have a back haul. I would be driving the big truck empty simply to get to another destination. I had no load.

That is what the bill is. It has a fancy title but the bill is empty. It does not begin to address the issues that are before us as a society and as lawmakers in this country.

I want to be very specific because I know this is actually a bill that was brought forward to make political hay. The Liberals brought forward the bill with nothing in it to protect children so that we in opposition will have no choice but to vote against it. We will vote against it because it is ineffective. The bill does not do anything to protect children.

In the next election we probably will have brochures in our ridings asking why people would vote for that Canadian Alliance member when he voted against the protection of children. That will be the Liberals' messaging. I find that almost as offensive as the bill itself. I have seen this happen in previous election campaigns.

For the Liberals to use children in such a blatant way shows how really empty they are of any principles at all. I am really distressed about this.

We have, for example, in the bill a move that is supposed to make it easier to actually convict child pornographers. How will we do that if we stand in front of the same judges trying to make the case? In the past we went there and said that something was bad that the person should be convicted of a crime. The defence would argue, no, that this was in keeping with community standards.

It turned out that community standards basically allowed almost anything to go through because it is very difficult to define community standards. They changed that in the bill calling it “public good”. That may be a little more difficult to prove. Maybe community standards sometimes are contrary to public good but, as I see it, they are almost identical in the eyes of a judge in a law court.

The public good could be argued to be served if we simply fail to stop somebody from writing this junk. They would say “that is the public good”, and they would be arguing free speech. I am not against free speech but limitations to a certain degree are valid. In my humble opinion, when it comes to protecting our beautiful, innocent, young children, we stop at nothing.

I would be totally content to say that to depict child pornography in any form whatsoever, written, hand drawn, definitely photographs or films or videos, but even the written stuff and the hand created cartoon stuff, if it depicts children being abused, it is wrong.

We ought to have a law in this country that says that no one can do it. I would even go so far as to write into the legislation “notwithstanding anything in the charter” so that defence could not be used. I would say “notwithstanding anything in the charter, this bill provides that no one may produce or possess, in any form whatsoever, any form of child pornography”. Then perhaps we could stand tall and say that we are doing something tangible to protect our children.

I cannot let my time slip by without making a comment on a glaring omission in the bill, and that is the age of consent. I do not know how it happened in our country that we allowed the age of consent to slip down to 14.

Our goddaughter had a birthday yesterday if I am not mistaken. I know she just turned 12 but that means she finished her twelfth year of life and she is into her thirteenth year. Again, there is absolutely no justification anywhere, anytime for anyone to talk a child of that age into sexual activity. It just is wrong.

Here we have a bill that says we are going to protect children but does nothing with the age of consent. I need to explain this for anyone who may not know what it means. It means that an adult cannot stand up in court and say “I am innocent because she agreed to it”. That is all it means. No one cannot persuade a 13 year old in this country to have sex and get away with it because that is not permitted, but if she is 14, they can. I say that is way too low. The very serious omission in the bill is that it does not address that problem.

We could talk about many other things in the bill but I guess I will have only time for one more in my last minute and that has to do with minimum and maximum sentences.

In the bill the maximum sentences have been increased. Fine, but will the courts use them, or will they continue to give continual sentences?

I had a letter from an individual who actually chastised me for calling for minimum sentences. She said that she did not want minimum sentences for those creeps. She said that she wanted maximum sentences. I wrote to her and told her I understood what she was saying. She wants to punish them to the max, which is right, but, unfortunately, if a maximum sentence is given in the law it prohibits a judge from giving any sentence greater than that. A minimum sentence means that a sentence must be given of at least a set amount.

We should have minimum sentences in a bill that purports to protect children but it is not in the bill. Therefore I will be voting against the bill and my reason is that I truly want to protect children.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-20. I want to thank my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, our justice critic, for his help on this issue. As members know, he is now campaigning to become leader of our party, which I hope he does. I do want to put some comments on the record on his behalf and on behalf of my party.

Bill C-20 is basically the Liberal answer to the John Robin Sharpe case, the pornographic case which became famous in Canada.

There are some aspects of the bill which we take some comfort from in terms of what it will do. 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 prohibition order, can be seen as a positive step. We do not dispute that.

We also believe that positive amendments have been brought forward with regard to sections 151 and 152 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.

Fundamentally, this debate and this legislation must centre around the harm caused to those most vulnerable in our society, our 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. We must show how this new legislation will eradicate child pornography. It is our belief that the new legislation will not do that.

We are talking about eradicating 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 definitely be constitutional challenges under Bill C-20 if it is passed.

There is an inherent danger to society as a whole when we fail to recognize the detrimental effect child pornography can have at a base level. No one is suggesting that the literary works of Nabokov, who is the author of Lolita or Plato's Symposium , be removed from circulation based on the promotion of sexual contact with minors. Indeed the charter of rights provides sufficient protection for freedom of thought and expression. However the question of what constitutes a reasonable limit is central to this debate and to Bill C-20.

Clause 7(1) of Bill C-20 amends subsection 163(1) of the Criminal Code, defining child pornography to include any written material, the dominant characteristics of which is the description for a sexual purpose of sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years of age.

While the addition of a clearer section for the purpose of specifically defining what constitutes child pornography is welcome, I suggest that the definition be altered to remove foreseeable subjectivity.

As a definition, child pornography should not be open to interpretation through intent or any other means. The thought process behind the writing and whether or not 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 this clear definition, the judiciary is removed from the public-private nature of the debate. As a remedy to that, a clause was placed in the bill, within section 163, saying that:

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.

We understand the intent of the minister's legislation. I fear the manner in which it is presented will not be sufficient to protect 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 remove completely the chance that materials of this nature would see the light of day. 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 this bill is to protect children from all forms of exploitation, including child pornography, sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect. Unfortunately, the 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 once again vulnerable.

We ask the minister why it has taken so long, and how the legion of lawyers has produced yet again an obviously flawed piece of legislation. This bill has been laying around this place for a long time but they have yet to get it right.

The overall effect of the Sharpe decision by Mr. Justice Shaw had many in society recoiling with dismay. We have heard that today in the House. 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 social 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 the 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.

To remind members, section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms, “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 I do not think the minister's lawyers understand that.

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 a lack of resources available to them. We desperately need legislation that will protect children. We believe that this legislation is not strong enough. I urge the government and the minister to consider some of the arguments being put forward in the House today.

Again, the objective of this new bill is to protect children. It does not do that. Please allow some of the amendments suggested by this side of the House to be considered by the government. Do not just categorically deny the opposition that simply because we are the opposition.

The Government of Canada is here to protect children and that is what we want it to do.

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

Madam Speaker, in February 2002, Mr. Justice Shaw of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, using whatever logic or rationale that may have prevailed on that particular day, ruled that the written works of acknowledged pedophile Robin Sharpe, which depicted young children in various sexual poses, depicted young children as victims of sexual violence, and depicted young children being brutally exploited sexually by adults, “had artistic merit” and acquitted Robin Sharpe of the charges of possession and distribution of child pornography.

This came as an absolutely unbelievable court decision to millions of Canadians. It fuelled the fires of doubt about whether their justice system was working for society. It fuelled the storm of protests over the decisions that we see coming out of our justice system. It fuelled the storm of protests over the mounting judicial activism that has been happening in our country for the last 10 years because governments, such as the Liberal government, do not have the guts to make controversial law and legislation in this Parliament, but rather they would take the cowardly way out and leave it to the judges to make these decisions and expect Canadians to just sit back, abide by some very sick decisions, such as this one here, and accept that because it came from the courts it must be right.

This has not happened by accident. I believe that the push to get controversial or publicly sensitive legislation out of Parliament started way back when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the Prime Minister of Canada. He and his government put through legislation and he led the charge through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that Parliament would never have to make controversial decisions that would make it uncomfortable or nervous. It would be left in the hands of the courts to decide.

The government now brings in Bill C-20 that is supposed to fix this. The defence that it is trying to fix is that the representation or written material has artistic merit or is for educational, scientific or medical purposes. It was certainly the defence used in the case of Robin Sharpe, which Chief Justice Shaw accepted, for whatever insane reason, and certainly, not for the good of society.

Now instead of using the artistic merit, educational, scientific or medical purposes defence, the new bill, which is supposed to fix this thing, proposes that this defence be repealed and replaced by the defence that the material alleged to constitute child pornography serves the public good. This is amazing.

Every sane person in the country could understand that we simply could not attach the phrase “serving the public good” to materials that depict the sexual exploitation of children or the brutality of children by sexual predators either in drawn form or written word. My God, how can we imagine that Canada could accept that a defence could be used that could describe child pornography as serving the public good?

Only a Liberal government that has failed Canadian on so many justice issues since 1993, could come up with a bill like this.

They are not alone. The Liberals on the other side who support the bill, will stand up and say that we have to be careful and that we have to try to determine that maybe there might be some public good in child pornography. They will stand up and vote for the bill. They will be joined by their friends in the NDP party. The member for Palliser has already given notice on this. January 27, the member for Palliser said, and he believed that his colleagues shared his opinion, that:

--if it has not specifically hurt a minor in the production of it, if it is created by people's visual imaginations and if the main purpose of it is not simply about pornography and sexual exploitation, then under the laws people do have a right to their own imaginations and thoughts, however perverse...

That reflects the opinion of the member for Palliser and as he said, “I believe it will be shared by a majority”, of whom, I do not know. It is certainly not rational thinking Canadians but maybe that does not include supporters of the NDP party. However it will shared by a majority if not all of his colleagues. Therefore we are talking about not rationally thinking Canadians.

Mr. David Matas of Winnipeg wrote an opinion on child pornography and artistic merit. Apparently this person is a Winnipeg lawyer. He argued the Sharpe case in the Supreme Court of Canada for an organization called Beyond Borders, which is a leading fighter against child pornography in Canada. He is a very knowledgeable person.

Mr. Matas said that the defence of artistic merit, which is in the legislation now and in the court system now, needed to be narrowed so that only in the case of police officers using child pornography that was drawn or written as evidence in a case against the child pornographer or cases like that could it be allowed. Certainly not the possession by some of these perverts that are running around our country preying on our children.

I am absolutely disgusted at the lack of knowledge that the Liberal government has about how society feels about child pornography. It is a disgusting lack of leadership by the government and we certainly cannot support the bill.

Speaking of disgusting acts, I cannot sit down before I tell the House about something that happened the last two nights in the Bell Centre in Montreal. Some of the fans were booing the American national anthem and booing the presence of American based teams playing in Canada. This as one of the most disgusting and embarrassing things I have ever seen Canadians do. One has to wonder where their priorities are--

Child Pornography

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government may talk about protecting children, but it does exactly the opposite.

Prominent human rights lawyer David Matas has recently stated that Bill C-20, the proposed child pornography legislation, goes in exactly the wrong direction. Instead of narrowing the defence of artistic merit, indeed it broadens the defence.

When will the government finally find the courage to protect children, rather than siding with the interests of child pornographers?

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and debate Bill C-20 today. I want to say at the outset that members of the Canadian Alliance have spoken out forcefully on this and that is because we reflect where our constituents are at. Many of us have received petitions on this issue. People are very concerned about court rulings that seem to indicate some kind of a tolerance for child pornography in some form.

However, I want people who are watching today to understand that the Canadian Alliance feels it is completely wrong to give any kind of nod of approval to any form of child pornography, any form. I want to underline how pervasive the attitude is, at least among some people, that it is okay to tolerate some kinds of child pornography by pointing to something that was said in this place back at the end of January by a member of the NDP. This is what the member for Palliser said:

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's specific questions, the position that I take, and I believe would be shared by a majority if not all of my caucus colleagues--

These are his colleagues in the NDP.

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

My concern, which I think is shared by police officers across the country, is that if we open the door a crack to allowing these “artistic” versions of child pornography or what the courts have ruled are stories that may have artistic merit, then really we give the seal of approval to child pornography.

We want to shut that down. We are saying that there is no such thing as child pornography having any kind of public good. That of course is what is at the heart of the debate over Bill C-20 and we want to make it very clear that our party is completely opposed to that notion.

This is such a broad subject and there are so many different aspects to it, but suffice it to say that the Alliance believes that child pornography in Canada today is a scourge. We know that there has been a lot of publicity about this issue recently. There has been a worldwide crackdown by police forces on child pornography.

One of the things that concerns us, beyond the flaws in Bill C-20, is the fact that the police are not given adequate resources to deal with the issue of child pornography. When we had the recent crackdown around the world, which resulted in people being charged in the United States, Great Britain and some in Canada, we found that in Canada we had a woeful lack of resources when it came to having enough people to go out and check on people who initially were caught with child pornography, to check and make sure that we actually had enough evidence to prosecute them.

That is a concern. If the government maintains, and I think that it would, that the protection of children has to be the highest possible priority of a police force and a justice system in Canadian society, then they have to have adequate resources to do that. They need to have good laws and they need to have adequate resources. I am afraid to say that we have neither in Canada today.

The idea of artistic merit as a defence for child pornography, or even now the idea of public good as Bill C-20 states, I think to most people is contrary to common sense.

The government has not just failed when it comes to those issues, but it has failed in other ways as well, which are related to this. Some members already have spoken about the government's failure to adopt legislation that would raise the age of consent for engaging in sexual relations. Right now the age is 14, which I think would strike most people as being too young. We are talking here about relations between adults and children as young as the age of 14 and that is what concerns us.

Last year when we brought this forward as a motion in the House of Commons I was surprised, in fact, very frustrated, that the government voted against our motion to raise the age of consent from 14 to at least 16. The government trotted out all kinds of red herrings that it had not been able to get the provinces onside and that it was working with the provinces. That is a red herring because it is the federal government alone that sets the Criminal Code. The provinces administer it, but it is the federal government that has sole responsibility for changing the laws when it comes to the Criminal Code of Canada. We are concerned about that.

Another indication that the government does not take these issues seriously enough is its ridiculous sex offender registry which it is now proposing to bring in. The sex offender registry would only list people as of now who have committed a sexual offence. They would be the only ones who would be listed.

If somebody had been guilty of all kinds of sexual offences in the past, they would not be listed in the sex offender registry. That calls into question the government's commitment of ensuring that the public's protection is put ahead of the protection of privacy for people who have records as sexual offenders. To me that is simply wrong.

We are concerned that the government is not taking seriously enough what should be the first priority of any government which is the protection of its citizens. Why were governments formed? They were formed to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens and one of those freedoms is the freedom to not be interfered with, sexually. The government has not addressed these issues in a serious enough manner. There have been thousands of names on petitions that have come into the House. These people say they want these sorts of laws strengthened.

For reasons that are not apparent to me, the government drags its heels at every turn and comes up with all kinds of excuses for not doing it. I think that is simply wrong.

I want to make reference to an article that a previous member mentioned that was written by a Winnipeg lawyer who talked about the artistic merit defence and the new legislation, Bill C-20. He argued that the artistic merit defence, or the old legislation governing child pornography, was actually stricter than the new legislation that the government is bringing in. He pointed to all kinds of possible ways that the government could put some strict limits on child pornography to ensure that the next time this law is challenged it will not be thrown out again by the courts.

I would argue that if the government is not prepared to listen to the opposition then it should listen to people like David Matas, a Winnipeg Lawyer. He has provided some common sense suggestions for ways to limit the current definition of child pornography to ensure that we do not have to go through this again and that Canada's young people are protected.

About a year and a little bit ago my colleague from Lethbridge and I went down to the Canada-U.S. border and spent some time with customs officials on both sides of the border. One thing that came up on both sides of the border was how they have to be so vigilant today to ensure that when young people are travelling across the border with an older person, that they are not doing so because they have been lured by older people for the purposes of sexual exploitation. The impression they left with me is that this is not just a problem, it is a crisis.

We hear Toronto police officers talking about the crisis that they are facing now with respect to child pornography. We hear people talking today about the fact that Canada is becoming somewhat of a destination for sex tourism.

This is a serious issue and I am concerned that the government is not taking its responsibilities for protecting young people seriously. We have laid down a number of examples today of how it is failing in those responsibilities. Not only does it have to do with Bill C-20, but it has to do with its inability to summon the courage to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 and it is has to do with bringing in a sex offender registry that captures on that registry people who have committed sexual offences in the past and not just as of today.

I will conclude by urging the government to consider these remarks and to change this legislation.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to the amendment to Bill C-20.

Our problems with the bill are many and varied. Let us back up for a moment. If the objective of our justice system is the protection of innocent civilians, then surely the protection of children must be at the forefront of our justice system.

For 10 years people in my party and in others have asked, pushed, cajoled and coerced the government to implement solutions that will protect children from that most egregious crime: the sexual, violent abuse at the hands of a predator or a pedophile.

To understand why we are so adamant about this, let us look at pedophilia for a moment. It is an incurable problem. Pedophiles, by and large, are not cured of this. When somebody comes before our justice system to be tried and sometimes convicted for these offences, it is usually not the first time the person has sexually abused a child. In fact, studies show that when an individual comes before the court charged with the sexual abuse of a child, generally the person has abused at least 12 children before that.

Hon. members should think about that for a moment. When a person comes before a court for the very first time, the person has sexually raped and abused at least 12 children, not once but generally over a prolonged period of time. As my colleague has mentioned, that has profound implications upon the life of a child for the entire length of the child's life. It is something that they never, ever get over.

As a result, we are aghast and appalled that the government has not adopted the constructive solutions that we put forth that would have strengthened our justice system, protected children and enabled our courts to do the job they were supposed to do: protect the Canadian public.

It is also without a doubt the responsibility of the courts and our justice system to implement solutions that will help in the rehabilitation of the convicted. We make no dispute about that and, in fact. we encourage that. How can we have a society where those who have made mistakes and who have committed offences do not have the hope of retribution or of being cured of their problem?

Pedophilia is in a category very different from all others, with the exception, I would say, of individuals who commit violent sexual abuses against other individuals. Violent sexual behaviour, pedophilia, is in a class unto itself. Most of those people do not get cured. It is true that most of those people, it is sad to say, have endured sexual abuse, violent or otherwise, themselves. That is a profound tragedy and we have great sympathy for those individuals. However it does not exonerate them from committing acts of violent sexual abuse against others during their lives.

Therefore it is our responsibility here in the House to ensure that our justice system, our courts and our police have the tools to not only protect civilians, but also to ensure that to the best of our ability we can give the individuals who committed those offences as much treatment as possible to ensure that when or if they get out we can be confident that they will not reoffend again.

Herein lies the problem. The court system gives individuals a sentence. They finish their sentence and then they are released. We are fairly confident that some of those people will not reoffend but, having worked in jails, I can tell the House that a lot of those people, whether they are sexual predators or violent offenders, are being released with the full knowledge and awareness that they will commit that type of offence again. Those who work in our penal institutions, those who are part of our court system and those who are part of our police forces are aghast, appalled, saddened and often demoralized by the fact that our system does not at the end of the day, at its heart, protect our society from those individuals who commit the most violent, appalling and egregious offences against innocent civilians.

These people are predators. I will provide an example. Friends of mine, a couple, were living in Vancouver. An individual moved in beside them and befriended them. He came over with gifts and food. One day the wife of this friend of mine was at home and suddenly found their next door neighbour in their home, uninvited, with candies for their daughter, who was seven years old at the time. Subsequent to that they found out that this individual, their neighbour who they thought was perfectly fine, had a long history of violent sexual abuses against children. He was and is a predator and was an individual who was trying to sexually abuse their seven year old daughter.

When this friend of mine went to the police, the police said they could do nothing about this since the person had not committed a crime. What do we have to wait for? Do we have to wait for that individual to rape that seven year old girl so the police can say they have a crime and therefore can incarcerate that individual?

Certainly a crime has to be committed before someone is incarcerated, to be sure, but on the other hand, does that family not have a right to know that the person living next door to them is an individual with a long history of violent sexual abuses, an individual who the police know is fully expected to reoffend? Does that family not have a right to know that its next door neighbour has a very high chance of sexually abusing another child? The hands of the police were tied in that case, as they are tied in other cases around the country.

We understand and are fully cognizant of the fact that all individuals have rights, but at the end of the day the rights of a child have to trump the rights of a sexual predator. That has to happen. That is what we in our party are trying to do. We are trying to change the laws of the land to ensure that children are not going to be preyed on by pedophiles who have a long history of these actions and, by and large, as I said before, are incurable. Some can be controlled and should be allowed out after serving their sentences, but those who cannot should be kept in jail until such time as the judicial system is confident that these individuals will not reoffend.

We also know that on the international stage there are pedophile tours. These adults, working underground, get together to go on tours to Colombia and southeast Asia where they are taken to brothels and children are presented in front of them so that they can rape them. That is what is happening now. It is an underground system. The international judicial system is aghast and appalled that collectively we have been unable to prosecute these individuals who go on these tours to sexually abuse the children of people in faraway countries.

I know that the Thai government and the Malaysian government are aghast because many of these pedophiles selectively go there to sexually abuse children. This cannot be allowed to happen. Our Minister of Justice must work with other ministers of justice and international policing organizations to develop a system for the identification and prosecution of individuals who actively go after children on these international sex tours.

My colleague has mentioned the issue of child porn. I will not belabour the issue because my colleagues have spoken eloquently about it. Suffice it to say that we are not talking about some individual who accidentally pulls something off a computer. We are talking about individuals who have a long history of pulling up and using child pornography. What adults do among themselves is adults' business, but when people are actually buying child pornography, attached to that must be victims, and the victims are children who had absolutely no say whatsoever in being part and parcel of those movies or photographs that show them being sexually abused by adults.

As for solutions, we have spoken about heavier penalties and minimum sentencing for people convicted of pedophilia. Release should be conditional upon the knowledge that individuals who are pedophiles, and I would extend this to people who commit rape, are violent sexual offenders. We must be certain that those individuals and people who commit pedophilia and sexual and violent offences are not going to reoffend. That category of offences is very different from others because at the end of the day the victims of those offences are individuals who have to sustain and endure terrible penalties that they have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Dangerous offender status should be more liberally applied to those individuals who are pedophiles. As I said before, it is an incurable problem.

I know my time is up, but I hope the government listens to the constructive solutions my party has put forward. We are very willing to work with the government to implement a constructive Bill C-20 that will protect our children from predation by violent sexual offenders.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-20, which is the government's attempt to deal with the issues of child pornography and sexual exploitation of children.

Almost one year ago the Canadian Alliance put forth an opposition motion that was debated in the House. I believe it was last April 23. At that time, the government defeated what I think was a very informed motion. I will read that for the benefit of people who are watching today. That motion reads:

That the government immediately introduce legislation to protect children from sexual predators including measures that raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, and measures that prohibit the creation or use of sexually explicit materials exploiting children or materials that appear to depict or describe children engaged in sexual activity.

We went through an extended period of time where we continued to pressure the government to come forward with legislation to address these very pressing issues. We had the overwhelming national interest in removing the exploitation of young children, particularly by sexual predators, pimps and others. The movement toward raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to at least 16 had prompted hundreds of thousands of letters, e-mails and petitions.

On the day of the debate of the motion last year, and I can recall, Mr. Speaker, you were in the chair, I had 8,681 petitions on my desk to present. Of course that was denied by members on the government side, but they did end up in the minister's office later that day.

The point is none of those people are satisfied with the current legislation. The current legislation continues to fail to address the issues appropriately, those issues of the fact that artistic merit continues to be an adequate defence and a huge loophole, which basically makes child pornography a continuing problem in the country.

In terms of the police, victims, advocates, all kinds of other organizations, the enforcement of our laws preventing the exploitation of 14 and 15 year old children is completely inadequate. Until the government raises the legal age of sexual consent, this situation will continue.

What this legislation actually does is create a very complex and convoluted set of terms of reference. Opinions of many experts and common sense would indicate, first, that the existing defences of child pornography are actually broadened rather than narrowed by the legislation. What has really happened is there is not a substantive difference between this defence in this legislation and what was in the previous legislation on artistic merit.

The other defences have been rolled into something called the public good defence which now has several avenues in which the Supreme Court will have great difficulty unless the normal avenues of defence used by defence lawyers are addressed. They are not addressed. They are simply one broad thing called the public good test.

Therefore, what we really have is a very unacceptable situation, a situation that will lead to a vacuum in the courts from the standpoint of the ability of police to enforce the law, uncertainty in the courts and a cornucopia of opportunity for lawyers and for people who would carry out activities that are not in the public good and exploitive of children. Those situations will all occur.

The most mind-numbing of all is the fact that the age of sexual consent has not been raised from 14 to 16. What has happened is that we have another very complex arrangement, totally subject to the whims of judges or others. What we really need is what we call a truth in sentencing. We need to eliminate statutory release. We need to eliminate conditional sentencing for sex offenders and we must have minimum sentences in order to deter child predators.

There is one aspect of the bill that I think we all concur in and that is the fact that it creates one new offence called voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material. This is obviously a positive step and has been done on a relatively timely basis.

What is so puzzling is that Canada remains one of the only western democratic jurisdictions that continues to pursue a minimum age of consent of 14. This is clearly unacceptable.

I want to read what the large social conservative organization in Vancouver, which sent me last year's petitions, had to say about all of this after our motion failed last year. It stated:

Parents, police and social service agencies are hindered in protecting children as young as 14 who are coerced into sex with adults. Children as young as 14 can be exposed to the risks associated with sexual activity such as emotional distress, unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS. Recent years have seen a significant increase in crimes of a sexual nature against children. Child prostitution, child pornography etc. are increasing at an alarming rate. The low age of consent encourages societal acceptance of early sexual behaviour and appetite for pedophiles. Problems associated with low age of consent to sex are deep emotional and mental health problems, STDS, cervical cancer, teen pregnancies, school drop-outs and criminal behaviour.

I am appalled that such a crucial and important issue, which deals with the fundamental fabric of our society, is being treated so dismally by the government.

I want to talk a little about the child pornography legislation as well. When the Supreme Court of British Columbia in February 2002 found that the written works of Robin Sharpe had artistic merit and acquitted him of the charges this created a vacuum.

I see my time is up, therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefore:

Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this is almost an open House leaders' meeting this afternoon. I am pleased to inform the House that this afternoon we will definitely continue with the opposition day motion. Let the record be very clear about that fact.

Tomorrow we will call Bill C-20, the child protection bill, followed then by Bill C-23 respecting sex offenders. On Monday we shall have an opposition day or an allotted day. That is also the case with next Tuesday.

Pursuant to an all party agreement on concurrence in a ways and means motion to take place on Tuesday and the subsequent introduction of the budget bill, it would be my intention to call on Wednesday the budget bill 2003. Insofar as anything else that may occur, I am pleased to inform the House that the government fully intends to comply with all Standing Orders.

Criminal Code

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20 because I am pleased to be recorded as standing up for the young people in this country. They are wonderful, naive, innocent and darling young people. They are cherished, not all the time, but most of the time our children are that way. We go through the terrible two's and stuff like that, but apart from that we want to protect our children because they are innocent and vulnerable.

There are perverts out there who take advantage of our young people in the most despicable ways. They do despicable acts against our children. They make videos, photographs, and other material so they can continue in their warped, senseless mind to derive some kind of enjoyment from what they perpetrate on these innocent young people. It is shocking. I have never seen any of that stuff myself. I have only heard that it exists. I cannot imagine how bad that stuff is, and how shocking and revolting it must be.

One would think that in a democratic society that cherishes the values and the human rights of our people, and the fact that we have a charter of human rights which guarantees our freedoms and protects us, there would not be a debate in the House about protecting our children. My colleague from Wild Rose has worked on this issue for many years. He has been trying to get the government to move the agenda forward. This has been worse than pulling teeth for my friend from Wild Rose. The government then comes along with a little bill that, when analyzed by our critic, is neutral on the family impact assessment. It does not move the ball forward and it does not move it back; it is neutral. That is shocking.

We depend upon the courts to protect society. There was a case in Vancouver a couple of years ago where the pervert who produced child pornography was told by the court that because it was artistic merit it was okay for him to possess it.

Photographs, videos and all that stuff was created by some little kid's pain. It was created to give some guy with a warped mind some kind of titillating enjoyment. I cannot understand why we must keep asking to shut this down. We should just shut it down. It is fairly clear to me that if there is some kind of offence against a child, be it a photograph or a video depicting a child in some kind of demeaning situation, be it violent or brutal or some kind of sexual exploitation, that is wrong and illegal. The individual involved should be prosecuted and sent away for a long time. It seems fairly straightforward.

As responsible adults we have been charged with writing the laws for this country. Why do we have this big problem with protecting our children? The perpetrators know it is wrong. We know it is wrong and the courts know it is wrong. Somehow or another the courts did get it wrong because they said this guy's rights were violated because he was being prosecuted for owning this stuff. How many kids were violated in order for him to produce that stuff? It was artistic merit so therefore he was entitled to keep it.

We have allowed this society to get pretty sick. Maybe society is getting a bit too perverted and tolerant of the anything goes lifestyle where any kind of sexual lifestyle is tolerated. Perhaps we are even going to give it the blessing of some kind of legal status. If we end up with same sex unions and other kinds of unions, the next thing we know it would be polygamy and people would say it is their right to have two wives, five wives or ten wives.

If it is okay for people of the same sex to have some kind of legal union, what is wrong with people saying that they would like to have two or three wives? They would say it is their right to have that too. The court would say yes, and then we would have turned full circle. We would be right back to exploitation and domination of women which I had thought we had left behind.

I cannot understand why the government cannot just say if it involves kids, it is pornography. It is wrong and illegal, and that is it. There is no defence. It is that simple. We must protect our kids and I hope the government gets the message.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, if you check the record, you will see that I have not yet had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-20.

As my colleague from Yellowhead pointed out, this is one of the most important bills that we will deal with in this Parliament because it deals with one of the most fundamental issues of any state or society, which is the protection of children.

We know that the most fundamental purpose of any state, according to any political philosopher throughout history, is the protection of it citizens. The protection of citizens and their property is the foundation of civilization and the first purpose of any state. We can take that further. The protection of the most vulnerable citizens of society is even more important.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-20, which is an act to amend the criminal code, protection of children and other vulnerable persons and the Canada Evidence Act.

For the record, I would like to go through exactly what the bill would do. To be fair, we in the opposition should recognize that there are some good intentions behind the bill in trying to address the protection of children. However, we obviously feel that the bill does not go far enough in truly addressing those needs. Therefore, I would like to describe what the bill does.

The bill amends the Criminal Code to, first, amend the child pornography provisions with respect to the type of written material that constitutes child pornography and child pornography defences. This is an issue that has certainly risen to the public's attention in accordance with many of the recent court cases in which people feel that people are using defences that should not be used in the possession of child pornography. On this side of the House, we feel that even the possession of child pornography is exploitation of children and that should not be allowed to happen.

Second, the bill amends the Criminal Code to add a new category to the offence of sexual exploitation of young persons and makes additional amendments to further protect children from sexual exploitation.

Third, the bill increases the maximum penalty for child sexual offences, for failing to provide the necessaries of life and for abandoning a child.

Fourth, it makes child abuse an aggregating factor for the purpose of sentencing.

Fifth, it amends and clarifies the applicable tests and criteria that need to be met for the use of testimonial aids, for excluding the public, for imposing a publication ban, for using video recorded evidence for appointing council or for a self-represented accused to conduct cross examination of certain witnesses.

Finally, it creates an offence of voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic materials.

We in the Canadian Alliance have a few main problems with the bill. The legislation is complex and needs to be studied in detail, which I am sure members will do at committee.

We have two main concerns. First, there is no substantial difference between the existing defence of child pornography which, for the record, is artistic merit, educational, scientific or medical purpose and public good. What the legislation does is reduce it to the single broad defence of public good. In our view, this is not sufficient. The previous defence of the community standards test was not sufficient and was in fact rendered ineffective by the Supreme Court in the 1992 Butler case . We think this is the most serious flaw in the legislation because it is not addressed.

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 raises the important relationship between Parliament, where we make laws, pass laws, debate and amend them and the judiciary, which interprets the law. Therefore, when the judiciary has already rendered a decision on one law and found it to be ineffective, we in Parliament should take that as counsel that we ought not to then use the same type of defence.

The courts in this case have made a decision. One can agree or disagree with that decision, but we certainly have to respect it and with this legislation obviously move beyond that defence to be truly fulfilling the purpose of protecting children.

The second concern I want to raise is this. It is clear that the artistic merit defence, while it may have been eliminated on paper or may be missing on paper, may still apply in practice. We obviously have some serious concerns with people using that defence for the possession of child pornography. In our view the minister has simply renamed and repackaged the artistic merit defence.

Additionally, I want to raise a point about the age of sexual consent because the bill does not raise the age of consent for sexual activity between children and adults, and it is important to be specific. The bill creates a category of sexual exploitation with the intended aim of protection of children between the ages of 14 and 18, but it does not raise the age of consent for sexual activity between children and adults. On this point, I do not understand the government's hesitancy in introducing age of sexual consent between children and adults and moving it up to 16. I do not understand the opposition to this.

We have raised this during question period many times. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is here. Some of the defences I do not understand, such as the concern about how it would impact cultural considerations in different cultural communities and that we would have to take this into account. I was astounded and did not understand that response to that series of answers by the justice minister and others.

In conclusion the bill does not go far enough, particularly with regard to the artistic merit defence in the possession of child pornography and the age of sexual consent. We need to go much further if we are to fulfill the basic responsibility of the state to protect its citizens, particularly the most vulnerable, our children.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are dealing with Bill C-20 and--

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make the business statement and I will have two motions which relate to that immediately afterward, with the permission of the House.

This afternoon we will consider the Senate amendments to Bill C-12, the sports bill. I understand this will be brief. This will be followed by third reading of Bill C-15, the lobbyists legislation. If time permits, we would then turn to Bill C-20 on child protection, and then possibly Bill C-23, the sex offender registry. I think by then the day will probably have exhausted.

Tomorrow our plan would be to commence with Bill C-2, the Yukon bill, which would then be followed by Bill C-6, the first nations specific claims bill.

When the House returns on March 17 we will complete the budget debate on that day. I will have a motion to offer to the House in a few minutes to defer the vote on that.

March 18 shall be an allotted day, as shall be March 20. I will give an update to members of the House in terms of legislation to be called on March 19.

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I wish to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, if on March 17, 2003, a division is requested on the main motion for government order, ways and means proceedings No. 2, the said division shall be deferred until the conclusion of the time provided for government orders on March 18, 2003.

For the benefit of members, that refers to the budget motion.

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition containing some 55 signatures from constituents of Chetwynd and Fort St. John in my riding of Prince George--Peace River.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to take all the necessary steps to eradicate every form of child pornography in Canada. Since a clear majority of Canadians are opposed to child pornography, they feel the government should introduce legislation that outlaws all forms of pornography involving children in Canada; that Bill C-20 does not accomplish this; that more needs to be done to protect our children; and that we should act now.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker]

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

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent in the House that the vote previously taken on Bill C-2 be applied in reverse to the motion now before the House and to the subsequent motion on Bill C-20.

The Budget

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

Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed by that question. If the hon. member would look at the bills that we have in front of the House, he would understand that with regard to the question of the protection of our children this is our top priority.

We have Bill C-20 in the House. If the opposition members would stop playing cheap politics they would support the government to make sure that we proceed with that bill as soon as we can to give police forces the additional tools to better protect our children.

Sex Offender Information Registration Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to you and all colleagues in the House for assisting with the disposition of important business of the House.

Presently we are dealing with 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. It is a very important bill: “The enactment requires that certain information about sex offenders be registered in a national database. This database is part of the automated criminal conviction records retrieval system maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is intended to serve as a tool that will help police investigate crimes of a sexual nature by providing them with access to current and reliable information related to sex offenders”.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code “to enable the Crown to apply for an order to require an offender who is convicted of, or found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder for, certain offences to report regularly to the designated registration centre and provide information”. It also creates a new Criminal Code offence “for failure to comply with the order, as well as an offence for providing false or misleading information. The enactment regulates access to, and the use and disclosure of the information contained in the database and includes an offence for contravention of those provisions”.

We have spent time in this place discussing important matters related to children. Certainly Bill C-20, with regard to child pornography, and this bill are related in many regards. As hon. members know, this is an extremely important bill. It is a bill that deserves our utmost attention, as it deals with improving the safety of our children and other vulnerable Canadians. I am confident that this is an objective shared by all parliamentarians, both here and in the other place. Moreover, the bill responds to the resolution passed by the premiers in August 2001 calling for a national sex offender registration system.

Further, the minister told the House that his department would begin evaluating potential improvements to the CPIC system in the specific area of sex offences. CPIC is the Canadian Police Information Centre. That database includes substantial information which the law enforcement authorities use for assistance in the conduct of their work. CPIC did not routinely contain up to date information on sex offences. It is one of the reasons why this bill is being brought forward.

In a very short time, the minister fulfilled his commitment when he announced to provincial and territorial ministers on September 11, 2001, that a new database within the CPIC system was to be created under the sex offender category. Further, he announced that this database would be “address searchable”, which is one of those Internet terms, and we are getting there, I think. It could be up and running within a year, funded completely by the federal government. I am pleased to note that the development of this new sex offender database has been completed and is now ready for implementation upon proclamation of Bill C-23.

At the same time, it was recognized that to create a truly national system, national legislation would be required. I know that many hon. members have risen in their places time and time again to bring a focus to the need for this national registry. There have been disagreements with regard to whether CPIC, even with the new category added, would be adequate to support law enforcement agencies in the discharge of their duties as they relate to sexual offenders and the offences by those persons.

In February 2002 all federal, provincial and territorial ministers agreed to work together to develop a legislative package that all could support. Ten months later, we have that legislation before us and a national consensus that it should be enacted as quickly as possible. I am confident that we will see that representatives from all parties and from all walks of life in this country will be supportive of the establishment of this registry.

During the 10 months of discussion, the Solicitor General and justice officials of all jurisdictions have worked together to fully explore the whole aspect of the registry, to determine what works and what does not and to agree on what is and what is not feasible. It is one thing to have a registry. It is quite another to have a registry that works and helps our law enforcement officers and agencies to do the job they are supposed to do on behalf of all Canadians.

If we are going to have a registry, we want to be certain that it will work and that it is efficient and affordable. We all know that Canadians expect us to be open, transparent, accountable and fiscally responsible with regard to legislation and actions taken on behalf of Canadians.

We want to ensure that it respects and guarantees the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it is not in breach of federal or provincial privacy laws. I do not know how many times we have bumped our heads up against privacy issues in balancing the rights of individuals to privacy against the issue of the rights of others. We certainly saw that in Bill C-20 dealing with child pornography when we were talking about the rights of someone to possess child pornography on the basis that it was an expression of artistic merit, as opposed to the rights of the common good of Canadians and to societal values that the existence of child pornography means that children must have been abused. We can see this is a very important determination: to respect the provisions of the charter and at the same time ensure that the rights and the freedoms provided by the charter are not going to be violated in a manner which would not be consistent with Canadian values.

We are going to have this registry and we want one that the local police agencies also can administer in a consistent manner while at the same time allowing enough flexibility to respect diverse values and resources among provinces. Most important, we want an approach that will help police solve crimes and will not drive convicted sex offenders underground with changed identities and no hope for rehabilitation.

This has to be a very difficult challenge for any country to deal with. To the extent that we make laws, that we close in, tighten the ring and close the net, it makes people flee, it makes people go underground. It takes them out of an environment in which they can get the help and the rehabilitation they need. This is extremely important.

The sex offender information registration act would establish, as I have said, a national sex offender database containing information on convicted sex offenders. This database would be maintained by the RCMP and would contain information provided by local police across the country. This would be an integrated database, partnering with law enforcement right across the country. It makes a great deal of sense that it should operate in this way.

It is intended to assist police in investigating crimes of a sexual nature by providing them with rapid access to current vital information about convicted sex offenders. The new national registration system would enhance public protection by helping police identify possible suspects known to reside near an offence site and it would enable an officer to instantly obtain a list of sex offenders who are registered and living in the area where the offence occurred. It is no guarantee and there is certainly no certitude that a sex offender who may be in the proximity of another crime is responsible for that crime, but the evidence is clear, particularly as it regards recidivism on sex offences, that there is a much higher likelihood of past offenders to repeat. This would be another tool to complement the tools that our law enforcement agencies already have.

Re-registration would be required annually and within 15 days should convicted offenders change their address. Offenders would be required to provide the local police current information, such as addresses and telephone numbers, names and aliases, as well as identifying marks and tattoos. Penalities of up to two years in prison and $10,000 in fines would be levied for failing to comply with the registration order and for not giving truthful information.

Other notable features include the sentencing judge or Crown application imposing an order unless the offender is able to demonstrate that it would be grossly disproportionate to the interests of the administration of justice. There would be no public access and strict privacy controls would be placed on day-to-day access, even by law enforcement personnel.

Provinces would have specific regulatory abilities to tailor operational aspects to their particular needs. Again, the partnering and ensuring that all agencies, at all levels, have the tools that they need to do their job the best that they can.

Offenders would be required to register for periods of 10 years, 20 years or life, depending on the maximum penalty of the predicate offences for which they were originally convicted.

All registrants would be able to apply for a judicial review of their status at the halfway mark of the registration. Offenders who receive a pardon would be able to apply for judicial review of their registry status, based on the grossly disproportionate test. Young offenders would not be subject to a registration order unless sentenced as an adult, consistent with the current and pending young offenders legislation.

A number of prescribed non-sexual offence convictions would also be subject to a Crown application for a registration order where it can prove an intent to commit an offence.

In closing, no measure within the criminal justice system exists in a vacuum, sex offender registries included. The task of preventing recidivism by sex offenders needs an effective, multi-faceted approach. Bill C-23 provides us with an instrument which we can work with to ensure that happens.

Criminal Code

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Wild Rose said, it is sometimes a pleasure to enter the debate in the House, but this bill is certainly not a pleasant thing to address because of the subject it deals with. In short, Bill C-20 is about child protection but it does not provide what it purports to do. My party wants to address why we feel that way and why we feel it is an illusion.

Ever since the Supreme Court decision in the case of John Robin Sharpe, Canadians have been waiting for the government to take the initiative and provide some genuine protection for Canadian children. Unfortunately, Bill C-20 fails in the effort and therefore it fails Canada as a whole.

I remember when the John Robin Sharpe decision came down in British Columbia because there was a huge public outcry in our communities. Members have received many letters and have presented many petitions in the House. I have tabled two petitions with over 1,000 signatures. Petitions have been submitted by all members of the House and in both official languages.

Most Canadians do not realize the extent of this plague of child pornography that is among us. I want to share some of the thoughts that have come in the deluge of mail I have received in my office.

Mrs. Hilda Higgs of Lantzville, B.C. wrote that she was appalled that someone could see anything artistic when it comes to child pornography.

Gerald Hall of Lantzville, B.C. quoted Job 9:24:

When a land falls into the hands of the wicked, he blindfolds its judges. If it is not he, then who is it?

He wrote a second time and said that the minds of our children are too precious to allow misguided individuals like Mr. Sharpe to overturn perfectly common sense laws that are in place to protect society.

Marilyn Burrows of Port Alberni. B.C. wrote expressing concern that the John Robin Sharpe decision would set a dangerous precedent for our children.

Isabel Zenuk of Qualicum Beach wrote that children are our greatest natural resource and that we must work to close the loopholes in our child protection laws.

Dr. Maureen Keane from Qualicum Beach wrote and asked that the age of consent be raised and that the artistic merit defence be removed.

Dorothy Thomson from Parksville, B.C. sent a white ribbon and said that child pornography is a heinous crime against our children and our grandchildren and that it must be stopped.

Helen Metz of Parksville, B.C. wrote that artistic merit was a subjective quality, so anything could be judged to have artistic merit. She sent a white ribbon and asked us to close the loopholes in the legislation.

Joan Groot of Parksville, B.C. wrote that it was unbelievable to think that child pornography could have any artistic merit, and that this could not be the Canadian way.

In spite of the member who spoke earlier, I thought I heard her making some allusions that we had to consider art in this. I hope I misunderstood her, aside from the fact that I was a little distracted at the time with other matters.

Denzil and Rose Merriman of Nanaimo, B.C. wrote that children are a precious inheritance and should be cared for and looked after, and that the idea of child pornography had artistic merit was utter nonsense. I wholeheartedly agree.

Carol Rae of Errington, B.C. called the office to say that we must do something to prevent another Sharpe decision. She was worried that the new legislation would not stop child pornography. I share her concern, as do many members on this side of the House.

The government has brought in the public good defence as a legal defence instead of artistic merit. Most Canadians would have a hard time understanding that any depiction of an adult abusing a child sexually could have any artistic merit.

It is time for our artists to have a reality check. It is time for the House to deliver such a reality check with very clear legislation that removes such defences and makes child pornography, as the member for Wild Rose said, eliminated in our society. We can do it. We have the ability to do it. We need to do it to protect our children.

Most Canadians are not aware of how pervasive this problem is. I do not think all members in the House have any idea.

Some of us were here when members of the Toronto police came to the Hill. They apologized for having to subject us to the protrayal of such graphic images. Their officers, after dealing with this stuff and looking at it, sometimes have to go on leave because of the sickness they feel after seeing those images.

Some members here who viewed those images had to leave the room. Some could not bear to look at the images. I am still haunted by some of the images we saw brought forward by the Toronto police, by what is out there on the Internet, what people are feeding on and what is being spread in our society, hundreds of images through computers and through other means, and yet the courts want to say that there is artistic merit in some of this. We need to get this stuff out of our society. It is poisoning the minds of our citizens and it is leading to abuse of our children. It needs to be stopped.

One of the most glaring failures of the legislation is the proposal that the legal defence for child pornography has been sufficiently narrowed to prevent harm to children through using the so-called “public good” defence.

In the Supreme Court case involving John Robin Sharpe, the chief justice remarked in paragraph 70:

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

The glaring problem is that asking whether or not a piece of child pornography has artistic merit is the same as asking whether a piece of child pornography is necessary or advantageous to the pursuit of art. The answer is very likely to be the same in the courts.

The concerns of my constituents are very likely to be borne out, that justices can look at the images that John Robin Sharpe had as artistic merit, they are likely to be approved under this public good defence.

The government wants us to believe the same legal procedure for defence will result in a different verdict and that children will be protected. I call that smoke and mirrors. It is not good enough. We need to close the loopholes, not change the names they go by.

If the Supreme Court found that pornography had artistic merit, it certainly could find that child pornography was necessary and advantageous to the pursuit of art. The defence is the same, why would the result be different? There should be no defence for child pornography.

The age of consent is another glaring disappointment in the proposed legislation. It fails to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. That is for sex between adults and children. It is hard to fathom why the government refuses to make this much needed amendment to the criminal code. The police chiefs are asking for it. We have young girls at 14 years of age who think they know everything about the world. We were young once and we thought we knew a lot, but at that age they are children. They have not had enough life experience to resist the luring and the abuse that adults expose them to. The fact is that 14 year olds are being abused. We need to raise the age of sexual consent.

Whereas Canada was once recognized as a global leader in combating the sexual exploitation of children, the international group, ECPAT, the End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism and which is now called End Child Prostitution, Pornography and Trafficking, released a report in November 2000 stating that Canada's regressive age of consent laws, flawed legislation and an overall lack of planning by the federal government are turning Canada into a venue for sexual exploitation of children.

The report, titled “Looking Back, Thinking Forward”, also criticized Canada for increasingly becoming a hot spot for sexual tourism. Predators are coming from all over the world to take advantage of our lax age of consent laws, and Canadian children are paying the price.

Maximum sentencing is another failure. The government proposes increases in maximum sentencing but, frankly, maximum sentences are hardly ever used. We should be raising the minimum sentences so that we send the message to our criminals out there that they will pay a price if they abuse our children.

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 all 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.

The artistic merit defence needs to be eliminated, not changed into a public good defence. That is a charade. Higher maximum sentences will not be effective. We need higher minimum sentences. The age of sexual consent for adult-child sex must be raised to protect our children.

I hope that members will consider this bill and make the amendments necessary to protect our children. It is time we took action in the House for the good of our citizens, for the good of our children and for the good of our society.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-20. I support a vast majority of the bill. I have one problem with it which I will address later on in my remarks.

I support the sections in Bill C-20 dealing with sexual exploitation. I feel it is important to have mechanisms that protect children from sexual exploitation by those in positions of trust, be they parents, teachers, coaches or any other adults.

I support the creation of voyeurism offences because with various technological advances it has become even easier to invade people's privacy. This section would seek to update the Criminal Code to ensure that modern day peeping Toms could be prosecuted for the full range of crimes they commit.

Until recently voyeurism type offences would be prosecuted under trespass sections of the Criminal Code as they would usually involve trespassing on someone's property in order to invade their privacy. With this legislation, an improvement is made which states that photographing someone surreptitiously or using a mini camera to spy on them would be prosecuted under a section of the Criminal Code. Other offences would include prosecution under the section of distributing those materials, most commonly by e-mail or over the Internet.

I support the section that facilitates the sensitive treatment of children as witnesses as it seeks to make it easier and less traumatic for children to testify in criminal trials. This is a critical element of the bill and I support it. We have to do everything we can to make children feel comfortable when testifying about acts that have been committed against them.

I support also the increase in sentences for offences against children. We need to protect children from the growing range of exploitation. That includes the more sophisticated methods of exploiting children now through technological advances.

I have one concern with the government totally dropping the defence of artistic merit against potential charges of child pornography. Let me elaborate on what I see as problems with using the Criminal Code in this way. Let me also try to address some of the more extreme accusations that some make surrounding this difficult but important issue.

I strongly believe it is the role of Parliament and the Criminal Code to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation. I have two sons and any form of sexual assault on them would be an unbelievably horrific thing to even contemplate. However, I am a writer of plays as well as a legislator. I think the government is making a mistake by caving in to the politics of fear that some have created coming out of the recent Sharpe decision at the Supreme Court.

Do not get me wrong. I think that anyone who creates sado-masochistic pornography depicting children as sexual objects is sick. I think people who distribute such trash are criminals. The courts agree, which is why Sharpe was convicted on charges of distributing child pornography.

The Supreme Court has sent us a message and I am worried that because of the high levels of emotion that surround this issue we are not hearing its message. The court said that artistic merit was a defence against a charge of possession of child pornography that is valid, but which could be interpreted as too broad and therefore anyone could say they are an artist. The court did not say that Sharpe was an artist. It said that Parliament drafted a sloppy law. Sharpe got off on the possession charge because of poor drafting by this House.

My worry is that the elimination of the artistic defence is simply another form of sloppy drafting. This one is dangerously sloppy because it could lead to establishing a principle in our Criminal Code that criminalizes the imagination. I will give a personal example.

Many years ago I wrote the play All Fall Down which among other things deals with allegations of sexual assault at a daycare. I will not go into the full plot; for that, members will have to buy a ticket. I worry that if we create a section of the Criminal Code which says that writing anything similar may result in charges of creating child pornography we are saying to creators, do not create.

We must not use the Criminal Code to censor art. Artists play an important role. That role is to hold a mirror up to society. If we do not like what we see, that is certainly another issue but we cannot say to artists that they cannot even attempt to address the vast and troubling areas of abuse of power and sexual exploitation of children. These are critical areas to look at. We have to go to the very heart of darkness of what we are seeing in our society. We have to look at that and we have to challenge ourselves. I have always thought that was the role of artists.

We should not use our Criminal Code to censor art and artists. I do not think we can take away the only defence they have for the very important role that they play. The government has put forward a substitute defence, and that is of the public good. I do not see this as giving legitimate artists who are telling important stories confidence that they will not be tracked down by overly moralistic police or crown prosecutors.

Remember that Sharpe was not the first person charged with child pornography offences under the previous law. It was just that he was the one who defeated the law because of poor drafting. Eli Langer, a respected Toronto painter, was charged in 1993 for giving a showing of his paintings which included depictions of nude children. He was acquitted after a long and expensive trial. We have seen gay and lesbian artists and bookstores charged by police and harassed by customs officers for material which does not have anything to do with children.

I have heard from arts groups that works of art such as Lolita by Nabokov, if he were writing it today, would not pass our laws of child pornography. We would have to look at Romeo and Juliet and many other works of art. Works of art will not be created in the future if we go in this direction of censoring people's imaginations.

I worry that the police chief of Toronto has been publicly criticizing the government and has been using child pornography as his reason to ask for more federal money for law enforcement. It does not bode well for our freedom of artists if police believe that their funding will increase if they lay more child pornography charges.

I would like to see a very careful examination of this issue at committee. We need to come up with a law that will protect children and which will also protect the creative spirit of artists to pursue their craft without fear and to play the very important role in society of holding up that mirror and having us look long and hard at ourselves.

I hope the committee will actively look for artists as witnesses. I will certainly be putting forward names of people and urging them to tell their stories to members of Parliament. I hope the committee will travel across the country to hear artists. As members of Parliament we need to understand the real fears which I have heard from this community. We need to understand all of the fears that are around these extremely emotional issues.

If members do their work here and in committee, I hope that they will redraft the section and that new ways will be found to create a section of the Criminal Code that protects children from real threats of exploitation by adults and which also protects artists from censorship by the police and the state. We need to do a better job of drafting this law than we did in 1992. I hope we are up to the challenge. I will do my part to make take place.

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

Mr. Speaker, normally when I stand to speak on a particular bill I start by saying that it gives me pleasure to speak to it. However, it really does not give me a lot of pleasure to speak to this bill.

I cannot believe the number of months and years that hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this country have been begging and pleading with the government to do something about those who perpetrate crimes through child pornography. They want the government to do something about the sentencing that is going on in terms of house arrest, early release and conditional sentencing for pedophiles all across the country. Every day there is another case.

Why is the government so reluctant to say it will bring it to the table, bring it to the floor, and sit together as people who believe in protecting the children of this land? Why can it not fix it to ensure people cannot harm our children any more? Why must we stand and continually speak on this particular issue?

Why do we not have a justice minister and legislation that says there is no defence for child pornography, that artistic merit is out, and that there is no public good in child pornography? In fact, child pornography is ugly and evil. If it is not evil, then evil does not exist. Why are we continually debating whether we should do something about this now?

Perhaps we should present it to a committee to fix it. That means weeks and weeks, which usually turns into months and months, and then into years and years. The next thing we know it is thrown out because an election has been called. Then it has to be reintroduced and there we go again, a few more years of waiting to do the most elemental duty that we have as members of Parliament, which is to protect Canadians from harm and danger, and, most specifically, to protect the children of this country.

I have turned on the television and watched Focus on the Family , 100 Huntley Street , and other programs that are calling on the government to do something about this horrible problem. The government is making no effort except through Bill C-20, which means it will provide a loophole once again for people who want to abuse the Internet and our children by throwing child pornography around wherever they please. Instead, it is creating what we call a haven for lawyers.

You can bet your last dime, Mr. Speaker, that for every charge of pornography that is brought against pedophiles they will claim that there is some public good in it and will tie up the court system day after day. More and more of them will tie up our court systems and the lawyers will get rich. It will be a joyful day for lawyers, but it will not be joyful for the victims, their parents or grandparents. The joyful day will be when the people on all sides of the House forget about politics, stand united, and say that today is the day we are going to rise to our feet and defeat this ugly, messy, and evil stuff that is absolutely destroying our nation on an immoral basis.

I see nothing wrong with doing that. What a pleasure it would be to work with the Liberals, the Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP to say we want to protect the children of our country and actually do it.

What a shame when we hear the budget that was just introduced. The finance minister never mentioned the topic once. We have begged and the police have begged. All across the country police officers are asking to have their handcuffs removed to allow them to go out there and do something about this problem. They can do it, but they are handcuffed with court decisions that always protect the perpetrator and never look after the victims. They are asking for a chance to do it.

All the finance minister had to do was make one statement saying there would be whatever amount of money, $100 million or $200 million, to put a national strategy in place to fight child pornography. I would have stood on this side of the House and cheered that. However, there was no mention made, not even one cent was offered in that direction.

I have asked questions in the House day after day of the Solicitor General and of the justice minister. They say things are on their way; things are beginning to happen. Then I called all the front line officers and I spoke to some just today and I asked them how things were, were there any advancements in helping with the cause? They replied, “Absolutely none. Nothing is happening”.

Am I supposed to believe the answers I get in question period from these ministers or the front line officers? As for me, I believe the front line officers. I no longer believe anything the ministers tell me. The Solicitor General said the government will protect children and it will look after their welfare. It should start doing it and start showing it.

The front line officers who are in charge of these crimes do not know a thing about it. They have not even heard about it.

I found out that Canada was an observer to an international program which digitally catalogued all seized pornographic images of children. This program was pioneered in Sweden and has enabled investigators to determine the origin of seized images and thereby assist in identifying the children being abused.

The technology is out there. Canada can afford it because it is not that expensive. Yet the government is sitting back and doing nothing.

I want to remind everybody in the House of these images. These are real children; they really exist. They belong to some parent or grandparent. They are real kids, from six month old babies up to eighteen years of age, who are being abused daily and treated horribly. We are not taking the initiative to fix it. We in the House could do it. Contrary to what the government believes about Supreme Court decisions, Canadians still believe that this is the highest court of the land, not the Supreme Court, and that we can fix it.

Members on that side of the House are afraid that if the legislation goes forward it would create a charter challenge. If it will protect our kids, then so be it. I cannot believe that the authors of the charter thought for a moment that they were creating a document that would protect people who hurt children rather than protect children. I cannot believe that they intended that.

Therefore let us ensure that the courts understand. Let us ensure the judges understand that we are developing an absolute truly zero tolerance to these kinds of perpetrators and we collectively will do it and do it quickly before there are any more victims.

If we must use the notwithstanding clause to keep the charter from interfering, then we must be determined to do that without hesitation. There would be no better reason in the world to use that clause than to protect the children that are being hurt daily.

There was a case of a trusted teacher who liked to fondle little girls. He was charged and convicted. He had the use of the Internet with thousands of items of pornography. It was a serious crime yet he received a slap on the wrist.

In the last few weeks there were three cases. There was a dentist with 50,000 images on his own computer, using it, promoting it, and making a profit off of it with real live children in these real live images. These perpetrators are not coming from the back alleys or slums. These are people who are living right beside us every day who need to be off the streets, and need to be taken out of society and around children.

However we cannot do it. Police officers could do it but we handcuff them. We do not let police officers do their job. Why do we tie police officers up? They should be given a chance. They are the experts. They can do it, but we in this place must make it possible for them to do so. We must send that message to the courts loud and clear, and to every judge in this country, that the next time a person is convicted of hurting a child that judge will treat that as seriously as any bank robber who would probably get 10 years instead of house arrest or community service.

Will we do that? I am sure that I will not get to speak on this bill again so I am begging and pleading with members of the Liberal Party to talk to the people in charge who could do that. That section should be pulled out of Bill C-20 and we should make certain that our children are safe.

That is the least we can do for my grandchildren, other people's grandchildren, and everybody in the country. That is the most elemental aspect of our duty. What are we waiting for? What kind of cowards are we that we do not take advantage of our position to say that one thing we can do it, and do it quickly, is solve the problem out there that so many children are facing. Let us do it.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not interfere in the correspondence between those who have and those who have not been working over recent weeks.

This afternoon we will return to the second reading of Bill C-24, the elections finance bill. We would then call Bill C-20, the child protection bill. We would then move to Bill C-23 respecting a registry for certain offenders. I understand that there would be an interest on the part of some hon. members that after the initial speech by the parliamentary secretary we would adjourn the debate for the convenience of some members.

Tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-13 respecting reproductive technologies. I am still uncertain about one additional item, mainly that of the Senate amendments to Bill C-12, the sports bill. I will get back to hon. members later to see if we can deal with this item tomorrow, but that is still uncertain at this time.

Monday shall be an allotted day. On Tuesday and Wednesday we shall resume the budget debate.

Thursday and Friday of next week will be on legislation that we have before us. I will be speaking with House leaders early in the week to adjust that in view of the tremendous progress made on legislation this day to which the hon. House leader of the opposition in the House referred to earlier.

I wish to conclude by thanking all hon. members for the progress on legislation so far this day.

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this is another interesting debate today. It is a bit of a change of pace. Everybody came rushing back to this place this morning all intent on a closure motion that was to have been brought down on Bill C-10, the bill coming back from the Senate on firearms and cruelty to animals.

The government threw us a curve and pulled that one off because it was having trouble lining up the backbenchers on that side, not just the opposition but its own backbenchers, who were saying that they would not support that. It is a bit of an unprecedented thing when we see a closure motion rescinded. It was a bittersweet victory that brought us to Bill C-24 today, the election financing bill.

I watched with some interest as the government House leader threw the curveball, the knuckleball, the Nerfball, the spitball, or whatever it was today, that got us over to this bill. Then he stood up and did a tirade, reminiscent of the old rat pack, of how it was everybody's fault but his. The last time I checked he is the leader of the government that has a majority. He controls the agenda totally and completely. It is at his beck and call, and the cabinet that he serves.

How in any way could it possibly be the opposition shanghaiing this place or withholding this or doing that? How could that possibly be? Yet he stood there sanctimonious as anyone could believe, as hypocritical as anyone could believe--and I see you chuckling, Mr. Speaker. You saw the same act I did.

It would have been a great act to have at a circus. He would have had people coming in and paying money to see that. Without a tear in his eye he was able to do that; without a smile on his face. I guess that is a great attribute that he has after all these years in this place. But it is certainly nothing to do with the opposition.

This particular bill, whether it gets shanghaied or not, has more to do with what backbench members do or not do over on that side and the leadership contests, and problems that they have at this time.

Having said that, I look at the bill and think, here we go again. Regarding the last number of bills that I have spoken to in this place, the direction might be right but the focus is off, this might be right but this is missing, and there are all these loopholes. I see that again in Bill C-24. I see the public disengaged. There is a huge disconnect now between what government says and does in this place, and what the taxpayers who are paying the bills and for whom we are doing this are actually asking for.

We are asking taxpayers to totally fund the political system in this country. They do to a great extent now, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40% to 50% with tax rebates and different things that go on. However, we are looking to take that to an unprecedented level with this bill. If taxpayers had a disconnected appetite for politics before, they certainly will have a larger disconnect once they start to analyze what the bill is all about.

This is all about public money, taxpayers' money, paying for the political habits of parties. We are seeing things in the bill that are not covered under allowable expenses at this point. I wish to mention one thing that is inappropriate.

Candidates who ran in an election, and I will use my riding as an example from the 2000 election, who received 15% of the popular vote received their deposit back. It was basically called that. A candidate received half of the allowable expenses as a rebate from the taxpayers. We have all been through that, Mr. Speaker, and you have too. However I see the threshold being lowered to 10%. I think it should go the other way; it should go to 20%. We are talking about public money here. Someone who cannot get 20% of the popular vote in a riding is missing out.

I know the House leader made a comment that none of the Liberals missed by more than 10% so it would not affect them at all. However, in reality, the Liberal candidate got 17% in my riding because 3% belonged to the aboriginal vote. There were aboriginal folks with whom I had become very friendly with who phoned me and said that there was a problem. The polling booths had my picture up with a big X through it along with signs saying “Don't vote Canadian Alliance” and all these wonderful things, which are not allowed but it was done. That is what gave the Liberal candidate the 3% to get above the 15%. It is a dirty way to get it. He will need that money a lot more than I will next time around if he decides to run again because he is fighting an uphill battle with gun control and all sorts of different things that have helped us out in that part of the country.

However, the bill does not in any way address the fundamental problem with political contributions.

There is an unappetizing flavour in the electorate that we are corrupt. We saw that through the HRD scandals, and the advertising and sponsorship fiasco that is still under investigation. There is hardly a file that public works has touched in the last two or three years that is not before the RCMP or that the Auditor General will not have a look at. Everything is suspect. The bill does not address any of that.

We saw polls at the height of the fiasco last spring that two-thirds of Canadians thought that government was corrupt. They labelled us all together and that was unfortunate. We are all here doing a job at, of course, different levels of our capability, but we are still doing a job on behalf of our constituents. We answer to them, not to the public purse, but to our constituents. I do not see the bill addressing that type of fine tuning.

It is all about corruption and kickbacks that we saw throughout the whole sponsorship fiasco. The bill in no way would stop that. It may stop the numbers at times, but it would not limit it and it would not halt it in any way.

We have a majority government that is having a real problem with a corruption label, and an unethical conduct label for some of the frontbench folks. They have the discretionary money and hundreds of millions of dollars that they can put into their pet projects and say that is what government will do because that is what people want, and so on, because it has done some polling. Even the polling would be covered under the bill. We saw the polling cut out of sponsorships and rightly so, and here it is put back into the bill.

We have a backdoor deal going on to put that polling cost into the bill because it is a significant factor. There is no doubt about it. Good polling costs good money. It is being slipped back in at public expense because the government can no longer do it under the sponsorship file because people are looking over its shoulder. There is a bit of sleight of hand which is part of that circus act that the government House leader was doing before.

I cannot see anything but more apathy and low voter turnouts continuing because people are feeling disconnected and asking, how relevant is this place?

There are many days when I have that same concern. I sat in on a committee meeting this morning and I wondered what the heck we were doing. It is just busy work. We get a few people in behind closed doors and let them listen to this, that or whatever. We are not here to be entertained. We are here to do a decent job and I do not need that busy work. I have constituents that I need to call and work on their files because they are having a tough time with Revenue Canada, the GST, or things like that. I do not need that busy work.

There is a member screaming over there to let legislation go through the House. I say to that member to bring forward something worth voting on and we will do it. The Liberals have a majority. They ram legislation through using closure. This is not legislation; this is ripping off the public. It is all about money. It is all about cashflow for political parties. That is what it is all about: $1.50 per vote. I would do very well because I get lots of votes.

It is all about paying off party debt, bringing it forward, and letting the public pay for it. I do not think Canadians want to do that. They are very critical of bills like that.

There are things that are roadblocks to good legislation coming through the House, but not very often are they caused by the opposition parties. A lot of it is the result of the government not being able to get its own house in order. It has very little to do with us. There are so few tools that we have at our discretion to slow things down from the runway that happens here all the time.

The Senate is not sitting right now. The member says it is because we are halting legislation. We did not pull Bill C-13. The government House leader did. We did not pull Bill C-10 today. The government House leader did. Bill C-20, the child protection bill, has been shanghaied for a little while.

We have seen a long term calendar that might go a week into the future and it is subject to change. Let us see some good legislation that we can put through. Let us see a schedule that the government sticks to. Let us see some dates that are locked down so we know what we are working toward, and we can get in here and speak to that legislation.

We spend so much time, two steps ahead and three steps back, and then we get legislation like this that is so full of holes that Canadians do not understand it. They are concerned about big business and unions taking over the political parties. Good and rightly so, but this bill does not address that in any way at all. It would limit the numbers, but it would change them around and would put them in from a different way.

It is more smoke and mirrors. It is legislation that I certainly cannot support and I know my folks at home would expect me to stand up and say this is not good.

Justice

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in 1999 Scott Carew shook his infant daughter to the point where she sustained extensive brain damage. She will never advance past the mental and physical age of a five month old.

What was his punishment for destroying his daughter's life? Only two years of house arrest and hours of community service.

Bill C-20 does not address this. Will the minister introduce legislation to guarantee that conditional sentencing will no longer be used in cases of such violent crimes?

Child Pornography

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

Mr. Speaker, it goes on and on. A Moncton man was convicted of possession of child pornography and trading child porn on the Internet. Current legislation has no minimum standards so, no surprise, he was handed a six month conditional sentence. He goes home to his hard drive.

The new child porn bill, Bill C-20, does not provide minimum sentencing for these crimes.

Will the minister commit today to amend Bill C-20 to require minimum jail sentences for child pornographers?

Justice

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a 58 year old man was found guilty of raping a young girl and was sentenced to two years of house arrest. He is allowed to leave his house and go to work even though the crime that he committed was done while he was at work. Bill C-20 does not address this.

Will the minister commit to eliminating conditional sentencing for criminals convicted of violent sexual offences?

Child Pornography

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been working very diligently with respect to the matter of child pornography within this country.

We have some of the toughest child pornography laws in the world. The fact is that we have more legislation before the House in Bill C-20, again increasing penalties and providing more limitations on defences against those who would be involved in child pornography. The reality is the government is working hard to protect its children and it will continue to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, Roger Williams was convicted of possessing over 300 images of child pornography. His sentence? Just two years probation and 100 hours community service.

Bill C-20 does not address this. Higher maximum sentences will not help as long as pornographers continue to receive sentences of house arrest and community service.

When will the minister quit defending these criminals and introduce legislation to ensure that child pornographers at least receive a minimum jail sentence?

Justice

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

What nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Here is another one that Bill C-20 does not cover.

A Calgary man was convicted of manslaughter after killing his infant daughter by snapping her spine. He received a conditional sentence of house arrest.

Will the minister listen to Canadians and introduce legislation that would ensure minimum jail sentences be imposed on people who commit such heinous crimes? Is it possible he can do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would take a look at Bill C-20 he will see that we are increasing the penalties and sending a message to the courts as to how serious we believe this matter is.

I think it is very important that we remember that it is not the Minister of Justice who hands out the sentence, it is the judge in the court. We have to send the message. We are sending a message through Bill C-20.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, James Peart was convicted for sexually molesting children over a span of two decades. He was found guilty of 10 counts of assaulting children. His sentence was 20 months of community service.

Bill C-20 fails to address this atrocious denial of justice. Our justice system temporarily grounds abusers who have caused children a lifetime of suffering.

Will the minister commit to preventing those who sexually assault children from being handed conditional or inconsequential sentences?

Child Pornography

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

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of Bill C-20 was clearly brought forward to deal with matters of this nature.

Specifically, Bill C-15A, which is already in force, is being acted upon and will be used in matters of this kind, for it will not only allow for a better prosecution process, but will allow a judge to remove all of that material from the computer database.

We believe that we are doing the job. We will get it done and make sure that child pornographers do not get a foothold there.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is something else Bill C-20 does not address.

Michael Parfrement was caught selling child pornography over the Internet. Police found a huge collection of child porn on his computer. This pervert got only 14 months of house arrest.

Why does the government continue to stand on the side of pedophiles and perverts, and against the children of our nation?

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the hon. member understand that we are taking many important steps and that all of these steps, when put together, are very effective in dealing with child pornography.

We have brought forward legislation in Bill C-20 that brings only one defence against child pornography. We have taken away the defence of artistic merit. In fact, it is going to be a very effective way of dealing with those who would be child pornographers. We are here to protect our children.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, why does the member not speak to police instead of bureaucrats?

Instead of protecting children in Bill C-20, the justice minister has refused to raise the age of consent for adult-child sex from age 14. He has failed to effectively eliminate all defences for child pornography. He has failed to eliminate house arrest for child predators.

Why will the justice minister not do the right thing? Why will he not finally change the law to protect our children?

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

Mr. Speaker, our child pornography laws are among the toughest in the world, unquestionably so. We have continued to follow up. For example, Bill C-15A is now in force and deals with Internet luring. We have increased penalties within proposed Bill C-20. I think we are doing a fine job. We are doing our utmost to protect those children, who are a priority with this government.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the justice system is a mess and the justice minister is not helping. The courts have consistently failed to protect victims even where maximum allowable sentences are raised.

Under Bill C-20, child predators will still be entitled to house arrest instead of prison. When will the minister give Canadian children the protection they need by establishing minimum sentences for child predators?

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join my colleagues in speaking to Bill C-13 on human reproductive technologies. It is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation that we will deal with in this session of Parliament, and my colleagues have touched on that point. It really does divide Canadians on the direction we should take. What can be more important than how Parliament approaches the subject of science and human reproduction on behalf of our constituents, Canadian society as a whole? There is a fine line between those.

The Alliance supports some of the aspects of the bill. As in any Liberal legislation that I have seen in the two terms I have been here, there is always a bit of good mixed in with a lot of bad. The trick always is to try to separate the wheat from the chaff and come up with legislation that is in the best interest of Canadians.

We fully support, for example, the ban on human and therapeutic cloning. I think everyone across the country wants feels the same. On animal-human hybrids, why would anyone want to go there? Sex selection, germ line alteration, buying and selling of embryos and paid surrogacy are the types of things that people are e-mailing my office about, by the hundreds. Our e-mails are lighting up.

The petitions I have seen tabled in the House in regard to this legislation rival other issues such as the young offenders bill and things like that when Canadians leapt to their feet and said that they wanted changes. They are trying to get changes to this legislation before it becomes law.

Work has been done with non-embryonic adult stem cells. When we talk about adult stem cells, we are even talk about cells from an umbilical cord. A lot of people would think that it is part and parcel of the embryo but it is not. It is considered to contain adult stem cells. There have been tremendous advances made in research along that line and tremendous good has been done. They are finding less rejection with adult stem cells as opposed to embryonic cells. It is a tremendous dilemma.

We also see in the legislation a huge flaw. We see it again and again in some of the legislation that the government brings down. It is a failure to look after the best interests of children as its first priority. The government talks the talk but it does not walk the walk. We saw that in Bill C-20 that was tabled recently. The legislation is meant to protect children but a clause on artistic merit on child pornography has been left in the legislation and the age of consent has been left at 14 of age.

We see the same theme coming through in this bill where the best interests of our kids are not looked after. Under the bill, children conceived through donated sperm or eggs do not have the right to know the identity of their biological parents. We see that as a huge loophole. The donor offspring community gave moving testimony at the Commons' health committee on the need to fill in the missing gaps of their lives. People need to know their history. All of us use that as a foundation. That is what defines us as individuals in society. To leave that out is a huge and glaring hole.

We also have grave concerns over the accountability. The bill allows the minister to give any policy direction she likes to the agency, which she hand picks, and it must follow without question. We have seen that in other legislation where order in council does this, the minister has the right to do that and there is no overview. As parliamentarians, we represent our constituents.

All Canadians are represented by an MP whether they like it or not. We have seen things go astray when ministers have that type of power. We have seen that with the gun registry and in other failed ambitious legislation that those guys take on, where they give ministers sole discrepancy and they hand pick folks they like. We have seen things go off the rails in no time at all. We see that as a huge stumbling block. Whether one likes the legislation, that would be grounds enough to say “Wait a minute, let us take another look at this”, and we should.

Making the agency fully independent and accountable to Parliament as a whole would curb the political appetite that seems to permeate a lot of these things. It would ensure in the long run that it would serve the needs, aspirations and desires of Canadians.

Those two points alone would be enough for anyone of conscience to say that we have to step back and take a look at this.

Having scientists study and propose experimental methods for creating human life disturbs many Canadians. That has been shown in the petitions, e-mails and letters which we have all received. I know we are in the neighbourhood of approaching a thousand hits on this, just since the bill was tabled.

The problem with this legislation is it lets the genie out of the bottle. It is a reality with which we have to deal. The rest of the world is taking steps and moving in certain directions. The Americans have taken a certain direction as have the Europeans. As I pointed out, our Canadian legislation has some large flaws in it. We have problems and concerns with it.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a memorandum to every MP. In its presentation to the Standing Committee on Health the conference outlined its vision of a human embryo as a human being who should be protected as a person.

The bishops are of the mindset, and always have been, that an embryo from the point of conception is a human being. Many people would argue this but that is a reality. Even the scientists who came before the health committee said that. An embryo is of no use to them if it is not alive.

By giving the green light to research on embryos that remain after fertility treatments, Bill C-13 fails to protect the human embryo. We see that as a huge flaw.

The Canadian Conference of Bishops is urging members of Parliament to strengthen Bill C-13 by amending it to prohibit research on embryos. We have had tremendous inroads and great gains on adult stem cell research. We do not have to use embryos. It is just that it is easy.

The conference of bishops made several points and I would like to review a couple more. Some argue that the embryos that remain after fertility treatments will die anyway, so why not do some good. We have heard that line from several different sources.

It is not necessary that we do something with these embryos so that some good or meaning will be given to their lives. They have already had meaning in their lives simply because they are intrinsically human, which also means from a faith perspective that they are known and loved by God. That is what the Catholic bishops said. I cannot disagree with that and I do not think anybody can.

It is unnecessary to search for meaning on their behalf, especially when such a search is really nothing more than a way of justifying the decision to release human embryos for research purposes. The bishops are saying that it is not required and that there is no need for embryonic stem cell research.

The Minister of Health, in speaking to the bill at second reading, said, “outlaw the creation of human clones whether for purposes of reproduction or research”.

Some questions have been raised as to whether the bill does exactly that. Does the bill go where she intends it to go? Are there some weasel words in there and some wiggle room that again we will see this challenged in the courts? We seem to be making laws for lawyers again and again. At the end of the day does this serve Canadians well? The Alliance does not think so.

The bishops are urging members of Parliament to ensure that the bill captures all forms and possibilities of cloning. Do not leave any wiggle room is what the Catholic bishops are saying. I do not think anybody can argue with that. They have put a lot of study and a lot of time into that.

I have an article that was in the Ottawa Citizen on February 10. Françoise Baylis, a medical ethics and philosophy professor, says that she has done some study on that. She suggests that the federal government could face a possible shortage from heavy pressure from Canadian researchers to remove any ban on the creation of human embryos for research purposes. She is saying that there will not be enough embryos.

At the end of the day her argument is a little self-serving. She is looking for a cash grant from the federal government to study this. It is a little bit more self-serving. She is raising the alarm so that she can go in and fill the void. We have certainly seen that done at government levels for that matter. They create a crisis and then they rush in as the white knights saying that they are there to help. It is a cause and effect situation. I do not think there is a lot of credibility in that treatise which was put forward.

Part of the situation we find ourselves in with a lot of what it out there is that we have been talking about this for 10 years. In that 10 years a lot of people have questioned if we have we got it right. I quoted some of the comments of the Catholic bishops. Many people from my riding and across the country have written me and have said the very same thing. They have asked if we have got it right? I guess at this point I would have to say we do not.

When we look at the number of amendments that have come forward on the bill, and a lot of good points in those amendments, will they be taken seriously? Will the minister, in her monopoly on handling this, take a look at those amendments? Will the minister agree that they strengthen the bill and make the bill better? Will she agree to vote those amendments through?

Child Pornography

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

Mr. Speaker, first the hon. member should have a look at Bill C-20.

Let us start with Bill C-15A, which now of course actually is the legislation in Canada that we have been using. We are talking about Internet luring. The hon. member as well should recognize that in this country we have one of the toughest laws in the world. With Bill C-20, we are going to be even more effective and more efficient.

What the hon. member should do first is read the bill and, second, support the bill so it can become law in Canada as quickly as we can do it.

Canada Transportation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand and thank a member of Parliament, my Alliance Party colleague from Lethbridge, for putting children and their safety first and most important in decision making in this place. I know you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that this is something I have been pushing for quite some time with regard to the terrible atrocities that are going on in this country, where people are abusing children left and right through child pornography. They are child cripplers and child abusers, yet in the 10 years I have been here we have not had any legislation of any nature coming forward from that side of the House to deal with these problems.

I cannot understand how people can deliver throne speech after throne speech, budget speech after budget speech, talking about all the wonderful things the government is going to implement to protect our children, and still make the same comments in the same speeches as we go from year to year. Nothing is happening.

Thank goodness we have people like the member for Lethbridge who, when he says he wants to do something to protect our children, does it. I am glad he was lucky enough to hit a draw in order to present it. I have several bills, along different lines, to protect children and I cannot seem to get the luck of the draw. It is unfortunate that this is the way it operates.

What I cannot understand is why anyone in the House, on this side or the far side, does not say when we have a bill before us that does protect children, “Let us do what we can to work together to make sure that is what happens”. Instead I can guarantee that members will stand on their feet, vote no on this and that will be the end of it. We will hear no more in the future from anyone over there or anywhere else because it has already been dealt with in what I think is a very unfair fashion.

We should start recognizing the important things in this country that we want to and have to deal with. We should put the protection of children on the table and say, “Yes, this is one thing we can all agree on”. For heaven's sake let us work together and start doing all we can to protect our children's safety, because there are tens of thousands of young kids in Canada who are being abused. More and more every day are being added to the list because we just do not do anything.

Here is an opportunity to take one small step to protect kids. We should support the bill and fix whatever might be wrong with it to make it better to implement. We should work together to do that and not just say no to a principle and an idea that is so essential. I for one am really tired of a group of adults, grandparents and parents, who sit in here year after year and do not bring forward anything to deal with the problem, except Bill C-20 which is supposed to get rid of artistic merit and does not because we are going to replace it with “public good”. It is all nonsense. Let us start getting some common sense in our brains and be determined. We should sit in our chairs and say that children in this country are in dire need of being better protected and let us make up our minds that we are going to do it.

I thank the member for Lethbridge for making the effort. It is too bad that we have people who will not support an effort of this nature.

Child Pornography

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

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, we have tabled Bill C-20, which touches on the question of protecting our children. We all know that it is our top priority.

In that bill we touch on the question of defence, following the Sharpe decision. As well, we create a new offence to offer increased protection to our children, our young between 14 and 18 years of age. Also, we have tougher sentencing.

I recommend the hon. member read the bill.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have presented thousands of petitions, with thousands of names, in which Canadians are calling for an end to child pornography.

Bill C-20, the government's current legislation, does nothing to strengthen the law. It is just a rewording of current legislation that does not work. That is why we are getting the petitions.

Why does the Liberal government continue to introduce ineffective half measures that simply do not protect our children?

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

Mr. Speaker, the protection of our children is of course the top priority on this side of the House. The question of public safety is also a top priority for the government.

If members are interested in this topic, they should look at the bill that we have tabled, Bill C-20, which talks about the protection of our children, as well as the protection of the most vulnerable people in our society. In that bill we talk about changing the defence of artistic merit following the Sharpe case in B.C. We are talking as well about a tougher sentencing regime. They should be supporting--

Criminal Code

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to stand in defence of children today. I share the concerns and the outrage of many of my colleagues at the total inaction on the part of the government to protect children.

The member who just spoke for the Liberal Party has urged us to support Bill C-20 because, in his words, it is a step in the right direction. Well, I am going to urge all members of Parliament, including the Liberals, to vote against Bill C-20 because it is such a tepid step. It is almost nothing. It is as if we were on our way to Edmonton from Ottawa. We are facing west but we are going to take only a small step forward. We might as well vote against it because it really has not done anything.

In fact, if we were to analyze Bill C-20, we would find that all it does is change the words for some of the defences that are used when charged with this crime and it does not strengthen anything. In fact, in some areas I believe it substantially weakens it.

I have on occasion been told that real men do not cry, that real men do not eat quiche, and things like that, but I have to confess, and I do this rather unashamedly, that I have in the last couple of years actually cried on occasion for our country because of the lack of leadership in a whole bunch of areas but mostly because of the lack of moral leadership. We have no moral leadership all the way from the Prime Minister down to the ministers and the backbenchers on the government side.

We have Shawinigan shenanigans but it does not matter. The Prime Minister just says that he is doing his job. Yet we have accusations and charges. A whole bunch of people are under investigation into the misuse of money in Quebec on advertising. That is okay. That will blow over. The Liberals will get their party people to do the spin doctoring on that and that wave of negative reporting will disappear and they will move on.

That is unconscionable. There is no moral leadership, no moral anchor. We no longer have a leadership that guides in what is right and what is wrong. It has degenerated to the point where when it comes to things as obscene as the sexual abuse of children, here we are, a bunch of men and women, adults, most of us moms and dads, many of us grandparents, and we are not ready to stand up and say that we are not going there, period.

The other night I woke up. I was not at home. I was visiting my suffering mother in Saskatchewan who was recovering from the shock of having buried her husband of 67 and a half years and healing a broken hip. I guess I was probably a little emotional, having spent some time with her cleaning up some of the things in the house. This became part of my newspaper column in the local paper in Sherwood Park. It happens to me occasionally that I wake in the night and cannot go back to sleep. That happened at 2:23 a.m. I got to thinking about a whole bunch of things, including the imminent resumption of Parliament, I was wondering what would be on the Liberal agenda at the time and I contemplated what would be my highest priority.

Thinking about my family and my grandchildren, I had an inspiration which I wrote down. It was about 2:30 when this happened. The wheels were turning. I got out of bed, warmed up my computer and wrote my newspaper column at 2:30 in the morning. This was my inspiration. This was how I worded it, “Notwithstanding any Liberal interpretation of the charter, any person who knowingly creates, possesses, stores, distributes, sells or gives away any depiction, description or image of any child in a sexual abusive act or state in any form whatsoever, including but not limited to photographs, writings, computer images or files, is guilty of a federal offence and subject to imprisonment of a minimum of 25 years”. That was what I came up with at 2:30 in the morning a couple of weeks ago.

That is how passionately I feel about this. My young grandchildren should be protected. Everyone's children and grandchildren look to this place for leadership. Is it here? No. The government wants us to support this tepid, half a step bill that it labels child protection. It is not willing to say that this is simply not acceptable and that if people do it they will not be permitted to get away with it. I do not know why we are so timid in this area.

The other thing that occurs to me is that the Liberals are playing politics with this. I will explain how this is happening. Watch what happens in the next election. I do not know about my colleagues, but I will be voting against the bill because it does not touch the problems. It is not because we are not facing in the right direction. It is because we are not going anywhere.

I can already see the Liberal political tactic. In the next election the Liberals will ask the community of Elk Island not to vote for the incumbent because he voted against Bill C-20, the child protection legislation. The Liberals have done that before and they will do it again. They are planning an election campaign on the backs, if I can say it that way, of our innocent children. That is despicable. I cannot believe we have degenerated to such a low level.

I do not see any reason in the world why we cannot invoke the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There was a lot of wisdom in the people of that day. In one step they put in the notwithstanding clause in order to protect against a court that would misinterpret the intentions of Parliament. Surely the writers of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not say that they wanted to have it in order to permit people to become predators of our children. We are irresponsible in this Parliament if we do not invoke that clause in the charter which was put there specifically so we could do that.

I would have much more to say except for limitations of time, but I would like to move an amendment as this point. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I will say in closing that the purpose is to strengthen the bill so that we can stand up in front of future generations and say that we actually did something tangible for the children of our country.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter into the debate.

To carry on with the theme of the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla and the citation he raised, it was also said, “Whatever you do unto the least of these, you have done unto me”. That is also very much a lesson to all of us.

All of us here in the House take children and the protection of children as a special obligation or at least we should take it as a special obligation. We should realize that failing to do so will be partly how we will be judged as an organization in the years to come. Did we get the job done? Did we do what was necessary to protect our children?

The Liberal government's track record to date on the protection of children has not been good. I think of the efforts by my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford who brought forward a motion demanding that the House move ahead with the sex offender registry. That is just one of many things we could talk about, the Divorce Act and many others things.

Specifically on that one issue, the member for Langley—Abbotsford brought forward the proposal in a supply day motion. The House debated it and we passed the motion. We basically forced the hand of the Liberals because they never would have done it on their own. They finally brought forward a sex offender registry of sorts but it does not apply to anybody who is in jail. It is not retroactive. From here on they will be more concerned about making sure sex offenders are registered so we know where they are, what they are doing and making sure they are not reoffending and so on. However the ones who are already in jail start off with a clean slate.

It is ridiculous. It shows a lack of understanding of the chronic abusers of children who need to be monitored and need to be protected from themselves. More important, we need to protect the innocent children. We could not even get that right. Even after we passed a motion in this place to protect children, it got watered down. The Liberals use weasel words. They do half measures, half steps and in the end the provinces pass their own legislation because the federal legislation is not effective. There is a hodge-podge and a grab bag of solutions from coast to coast in different provinces because the provinces gave up. They waited for the federal government to show leadership and it has not done it.

Another example is the law we passed that deals with people who travel abroad to have sex with children. That is seen as a problem and the international community condemns it of course. We all stood here and condemned it so the government passed legislation saying that people who had these so-called vacations for sexual purposes with children would face the courts, face the law and face the wrath of the Canadian parliamentary system.

We warned the Liberals when they brought in that legislation that it was completely ineffective. We told them it would not work. How many prosecutions have there been under that law? How many convictions? There have been zero convictions. How many prosecutions? Not a one. Why? Because they are half measures, watered down, half-baked ideas that do not put the children first, but put so many obstacles and so many steps in front of law enforcement officials that they have not even tried to prosecute somebody on something that is, according to the United Nations and other international groups, a chronic problem in places like Thailand and other countries. There has not been one prosecution and not one conviction. The record is abysmal.

When we think of priorities, things the Liberals could be doing and should be doing, there should be emphasis on law enforcement and intercepting pornography. We have talked a lot about that today. What has the government done? It has eliminated the ports police. The ports are where people bring pornography into the country, and the government took the police out of the system. Now there is a conduit for pornography to come into the country. The government thinks nothing of it. It says it is not important enough.

The record on this is abysmal. It is especially abysmal because we are dealing with child protection. The Liberals cannot point to a single thing they have done. They cannot even get the Divorce Act right, which is a simple thing. We talked about protecting children.

We had an all party committee that gave a report called For the Sake of the Children , which had specific recommendations on how to protect kids in the case of family breakdown. The Liberals cannot even implement the For the Sake of the Children report in the House because they water it down with half-baked measures and little timid steps and say that maybe they can think about it. Nine years I have been in this place and they are still talking like that: It is just pathetic.

I do not know why they do not take some bold steps so that maybe a year or two later they could say they would have to have to back off on those steps a little, that maybe they were a little too strict, or maybe they would have to fight with the courts about it and find proper way. They do not even take a measure. They do not push it in the courts. They do not challenge court decisions. They sit back and wait for something to happen as if it will solve itself. Instead, the problems continue to get worse. It is a sad state that describes well Liberal inaction, lack of vision, lack of purpose, and no sense of the role of a parliamentarian, which is first and foremost to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

We are supposed to be grateful because Bill C-20 is at least tabled in the House and is at least called child protection. I am not convinced that it actually is going to do the job of protecting children. It is a timid first step. It does not boldly go where no one has gone before; it is a timid little step. For example, they are saying that, and the exact wording is here, they are going to change the law to protect kids who get abused when someone is “in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person”. They are saying that this will be an extra tough rule that they will bring in now.

There is already a law against people abusing positions of trust and authority. We already have laws on the books to prosecute and throw people in the hoosegow when they do that sort of thing, but they are just not effective. They are not working.

My colleagues have read out examples about people who abuse the trust of children, who spread pornography that is showing more abuse of children, who are recruiting people into this pornography business. Who knows what effect this is having on families and children? We can only imagine. What do they get? They get conditional sentencing.

I think we just throw that phrase out expecting people who are watching to understand what conditional sentencing is. Conditional sentencing, let me say to folks, means that a person does not go to jail. If a person has been watching pornography at home and spreading it around to other Internet users, conditional sentencing means that the person gets to go back into that home and spend more time there. That is the penalty. It is no penalty at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The defence is changed to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nancy said:

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

Anne Marie said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the purposes of this section,

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

That is a question of law. It goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

We will now proceed to statements by members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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?

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-20 because it is legislation in which I have been intimately involved during my complete career in politics. Today I still spend a lot of time at it.

In my opinion the country has a very serious moral and ethical crisis on its hands. There are issues which come forward in our court system today where by and large obscure judges, wherever they are, make decisions that are case precedent and are used right across the country. Those decisions tend more and more to go to the libertarian type of viewpoint. Many Canadians are very concerned where this moral and ethical viewpoint is going.

I can only cite a few of them now. There were original decisions on pornography that it would be okay to possess some but not to produce it. How on earth can some obscure judge appreciate how one could possess some pornography but not produce it? It does not even make sense for these guys to be deliberating on it and making these decisions.

The age of sexual consent is another one of these considerations. It is not in the bill but it should be. The age of sexual consent still remains at too low. I have been involved in cases, and I still am, where we have to remove very young people, 14 and 15 year olds, from crack houses. Police officers basically say that they cannot do much about it because they are probably consenting to stay with 30 and 40 year olds. These 30 and 40 year olds use them for prostitution, for their own sexual activities and to sell drugs, yet they are allowed to be in those houses.

In one particular case in which I was involved, the welfare people said to send her down and they would give her some money. That is a lot of damned good. We have to raise the age of sexual consent. That is a basic fundamental premise of our need to look after younger people today but we are not doing that.

There are other issues that I do not want to raise here because the particular exploitive issue of children is more important. However I see moral and ethical standards issues when the government does not challenge things like the definition of marriage, which comes from some obscure judge.

We have the issue of conditional sentences. I do not know why the government did not come forward and say that it would forbid conditional sentences to be used in the case of sex crimes, whether exploitive of children or others. I am not a lawyer but I get involved in these cases where individuals are given conditional sentences. They are told to say they are sorry and to go home. They do not spend a damned day in jail for the serious sex crimes they have undertaken. There is something wrong with that philosophy. The case of exploitive sex crimes against children should be prominent in the legislation, not missing.

In this legislation the government fails. The proposal to increase the maximum sentence is not the problem. The problem is that when we go into the courtrooms today for sex, drug and related crimes, which some of them are, the judges are working at too low a level.

There are only two things wrong with the justice system and it is judges and lawyers. The lawyers are looking for the lowest common denominator as a defence lawyer for their clients. Many times crown prosecutors are ill-prepared or not prepared by way of experience and the judge goes for the lowest common denominator as well. In other words, the problem with this legislation is the minimum sentence is too low, not the maximum.

These are common sense problems today. They are problems that can be overcome quite easily if it was not for this polarization of political views in the country. The government would be well advised to spend some time sitting down with the opposition members, not in polarized committees, and trying to get the understanding of the people who they represent, not just the people who the Liberals represent.

What is the answer? What we have today is a declining moral and ethical standard I believe of a government and a declining moral and ethical standard within the courtrooms. All the legislation that we produce in this place will not replace what is going on in those courtrooms and in the political backrooms of the country.

What parents are looking for is some rationale, some punishment and some rehabilitation. The rehabilitation while one is in prison is another problem again which has to be linked with this kind of legislation.

Over the break I found child pornography on computers in Kingston prison. The prison said that I did not find it. Very technically it was right. What the inmates were doing on government computers and on their own computers was taking adult pornography pictures and overlaying them with children's faces. Rather than standing up and saying that it was a serious problem, that the rehabilitation thing was not working that well and that there were sex offenders getting their jollies from this kind of thing, the prison system said that was not real child pornography and that they were just overlaying pictures.

I recently finished a serious study on pornography in prisons. I am talking about trying to relate the need for better rehabilitation in the legislation and some way to force the prison system to grow up and be more responsible.

There are numerous prisons in Canada that are not only stocking Playboy and other things in their prison libraries. The inmates also have access to any kind of subscriptions they want for pornography.

How does the government reconcile tabling legislation such as this when the sex offender who is already in the prison has full 100% access to subscriptions to pornography? How do the prisons reconcile this? This stuff here is only half-baked measures. It has to go back to the courtroom. It has to go into the prisons. It has to refer to rehabilitative programs. This is so basic, so common and so natural.

What is the answer to this? I would suggest that the government take back the legislation and go back into discussions with opposition members who obviously relate to different people in Canada than the government does. There has to be something. The government cannot simply be getting its information from everybody. Virtually everyone I talk to makes constant reference to the kinds of problems I just described: the moral and the ethical crisis in our courtrooms; the inability to rehabilitate sex offenders; and the inability to address child pornography and its definition.

I am frustrated every time I come into this place these days. The government tables legislation and gets all its PR marks from telling the media that it is doing a great job, but in effect it does not have the infrastructure, the base of the problem resolved. Until it does, the legislation will not go anywhere.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley--Abbotsford.

I rise today to participate in this most important debate. I am confident that members on both the government and opposition sides of the House agree that nothing is as important in our lives as our children and our grandchildren and that therefore Bill C-20, which deals with child protection and child pornography, is of utmost importance in our minds.

Unfortunately, the bill, like all justice bills produced by this government, falls far short of the expectations of the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition. It fails to adequately protect our children from sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect. That, in my opinion, is totally frightening and unacceptable. I say that not only as a member of the opposition but also as a father of two young children.

As pointed out earlier today by my colleague from Provencher, Bill C-20 simply changes the defence for the possession of child pornography. Under this legislation, individuals arrested for the possession of child pornography may use what the government considers a narrower defence, that being the defence of within “the public good” as opposed to defending the possession of child pornography for reasons of artistic merit, educational, scientific or medical reasons, and the public good. In R v. Sharpe, the Supreme Court of Canada found that public good could have been interpreted to be “necessary or advantageous to the pursuit of science, literature, or art, or other objects of general interest”.

Quite obviously, for all intents and purposes the defence of public good can and will be widely interpreted to still include artistic merit. Therefore, nothing really changes from the current status except that our courts will be further inundated with cases. Horrific amounts of time will be wasted while defence lawyers argue what does and does not constitute the public good. We all can recognize that this will become a lawyer's dream as they argue back and forth as to whether or not this constitutes the public good.

Bill C-20 does seek to increase maximum sentences for child related offences. It does not, however, impose any minimum sentence, which effectively means that pedophiles can and will continue to receive fines and conditional sentences, measures that do not in my opinion ensure the protection of society or the protection of children. They do not ensure the good that we would like to see come out of such a bill.

Bill C-20 was introduced on December 5, 2002. Less than two weeks later, when the issue of child pornography was very prevalent in the media, a Brantford police officer convicted for possession of child pornography on his home computer was given a conditional sentence of 18 months, including only 6 months of house arrest.

Similarly, a Winnipeg man who was caught with 258 pictures of naked children, some as young as six years old, posing and participating in explicit sexual activity, was given absolutely no jail time. In fact, he was not even given a conditional sentence. This child predator was simply fined for his crime against hundreds of innocent children. Although he was ordered not to use the Internet or a computer while at home, he was still permitted to use the computer while he was at work. He was placed on three months' probation and ordered not to have any contact with children under the age of 18 unless an adult was present, a restriction that nowadays would be hard for much overworked probation officers to diligently enforce given their workload, which we hear about from the media.

The provincial court judge was rather proud of the hefty fine that she placed on this individual. She noted that in other cases where persons had pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, offenders were given lesser fines for both the possession and the wilful distribution of these despicable pictures.

Nothing within Bill C-20 prevents judges from handing out conditional sentences or fines to offenders convicted of possessing or distributing child pornography. In my opinion and in the opinion of the Canadian Alliance, those who possess and seek to possess child pornography are every bit as guilty of committing a crime against a child as those who take the pictures. They should therefore be sentenced to a minimum term in prison. Forget the maximum that the judges and the courts very seldom impose; they should be sentenced to a minimum term in prison for committing the offence of aiding and abetting the abuse, the torture and/or the sexual exploitation of children.

We need a law that makes sure that people do not go near child pornography. Child pornography is unacceptable. It would seem that is the type of law the government is unwilling or unable to bring forward.

Unfortunately I hold out little hope that the government will ever create that type of offence or see fit to ensure that anyone and everyone who preys on innocent children spends time incarcerated. Incarcerating those who possess and distribute child pornography not only helps protect other children from being victimized, it acts as a deterrent to those who are seeking to sexually exploit children.

Since 1995 the Canadian Alliance has been asking the government to restrict the use of conditional sentences for non-violent offenders. We have ample reason to be concerned about the release of violent offenders, particularly rapists, on to our streets, reason such as the safety of our children, the safety of our sons and our daughters.

I have often stood in the House and stated that sex offenders have the highest reoffending rate and therefore pose a very serious risk to the safety and lives of families across this nation. Despite our repeated requests, despite the requests that have been echoed by the Canadian Police Association, the Minister of Justice refuses to limit conditional sentences. Therefore clause 3 of Bill C-20 states that any person who, for a sexual purpose touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object any part of the body of a person under the age of 14 years is, under section 151(b) of the Criminal Code, guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a term in prison for a term not exceeding 18 months. In other words, anyone convicted of sexual interference with a person under the age of 14 can and will be given a conditional sentence.

If the government were interested in truly protecting our children, it would have drafted the bill to have all sexual interference considered an indictable offence and subject to a minimum term in prison.

The Canadian Police Association and the official opposition have asked for restriction on the use of conditional sentences. In fact it was one of the recommendations or resolutions of the Canadian Police Association in 2002. The government has ignored that request.

It was interesting to note that in a desperate attempt to save grace in the face of daily news stories regarding the $1 billion boondoggle of the gun registry, the justice minister proudly paraded the position of the Canadian Police Association on the firearms registry. In fact the justice minister disseminated to all members of Parliament and we all received a copy of a document produced by the CPA regarding the registry.

I challenge the Minister of Justice to distribute to all members of Parliament the resolutions or recommendations of the Canadian Police Association regarding conditional sentences. I challenge him to distribute all of the resolutions of the Canadian Police Association, such as the one calling for an end to club fed; an end to housing dangerous and violent offenders in prison and many others; the resolution regarding the elimination of faint hope; the creation of a viable sex offender registry that will work; the creation of a cyber tip hotline. I challenge the justice minister to explain why he has ignored the Canadian Police Association on so many issues yet he parades the association around when it suits him.

The police complained two weeks ago that they needed more resources to deal with child pornography, especially after foreign investigators tipped them to hundreds of users in this country.

Commenting on the international investigation, a Toronto police detective sergeant said that the Canadian police are hamstrung. It is time that the federal government changed it.

Our request to the government that is in power is first to recognize that what it is bringing in Bill C-20 is not adequate. It is not going to adequately help the police. It is not going to adequately protect the children. We need a bill that will do that.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, while being totally happy about the continuing support we will be getting from the opposition for our legislation, let me indicate to the House the legislative program for the following days.

This afternoon we will continue the consideration of Bill C-20, the child protection legislation. If and when this is completed, we will then turn to Bill C-19, the first nations' fiscal bill in the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Tomorrow we will commence report stage of Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies legislation. On Wednesday we will call report stage of Bill C-6, the specific claims bill. On Thursday we will resume consideration of legislation not completed and add to the agenda Bill C-22, the family law bill. On Friday, my present plans are to call Bill C-3 respecting the Canada pension plan.

Consultations have taken place between the parties. I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion that I would now like to move for a take note debate.

I move:

That, Wednesday, January 29, 2003, a debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 shall take place concerning the situation in Iraq and, that after 9:00 p.m. on the said day, the Chair shall not receive any dilatory motions or quorum calls.

Criminal Code

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fully concur with the last speaker in that there is no more important issue for Parliament to address at this moment than this bill and particularly within this bill, the issue of the protection of our children from exploitation.

Throughout my parliamentary career I have tried to concentrate on children's issues and family issues for one reason, which is that I believe Parliament must be the voice for those who have no voice. In our society children do not have a voice that can influence their futures when they are dependent children.

Bill C-20 caught my attention because of the issue of pornography, but in fairness Bill C-20 has a number of provisions which I think are useful. This is the beginning of the debate at second reading. We will have preliminary discussions about what we see in the bill, the concepts, et cetera. As the previous speaker noted, this is an opportunity to define the ballpark in which we have some concerns that should be examined more closely.

That examination is going to happen in committee. Notwithstanding the character of the committee, I understand that the justice committee has worked very hard. It has done some very good work on behalf of Canadians to vet the very important questions that have been raised. I see this as an opportunity for members who are not part of the justice committee specifically to rise in this place to share the views of their constituents on key issues, whether they be exploitation, abuse or the issue of pornography.

This is the time to raise the bar to the level that should be addressed by the justice committee in doing its work. This is the time to raise the questions that need to be addressed. This is the time for us to have an influence as to the direction of this review. There will be many opportunities after this, but the more we can put some focus on this, the better.

For that reason I am rising to share what I would think are not only the views of myself and my constituents but the views of the vast majority of Canadians. The existence of child pornography in any form whatsoever is an abuse of children and it must be stopped, period. I could not say it more clearly.

I was concerned that this bill had some fuzziness to it. There was this new concept which I am not very familiar with called public good. I made inquiries of people from a number of backgrounds to give me examples. I need examples as a lay parliamentarian to understand what constitutes public good. Even among the people I spoke with, I got various opinions as to what the understanding was.

My understanding is that we cannot yet find the proper defence to the whole issue of artistic merit which is flowing from the Sharpe decision and which is still harbouring the problems within the judicial system for Parliament and for Canadians. We cannot seem to put a stake in the heart of artistic merit. People who argue or feel that possession of materials depicting pornography relating to children somehow has any merit whatsoever are very troubled people who need help.

That is a societal view. I always thought that the Supreme Court of Canada should not be a body that is there to make law or to interpret the law in a way which makes new law, but rather to apply the laws of Canada. I always thought that the Parliament of Canada was the highest court of the land. Yet time and time again this place has been very consistent, other than perhaps the NDP members who for some odd reason, want to balance the interests of artistic merit. I do not know where the NDP is coming from, but if it wants to support those who possess pornography, let us make sure the public knows that because it is not the public that I know about.

A motion will play a part of this. It is important that parliamentarians raise the rhetoric, raise the emotion, get Canadians engaged and make sure they understand. If Canadians do not understand the issue, they will be concerned that we have not done our jobs. I do not want the issue to continue to go around in circles.

In the materials provided to members of parliament, Bill C-20 will strengthen child pornography provisions. With regard to artistic merit, it does acknowledge that it will only narrow and not fully address child pornography. This is clearly an area that raises my interest in the debate at second reading. It will also create a new category of sexual exploitation. It will increase maximum sentences in certain areas, facilitate the testimony of children and also introduce the new offence of voyeurism.

Those are good and positive things. I think they will earn the support of the House, subject to proper review.

It still comes down to the fundamental issue within this omnibus bill. A lay person cannot read the bill and understand what is going on. The bill does not flow from paragraph to paragraph. There is a preamble and then it states that a certain section of the Criminal Code will be replaced by another section, et cetera. It is plugging holes and replacing or adding things. I printed a copy of the Criminal Code from the Internet. It is about six inches of paper. This is a very difficult bill for parliamentarians who are not fully engaged in analyzing the bill and asking questions.

This is why it is so important for parliamentarians to make sure in terms of highest principles and macro views and our reflections on some of the principles that the bill touches on that there can be no misinterpretation of the will of Parliament to address child pornography, exploitation, abuse, neglect and everything else.

I pulled out some of my old speaking notes from 1999 and there is something that moved me quite a bit. I was a member of the health committee. Health officials told me at the time that about 75% of the money spent on health care in Canada was remedial spending. Remedial spending is spending after there is a problem. Only 25% was spent on prevention. Those figures concerned me because Health Canada also said it was not sustainable.

There was another aspect which had to do with children. It implanted very deep in my heart a position in my parliamentary career for children. There was a statement made by an eminent child psychologist and researcher. His research had shown that back in 1999 in Canada, 25% of our children enter adult life with significant emotional, behavioural, academic or social problems. The monetary and social costs are so enormous that investing in children is an imperative, not an option.

I cannot believe there is anybody in this place who would not agree that investing in our children, protecting our children and being the voice of children in Canada is anything but our responsibility. We have to embrace this passion and let Canadians know.

We have to also understand that it will not be acceptable to have soft or partial solutions. As the courts get into court-made law rather than applying the laws of Canada and rather than reflecting the social and moral values of Canada, we need to take a stand. Public good will not make it. I cannot say to my constituents that it is not child pornography unless it can be demonstrated that it serves the public good. That is a non-starter. I say to justice officials and the minister that it is a non-starter. Parliamentarians have to say that time and time again. Let us deal with this.

These are issues I want the justice committee to look at. I want the committee to make sure when Canadians are told the language that they will not balk and ask questions. Public good as a concept raises more questions than it provides answers. This is wrong. The legislation should be addressing the issues. There is no issue that is more important to address at this time. We have been going around in circles on this issue for years.

There is no artistic merit in abusing children. There is no artistic merit in depicting children in horrendous ways. There is no question in my mind that Canadians abhor child pornography. Those who perpetrate it, who possess it, who produce it and who distribute it are problems in our society.

The Supreme Court of Canada made a decision on abortion. It did not say that children do not exist prior to birth. It decided that it would put the rights of the mother ahead of the rights of the child. This is an example of where the courts have not only tried to balance, but in fact have put the rights of one party ahead of the rights of another party. If the courts can do that, surely we can put the rights of children ahead of the rights of those who feel they have to demonstrate artistic merit by exploiting children.

I do not want to argue about what artistic merit there may be. In my view the answer is clear.

It is clear; for me, it is clear.

This is an issue that is clear for all Canadians.

I want the courts to know how Parliament feels. I want Canadians to know how Parliament feels. I encourage members to rise in their places and say what is in their hearts and to tell the House what their constituents have said to them about this issue. I do not believe there is any disagreement on these issues.

I want to comment on a couple of other issues for the justice chair. I know he has been following the debate.

I do not understand why the Criminal Code does not define pornography. I submitted a private member's motion a number of years ago to replace the definition of obscenity, which is in the Criminal Code, with pornography.

It is troubling to me that once people reach the age of consent, once they become adults, all the rules and all the concerns that we express with regard to the exploitation of children get thrown out the door and that same type of degradation and exploitation of human beings no longer is a problem. In our society, a terrible crossroads occurs when the values we hold with regard to children are not the values we hold for men and women.

We need to reflect very seriously on the social and moral values of our country. Parliamentarians have to be looked to for setting the tone and the example. We need to make sure that the legislation we deal with is put through a filter that reflects those social, moral and family values.

We cannot have it both ways. We are weak on obscenity with regard to adults and we want to be champions with regard to children. I am not sure whether our case is strengthened by having two sets of rules in terms of the degradation of human beings and the exploitation of women, children and anybody else who is incapable of having a voice for themselves.

These are serious issues which will be addressed in committee. I hope we can talk seriously about what happens with the notwithstanding clause. We have to start talking about this. I understand that section has been used rarely, two or three times, in very rare and obscure circumstances. If parliamentarians were to consult with their constituents and Canadians at large and they were to bring back their message Canadians would say that they could not think of another issue on which they would want the notwithstanding clause to be invoked than the protection of children. If it meant protecting children from exploitation, abuse and neglect, Canadians would say it was an appropriate use. It is certainly to be respected.

We need to discuss these things. People cannot stand out there all by themselves trying to whistle in the forest with nobody to hear them. This is not a forest. Everybody is listening. Now is the time to raise our voices, to express our views and to do what we can to protect the children of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate. Bill C-20 provides us with an opportunity to better protect children in Canada.

This particular debate will evoke a great deal of emotion and there is no doubt that Canadians are watching closely as to how the government and the Parliament of Canada will respond to this important issue. Since the decision in the Sharpe case brought this issue to the forefront, I think that police agencies, victims' groups and Canadians in general have viewed this as an issue of timeliness and an issue requiring immediate action. Sadly, that has not been the case. Although I applaud the government for finally bringing this legislation forward, I lament the fact that it has taken almost two years.

I respectfully disagree with the commentary from my NDP colleague, although I take his comments very much to heart when he speaks of balance. Yes, there is often a need for balance when dealing with issues such as this one, but I also agree with the commentary that there is a time for decisiveness, particularly and fundamentally on an issue that is so grave in the harm that can come to children.

This bill has taken a long time to come before the Parliament of Canada. One would have hoped that in that time it would have come in a perfect form or at least close to a perfect form. That is not the case. I am very fearful that this legislation does not go far enough to alleviate the inexcusable production of child pornography. The bill does not address the current lack of resources in the country vis-à-vis the police and those who deal directly with all efforts to try to attack and remove this scourge on society.

I will preface my remarks by saying that there are many favourable aspects of the legislation. I suspect that on closer scrutiny by the justice committee, it will no doubt prove to be beneficial. For example, clause 5 amends subsection 161(1) of the Criminal Code to expand the definition of those convicted or discharged on conditions prescribed in a probation order and can be viewed as a positive step. The addition of offences under this section will increase the number of offences for which a judge can place a probation order, leading to a greater number of victims being protected. I have a private member's bill that is in the same vein. It would allow a judge to place a provision on a sexual offender barring his or her presence in a dwelling house in the presence of a child unless escorted by an adult. Those are the types of expanded protections that we should be constantly seeking as far as legislation such as this is concerned.

A total crackdown on child pornography is happening in many jurisdictions, including in the United Kingdom. That type of response sends a strong message, a message of deterrence and a message that embraces public protection. That is in and of itself part of what should occur when the law is brought to the forefront.

Sadly, the government has a record of producing complex and cumbersome legislation that is difficult to enforce and often difficult for the courts to interpret. The replacement of the Young Offenders Act is a perfect example, as are the terrorist legislation and the gang law. All of these, although well intended, came far short of accomplishing what one would hope because of the abstract, complex nature in which they were presented.

Getting back to the substance of the bill, the amendments to sections 151 and 152 of the code also maintain the indictable offence maximum of 10 years and increase the level of punishment under summary conviction, by directing the court to incarcerate not exceeding 18 months, making it a hybrid offence, in essence. Again, I view this as positive. It expands the range of sentences available to judges to send that message of deterrence and keeps in mind the balance necessary to at the very least try to rehabilitate.

Sadly, when it comes to child pornography and individuals who engage actively in the manufacturing, production and proliferation of child pornography, just as for those involved in pedophilia and sexual assaults, the chances of rehabilitation are often very slim. The preference in my view, and I suggest in the view of many, is that the emphasis has to be put on the protection of the public when these types of offences are involved. These offences are referred to as sexual assault cases but they are violent offences. Sexual assaults inevitably can be characterized as violent and the effects are long-lasting, lifelong in many instances. A life sentence is what is handed to a victim of this type of horrific invasion.

The fundamental question in this debate must centre around the harm caused to those who are most vulnerable: children, obviously. Underlying this, we must give thought to the role of the court in the context of judicial policy as it pertains to the supremacy of Parliament. We must show how this new legislation would eradicate child pornography within the context of artistic merit.

My overall assessment is that this legislation narrows but does not eliminate or eradicate artistic merit from the Criminal Code. Unfortunately for Canadians, the legislation does not go far enough, I suggest, for it once again could be subjected to judicial interpretation, putting children at risk.

Does the two step analysis of which the minister spoke serve the public good? Some of the questions from my hon. colleague from Mississauga and other members of the House posed the rhetorical question: What possible public good or merit could be found in something that exploits children? There is no merit. There is no public good that could be found in such material.

The second part of this two step analysis of which the minister spoke asks if it goes beyond what serves the public good. I find that statement in and of itself completely puzzling. There is no merit in the depiction of children in a way which degrades them. There is harm in and of itself. There definitely will be constitutional challenges. There always are and there always will be on issues such as this. As surely as night follows day, there will be a challenge based on this new legislation. That is inevitable. Yet Parliament has a strong role to play when it comes to issues of public good. It has a strong role to play in drawing lines on moral issues. Why not be definitive in the first instance if we know that it is going to go to the courts?

There is an inherent danger to society as a whole when we fail to recognize just how detrimental child pornography is at a basic level. No one is suggesting that the works of Nabokov in Lolita or Plato in Symposium or other classics that touch to some degree on issues involving children be removed from circulation based on the promotion of sexual conduct with minors. As my colleague from Saint John suggested, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides protections for freedom of thought and expression, yet implicit in that are responsibilities as well. The question of what constitutes a reasonable limit is central to this debate. Common sense surely must be the guiding principle, common sense that is so often lacking in legislation that appears in this place.

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--

While the addition of a clear section for the purpose of defining what constitutes child pornography is welcome, the removal of the words “for a sexual purpose” would, in my opinion, completely change the meaning of the legislation and its purpose. The exclusion of those four words could send a clear message to the judiciary, removing the subjectivity of the purpose of the work and putting the emphasis on the acts within.

There is also in legislation before the House the issue of dealing with raising the age of consent. I would suggest again that an opportunity was missed to send a clear message on this. There is easily a remedy when it comes to a pure exemption. It would have clarified this supposed reason that the government is putting forward for not raising the age of consent because it would involve sexually active teenagers, that somehow the activities of two teenagers at a drive-in could result in criminal charges being brought forward. There is already the two year exemption that is applied, which again is a common sense approach that surely would prevail, yet the message it sends is one of ambivalence. I know that there certainly are examples that we can all imagine whereby a very streetwise 13 year old, up against a naive 17 year old, would fall outside the current parameters or even the parameters that are presented in raising the age of consent. Again one would hope that common sense would prevail in the courts of the land.

There is always a need to streamline legislation and to put it in common parlance so that people, and particularly young people, can understand it. We seem to, in this place, continually stack legislation upon legislation. My grandfather used to speak about the need to strip away old shingles before putting new shingles on the roof. That same approach, I suggest, would often apply in legislation such as this, as the definition of child pornography should not be open to interpretation through intent or by any other means, that is to say, the thought process behind the writing and whether or not a work was produced for a sexual purpose would be of no consequence. We simply need to state the definition of what is acceptable and what is not, with the clear definition that the judiciary is removed from the public-private nature of the debate.

As a remedy to the problem associated with subsection 163.1(6) of the code, subclause 7(2) replaces subsection 163.1(6) with another subsection which states that no person will be convicted of an offence under the 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.

What on earth does that mean? Where could there be public good found in some form of child pornography?

I understand the intent of the minister's legislation, yet I fear that what has been presented will not be sufficient to protect against the abhorrent creation of child pornography, of material depicting children in a pornographic way. Members of the public, along with child advocacy groups, members of the House of Commons and Canadians in general, have continually called upon the government to produce a clear, concise piece of legislation which would completely remove the chance that material of this nature would ever find its way into public hands.

The Catholic Women's League of Antigonish and groups from all over the riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, from across Nova Scotia and from across the country have continuously carried on the white ribbon campaign in an effort to have the government bring forward strong laws against child pornography. This bill, sadly, does not meet the standard that they are searching for.

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, and yet unfortunately the definitions of public good will be vague and insufficient and not of a level to objectively put forward to the courts any type of pornography and how it might be used. It is not clear. Once again there is a question of the acceptability to the individual. Obviously an argument as to what constitutes the public good will predominate, leaving the children vulnerable again. There can be no levels of child pornography, just like there are no levels of pregnancy. It either is or is not.

I ask the minister why this legislation took the government so long to produce if it is going to be brought forward in such a flawed manner. The overall effect of the Sharpe decision by Mr. Justice Shaw in many cases had people absolutely recoiling in horror that this decision could have been produced by someone from the bench. Yet that learned judge, by his decision, in fact has kicked open the door, and by this legislation it has been left open by the minister. The door is left open to potential pedophiles who would take advantage of youth, who denigrate images and engage in writings that have a very corrosive effect on societal norms. This is a travesty. Works of this nature go against the very fabric of what is acceptable in a just and moral society. There can be no denial. A direct correlation exists between the fantasies of sick-minded individuals and the harm to children that is created. Why risk the potential danger, I ask rhetorically, 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 of defence for 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 of that section, which is that limits are justifiable, in this case is correct when weighed against the potential harm to children and the intent of Parliament to protect the rights of those who are most vulnerable.

The essence of the debate today is that the protection of children must come first. Simply put, it is my belief the Supreme Court of Canada erred in its favourable interpretation of the Shaw decision. Unfortunately, and I say that respectfully of the courts, the justice minister's lawyers have weighed the rights of the individual against the rights of the child and once again we are left with a mediocre half measure, an attempt to correct. The Canadian public realizes that this is a serious problem yet this is the legislation that the government has produced.

If the Liberal government is unwilling to protect the rights of children and, by extension, their families, I suggest that it might at the very least take the opportunity presented by the upcoming budget to consider supporting victims of crime financially.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has always been supportive of attempts by the law enforcement community, victims groups and child advocates who are constantly tasked and constantly struggling with the lack of resources available to them.

Given what we saw wasted by the government in the production of a long gun registry that is ineffective and a complete disaster, what if that type of money were put into expanding the registry for the DNA data bank, expanding the sexual offenders registry or a missing persons registry, which should be the next step in this attempt to put information online? What about having a victims' ombudsman's office for timely access to information as to matters that were before the court and individuals who are about to be released from prison who were offenders? Funding for legal aid in this country is a disgrace. This, in and of itself, would be an opportunity to put more money into the system to allow for a better brand of justice.

There are so many greater priorities that would have assisted and enhanced our justice system rather than wasting money on a long gun registry that has no connection to public safety and was poorly managed by the government. The Liberals are not good managers, clearly. The fact remains that criminals, particularly the Hell's Angels, will never register their guns. The entire premise of this ill-fated registry is flawed and yet the government continues to support it with taxpayer money. The priorities for where they put the money do not seem to be in line with the public priorities.

As I have said before, what could be more fundamental than the issue of protecting children? We know that the lasting impact on victims of sexual abuse is a life sentence and many of these drastic debilitating effects are sadly passed on and further victims are the result. Very often the mental anguish and detrimental effect on the development of young people is everlasting.

It is incumbent upon Parliament to take every opportunity to make for a safer, kinder, gentler society. I do not want to see Parliament miss that opportunity again.

With the technology that is available, the Internet, there is a great opportunity for police, given the proper resources, to combat this problem in a more effective way. They are crying out for it. Police groups recently have drawn that comparison, what they could have done with $1 billion to address this issue. There is a need to support victims and to have more support and stronger legislation in that regard. It talks directly to the issue of respect and dignity for those who have been victimized. It is clear that there has to be an equitable approach taken by the government, which is why we need this victims' ombudsman's office.

While we debate the merits of the bill, alleviating the philosophic discussions of public good, it becomes evident that the legislation is wanting; the problems associated with the Shaw decision, the Sharpe decision. For the sake of the children, the government has to do better.

In conclusion, we will support the legislation as far as getting it to the committee to try to improve it and add some substance to it. The legislation is a half measure. We want to see the whole measure. People who abuse children must be prosecuted and severely punished. Bringing down laws that are strict, clear and pragmatic is the way to approach this. The legislation is wanting. We in the Progressive Conservative Party hope to make a contribution to see that this will in fact protect children and improve their lives.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

And from a somewhat different perspective, there is the sensitive issue of defence for possession of child pornography. The interpretation of the notion of artistic merit given by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sharpe case angered many. In fact, the court interpreted this notion in a very broad manner, and I quote:

I conclude that “artistic merit” should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art. Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence. Simply put, artists, so long as they are producing art, should not fear prosecution under s. 163.1(4).

The Minister of Justice, in introducing Bill C-20, has replaced this defence with another one, based on the public good this time. It specifies, and I quote, that:

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

Let us again use a fictitious example to illustrate cases in which this new defence could be used.

Normally, the possession of pornographic videos involving children would be considered a sexual offence. We all agree, this is very clear. However, a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of pedophiles could justify having such tapes in his possession for treatment purposes because his possessing such tapes serves the public good. In this case, the possession of videos is more helpful than harmful. Prima facie, this new defence seems reasonable.

Bill C-20 also proposes harsher sentencing for offenders. The proposal of the Minister of Justice would see the maximum sentence for sexual exploitation double from five to ten years. The maximum sentence for abandoning a child or failing to provide the necessaries of life to a child would more than double from two to five years in prison.

The courts would also consider child abuse during the commission of an offence under the Criminal Code an aggravating factor that could lead to harsher sentencing. In our opinion, these changes seem quite relevant and we support them.

Before closing, I would like to stress the overall objective of facilitating the testimony of children. This legislation would reform the current criminal justice system so that contributing to and participating in the system is less traumatic for victims and witnesses.

The current provisions of the Criminal Code would be expanded to make testimonial assistance available for all witnesses under 18, not only those who are affected by sexual offences and other specific offences, in all criminal proceedings.

This assistance includes allowing witnesses to give their evidence from behind a screen or by closed-circuit television, or having a young witness accompanied by someone they trust.

The current provisions generally require that the Crown establish the need for testimonial assistance. Given the possible trauma to young witnesses of the courtroom experience—and I know whereof I speak, having watched the proceedings, and my wife, who is a Crown attorney, and I have spoken about this at length—the proposed reforms recognize the need for this particular assistance. We strongly support it.

We should note in passing that it is at the judge's discretion, however, to deny assistance or protection if it obstructs the administration of justice.

In our view, these elements of the bill represent a step in the right direction and we will support them throughout the entire legislative process. However, this new process must not infringe on the right of an accused person to a full and complete defence, which remains a fundamental right under current Canadian law.

This bill that we are talking about is very broad and the different angles that we intend to work on are those that I have just mentioned. We intend to support the bill at this stage. As I have already said a few times, we will take the opportunity at committee stage to improve it in order to protect our children. They are society's most important resource.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House this morning is, in my opinion, of special importance. The initiative of the Minister of Justice to restrict access to child pornography is an important measure and I want to assure the House that the Bloc Quebecois will work very seriously on this issue.

Protecting children is a fundamental principle in a society. Children are our greatest asset and they deserve all our attention and protection. They are the most vulnerable group in our society.

We could have a long debate on pornography in the broad sense of the term. However, in my opinion, child pornography is something that must be completely and fundamentally banned and prohibited, something that we must fight actively and strongly to prevent its spreading.

Not only is child pornography associated with a degrading sexual deviance, it also reflects a sick and degrading state of mind, for consumers, but especially for children.

It is not without a degree of emotion that I rise to address Bill C-20, because I am the father of two young children. I thought about my speech this morning for a long time, and I have been haunted by a terrible thought: what if my two sons fell into the hands of sexual predators or were sexually exploited by such depraved minds? This is why I am taking a particular interest in today's debate.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-20, because we feel that the minister's initiative deals with several important aspects of criminal law. It includes new provisions that have become necessary, given the particular nature of today's new technologies.

However, some clauses of Bill C-20 raise important questions, including those dealing with the issue of consent regarding sexual relations.

The Bloc Quebecois hopes to have some witnesses appear to discuss this issue and to examine all its aspects. Of course, we reserve the right and the privilege to move some amendments later on.

Bill C-20 makes fundamental changes two acts, the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act. The government hopes to make a number of amendments to the Criminal Code, particularly to:

(a) amend the child pornography provisions with respect to the type of written material that constitutes child pornography, and with respect to the child pornography defences;

The bill will also:

(b) add a new category to the offence of sexual exploitation of young persons and make additional amendments to further protect children from sexual exploitation;

(c) increase the maximum penalty for child sexual offences—

and

(d) make child abuse an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing;

In the same vein, it is important, under the circumstances, to:

(e) amend and clarify the applicable test and criteria that need to be met for the use of testimonial aids, for excluding the public, for imposing a publication ban, for using video-recorded evidence or for appointing counsel for self-represented accused to conduct a cross-examination of certain witnesses;

And finally, it is important, in terms of the Criminal Code, to

(f) create an offence of voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material.

Bill C-20 “also amends the Canada Evidence Act to abolish the requirement for a competency hearing for children under 14 years of age”.

In order to make the most of the bill's objectives, it is important to carefully assess the law as it current exists. One of the significant concerns that we have deals with consent to sexual relations.

Currently, under the Criminal Code provisions concerning consent to sexual activity, the consent of a person under the age of fourteen is not a defence against charges of a sexual nature, such as sexual abuse, exhibitionism or fondling. This means that persons aged fourteen and older can give their consent.

This provision, as you know, is subject to an exception. The consent of a complainant can be a defence if the latter is between twelve and fourteen years of age, if the accused is more than twelve but under sixteen years of age, if the accused is less than two years older than the complainant and if the accused is not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant.

Furthermore, a person in a position of trust or authority cannot sexually interfere with a person between the ages of fourteen and seventeen years, even if the minor consents. It is also important to remember that, obviously, child prostitution is illegal in Canada.

These provisions in the Criminal Code have been strongly criticized, namely by the Canadian Alliance, which wanted to change the age of sexual consent to sixteen. Among the arguments advanced in favour of raising the age of consent was that Canada might become a sex tourism destination simply because sexual relations with minors aged fourteen and up are not illegal here.

However, with such stakes, it is essential, urgent and necessary to think clearly. To this end, the Bloc has always been opposed to raising the age of consent to sexual relations. We believe, and let us be clear, that although it is preferable that children aged fourteen and fifteen do not have sex, this is the age that society in general seems willing to tolerate.

Furthermore, you will recall, this is what I said during the debate at second reading on Bill C-215 introduced by the member for Calgary Northeast last November 4.

I also drew attention to the doublespeak by the Canadian Alliance on this issue—and it is important that this be done. In fact, let us remember that during the debate on the Young Offenders Act, Alliance members thought a 14 or 15 year old child was responsible enough to be tried in adult court, but not responsible enough to consent to sexual activity. They were prepared to put this child in prison, because according to them he was criminally responsible, but he was not responsible enough to consent to sexual relations. What doublespeak.

In a different vein, in his proposal, the Minister of Justice creates a new concept of exploitation. Now, an adult will not be able to have sexual relations with a minor if the latter is placed in a position of exploitation with regard to the adult.

The criteria that will be used to determine whether there is exploitation in the relationship are the following: first, the age difference between the person and the young person; second, the evolution of the relationship; and third, the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

This may seem complicated. To simplify things, let us look at a specific example. Geneviève is 15 and in a relationship with Gilbert, age 45, whom she met in a bar. Geneviève is not dependant on Gilbert in any way. However, from the beginning of the relationship, Gilbert has showered Geneviève with gifts that are very expensive for a young girl her age. Very soon, Geneviève consents to sexual relations with Gilbert.

In this situation, based on current law, Gilbert is not guilty of any crime. Under the provisions proposed by the minister, Gilbert could be found guilty of an offence under section 153 of the Criminal Code and liable to imprisonment not exceeding ten years. In fact, their age difference is 30 years and the relationship is very recent.

It is important to point out that we have some reservations about these new provisions. First, they create uncertainty regarding the law, and this is never a good thing. A person of full age who has sexual relations with a minor will never be sure whether he or she is committing a criminal offence, since these provisions of the Criminal Code leave a great deal to the interpretation judges will make of the clauses that are proposed today.

This leads us to a second point. A parent who disapproves the sentimental choice of his or her minor child will always have the option of filing a complaint with the police, even though their reasons for doing so are not those anticipated by the legislator. This could add to the legal uncertainty.

Consequently, I reiterate the fact that the Bloc Quebecois is interested in hearing witnesses in committee on this issue. We are prepared to move amendments if necessary.

As I mentioned earlier, the rapid technological changes that have occurred in recent years have made it necessary to make some legislative changes, in order to deal with the new reality.

For example, the electronic cameras that transmit live images on the Internet have raised concerns about possible abuse, including the illegal observation or recording of persons for sexual purposes, or when such observation or recording is a blatant violation of privacy.

This is why the bill proposes to add two new offences to the Criminal Code. The first one would make it a criminal offence, in three specific cases, to deliberately and surreptitiously observe or record another person in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The first case would be when the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose. The second case would be when the person observed or recorded is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude or to be engaged in sexual activity. Finally, the third case would be when the person is nude or is 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.

So, we are not talking about surveillance cameras in a shopping mall or in a parking lot, but in a place where a person can reasonably expect a minimum of privacy.

The second offence relates to distribution of material when aware that such material has been obtained by commission of the offence of voyeurism. This would also constitute a crime. The maximum sentence for all voyeurism-related offences would be five years imprisonment.

Finally, copies of a recording obtained by the offence of voyeurism for the purpose of sale or distribution could be seized or confiscated. The courts could also order deletion of any voyeuristic material from a computer.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the legislative provisions relating to voyeurism were made necessary by the proliferation of surveillance cameras and the rapidity of distributing images taken by such cameras, via the Internet for instance.

Consequently, we are in favour of the provisions relating to voyeurism.

Now, let us move on to child pornography. Primarily, the new provisions on child pornography address two different aspects.

On the one hand, the present definition of child pornography applies only to material that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a child. Bill C-20 would expand that definition to include any material that describes prohibited sexual activity with a child where the written description of the activity is the dominant characteristic of the material and is done for a sexual purpose.

These new provisions raise a number of questions. First of all, it must be made clear that possession of child pornography is a crime punishable by five years imprisonment.

The new provision calls for any written material describing sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 to be considered a form of child pornography. Consequently, this would mean that someone who recorded in his personal diary fantasies, sick and twisted as they might be, of sexual relations of this nature would be committing a criminal offence and be liable to five years in prison, even if he or she did not show this document to anyone and no child was in any way involved in creating the document.

First of all, this provision strikes us as a broad one, and tantamount in a way to making thoughts a crime. The Minister of Justice counters that objection, however, by saying that we must interpret these provisions in light of the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in the Sharpe case.

In Sharpe, it is indicated that there are two types of material that must be excluded from the definition of child pornography: first, documents or representations that the accused alone created and retains solely for personal use, for example a diary, and second, visual recordings created by the accused or in which he is represented, which do not depict any illegal sexual activity and which the accused retains solely for personal use.

We find it hard to understand why the Minister of Justice did not integrate these exceptions into the Criminal Code. In fact, their absence will have the effect of creating legal uncertainty, because the Criminal Code will provide, even for an informed reader, a very imprecise definition of child pornography.

We plan to use the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to hear witnesses on this issue. Of course, we will move amendments if we believe they are necessary.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that Liberal members would not allow the minister to be questioned on his speech. His speech raises a number of very serious issues. The minister should not be allowed to duck out of answering the real tough questions in respect of the bill.

Recently the Toronto Police Service held a press conference. In that press conference it told Canadians two things that were reported as news, although it was not news to anyone. It told us that Canada was rife with child pornography and that the federal government was not giving police officers the support they required to deal with the epidemic of child pornography.

Toronto police officers said that they had more than 2,300 names of suspected pedophiles on their list but only about 5% of them had been arrested. The reason for that very low arrest rate was because Canada lacked a national strategy for targeting sex offenders. The police officers are not getting the money nor the legislative changes needed to work effectively and efficiently to convict child pornographers and put them behind bars.

On the other hand, the Liberal government continues to claim that it is doing everything it can to protect children and that its laws are working. Who should Canadians believe? Should they believe the frontline police who have seen firsthand the worst and most degrading forms of child sexual abuse and the most depraved kinds of criminals who perpetrate this abuse or should they believe the Liberal government that was accused in December by the independent Auditor General of deliberately misleading Parliament for years about the billion dollar cost overrun and administrative failures in implementing Bill C-68, the long gun registry?

Canadians want to know what it will take for the government to get its priorities straight. For years frontline police officers have pleaded for federal support to combat child exploitation. The only response from the Liberals has been to slash police resources and to enact complex legislation that does nothing to protect children.

In contrast the British authorities have already arrested 1,500 people out of the 7,000 suspects from the same child pornography investigation. Why is Canada so far behind other western industrialized nations in this very important struggle? It is a lack of will, a lack of real concern and a failure to set our priorities straight as a country.

Perhaps it would be inaccurate to say that the Liberal government does not care about protecting children. I believe that all Canadians care very deeply about our children. However, the Liberal approach to protecting children consistently fails to put the needs of children ahead of the rights of criminals. This needs to change.

Much of the most recent public awareness about Canada's child pornography laws date back to a man named John Robin Sharpe. In the mid-1990s Mr. Sharpe was charged with possession of child pornography and defended himself on the basis that the Criminal Code laws against this offensive material violated his freedom of expression.

Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw in the B.C. Supreme Court agreed and struck down the Canadian child pornography laws as unconstitutional. For two years Canadian children effectively went without legal protection against pedophiles as police were compelled to put investigations on hold pending the appeals.

I quote what Ontario Provincial Police Detective Inspector Robert Matthews said in the Kingston Whig-Standard on May 3, 1999 just after the laws were struck down, “We have some cases... dealing with possession that are being put on hold awaiting [a final decision]”.

Isabelle Schuman, head of the criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association, said in the same newspaper report, “Here in Quebec, there are a number of cases where the Crown and defence have agreed to wait because there is no point in going ahead”.

In the Globe and Mail on March 2, 1999, it was reported that, “The Crown will seek adjournments on child pornography possession cases now before the B.C. courts”.

All across Canada, child pornography cases were put on hold while the Liberal government and the then justice minister, who is now our health minister, stood by for the Sharpe case to wind its way through the courts. One by one, the Liberals stood to vote down a Reform motion in Parliament to invoke section 33 of the charter as a measure to allow cases to proceed normally during this appeal process. All that the former justice minister stated was that she had confidence in the appeal courts to make the right decision. However, while our justice minister was busy being confident in the courts, law enforcement agencies across Canada were severely handicapped in their attempts to suppress child pornography, and as a result, our children went unprotected for a period of two entire years.

Canadians felt relieved when the Supreme Court decision of January 2001 substantially upheld the law as constitutional. What most Canadians did not understand was that while upholding the constitutional propriety of the law, the Supreme Court opened up a loophole in the interpretation of the law that simply allowed the pedophiles to continue exploiting children.

When John Robin Sharpe was tried by the B.C. Supreme Court, the same judge who had struck down the law as unconstitutional in 1999 proceeded to acquit him on two charges involving written pornographic material by applying an absurdly broad definition of artistic merit. It strikes me as strange that the same judge who had already expressed his disdain for the law on a constitutional basis would be put back by the courts to hear the matter. Clearly the chief justice in that province should have assigned a new judge to that case so that at least Canadians would have had the perception that the judge was approaching this case from a fresh point of view. Clearly what he could not do by declaring the law unconstitutional, he simply did by applying this absurdly broad definition of artistic merit.

John Robin Sharpe's written material is not art on the basis of any reasonable standard. His writings depict sexually explicit material that glorifies the violent sexual exploitation of children by adults. Furthermore, most Canadians will agree that all forms of child pornography are harmful. The harm done to children and society generally by the creation and distribution of this type of material, regardless of how it is produced, cannot be ignored. Beyond the clear intent for this material to provide sexual gratification to the creator or viewer, child pornography is created to glorify, to encourage and to normalize the idea of sexual activity between adults and children. It simply opens the door to the further exploitation of children.

Despite the court's obvious error in this ruling, once again the Liberal government did not immediately move to clarify the law and eliminate the artistic merit defence, a move that would have had the overwhelming support of Canadians. Only after months of intense pressure from the Canadian Alliance did the Minister of Justice move toward this legislation in which he claims to have eliminated the artistic merit defence. In reality he has done no such thing. The minister has replaced all of the previous defences to child pornography and merged them into one defence, the defence of the public good. There are two substantial flaws in this wrong-headed Liberal approach

First, there is no substantive difference between the public good defence and a previous defence, the community standards defence, which was rendered ineffective by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1992 Butler decision. The community standards test, just like the public good defence, was concerned primarily with the risk of harm to individuals and society. However, because of how the court approached that particular defence, it was rendered ineffective. There is no positive benefit in doing what this minister has done in respect of the public good defence. There is no positive benefit in simply recycling laws that have been already discredited by the courts.

The second substantial flaw is that the artistic merit defence, which has been eliminated on paper, still applies in practice. Even by the Minister of Justice's own admission, artistic merit remains a component of the public good that the courts will consider in any new charge of child pornography. In essence, the minister has simply repackaged and renamed the artistic good defence.

I find it surprising that members opposite would tolerate this kind of perpetuation of abuse against children on the thin excuse of artistic merit when they would never allow, I would hope, the same kind of abuse to be perpetrated against ethnic minorities, against women or against other minorities. Yet they choose to do it in respect of the most vulnerable people in our society, our children. Once again the Liberals, in this legislation, avoid taking a clear stand against child pornography and the protection of children.

One of the biggest failures of this Liberal bill is that it will not protect children by raising the age of sexual consent from 14 years of age to 16 years. The most frequently cited reason that Liberals give for not raising the age is that it might criminalize sexual activity between young people close in age. Every parliamentarian, and hopefully most Canadians, understands that this excuse is pure nonsense. All the minister needs to do is establish a peer exemption for sexually active younger teens. The Criminal Code already permits children younger than 14 to consent to sexual activity as long as their partners are less than two years older than they are. The British, who have set their age of consent at 16, also have a close in age category that has not, as Liberals suggest, criminalized teenagers. It has had the opposite effect, that is, it protects these vulnerable young people from much older sexual predators.

In a Pollara poll released in May 2002, 80% of Canadians believed that the federal government should raise the age of sexual consent from 14 years of age to 16 years of age. I find it interesting that the Minister of Justice continually quotes a similar percentage of Canadians who are in favour of marijuana decriminalization as his basis for moving in that direction, yet despite calls from average Canadians, provincial Attorneys General and premiers, Child Find Manitoba, Beyond Borders, Focus on the Family, the Canadian Police Association, the Alberta Federation of Police Associations, and countless other organizations, including the Canadian Alliance, the Minister of Justice continues to give excuses as to why this cannot be done.

Even the former justice minister said in response to a question that I asked her in the justice committee on October 2, 2001 that:

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

Elected officials from all political stripes recognize the importance of implementing these legal tools so that our law enforcement authorities can better protect our children, but this minister keeps offering excuses for why it cannot or should not be done. He keeps saying how difficult it would be, although I cannot imagine that it could be more difficult than making our drug laws more lenient, which is what he proposes to do this spring, especially considering the ramifications such a move would have on the United States, our neighbour and our largest trading partner.

The minister tries to tell us as Canadians that his thousands of lawyers in the Department of Justice cannot figure out a way of raising what virtually every civilized jurisdiction in the world has done. The British, most American states and other western civilized countries have moved in that direction. What impediment is there that prevents his lawyers from drafting a relatively simple provision that provides certain safeguards and brings the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 without criminalizing teenage sexual activity but protecting our children from child predators?

There is a reason that has been given. The minister's parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Northumberland, even said in the House on November 5, 2002, that there were “many social and cultural differences that have to be reflected in that law”. This was certainly news to many Canadians. I do not know what he is talking about. Is he talking about a culture of pedophilia when he makes references to cultural backgrounds?

Let me tell the House about what one member of Canada's ethnic communities had to say about that. I will spell the name so we have it right for the record. Vettivelu Nallainayagam, a name which is almost as difficult to say as Toews or “Taves” if one were making that kind of comparison, wrote on November 16, 2002 in the Calgary Herald:

I am offended, and angry, that the government has sought to hide its unwillingness to change the age, using as its excuse the different sexual mores of Canada's various cultures. It casts these cultures in a negative light and undermines the foundations of our multicultural society.

The writer continued:

I have interacted with many cultural groups, having been associated with the Calgary Multicultural Centre for a long period of time, and I never took home the impression that any one cultural group in Canada would be opposed to changing the age of sexual consent.

The writer concluded the piece by saying:

I appeal to the minister of justice and his parliamentary secretary not to hide behind cultural excuses but to act to raise the age of sexual consent to 16. And I would also urge the members of different ethnic communities to write to [the parliamentary secretary] asking him not to insult the intelligence of the ethnic community in Canada.

As Liberal ministers keep making weak excuses for not moving to raise the age, they will continue to be discredited by clear-thinking Canadians.

As I have stated, it is not anyone's intention to criminalize sexual activities between young people who are close in age. The intent is to protect young people, who are not always in the best position to protect themselves from sexual abuse by adults. Under our current laws, children and teenagers easily become targets of pornographers, Internet sex scams, pedophiles and sexual abuse, and parents have no legal recourse with which to shield their children from these dangers.

I noted that in the minister's speech today he is proposing that witnesses under the age of 18 receive extensive protection in court, extensive protection that would prevent an accused from cross-examining those individuals under 18. This is a remarkable admission by the Minister of Justice. Here he is saying that even in the court, children under the age of 18 can be exploited by the court process where there is a crown attorney, where there is a judge, where there is a public forum. Children under the age of 18 can be exploited, so he wants to bring in protection for children under the age of 18. What about children out on the street who are under the age of 16 and are victims of sexual predators? There is not a judge out there on the street protecting these children. There is not a crown prosecutor out there protecting these children. Yet there is no protection by the government for laws that at least will give the police and parents the right to protect their children.

What double standards: that children need protection in the courts, but where they are in danger of being preyed upon by sexual predators on the street and elsewhere they receive no protection that is effective in preventing these kinds of abuses.

Instead of extending full protection to children under the age of 16, the Liberals prefer to introduce a complex and cumbersome law that will do little to achieve its stated purpose. This is the same thing as the complex Young Offenders Act. It says wonderful things, but if one is actually in the street trying to enforce these laws, they are ineffective. It is the same thing as the gang law that has been passed: complex procedures that will not effectively curtail the activities of gangs without substantial increases in police and court resources.

Even today we have heard about how complex trials are grinding our justice system to halt. What I have heard the minister say here today simply is adding more of this complexity rather than putting in straightforward provisions that actually protect children. What he creates is wonderful net for lawyers to work in, to operate in, to ensure that the entire system slows down and in fact, as the chief justice indicates, grinds to a halt.

Why are we doing this? Why do we choose to discard the effective and embrace the cumbersome? I can tell the House that the reason is this: the focus of Liberal legislation is not on who the legislation is intended to protect. The focus is on what the courts may say if we pass this legislation. The courts might declare it unconstitutional so therefore we should not do the right thing; we should do the thing that is complex and cumbersome and satisfies the legal machinations of our legal system.

We need a government and a minister who will stand up and say, “I want to bring forward legislation that is straightforward, direct and effective and that will protect children”.

When the minister brings in that type of legislation he should be prepared to stand up to the courts and tell them that the rights of children are more important than the rights of sexual predators who rely on decisions, like Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw's decision, in respect of artistic merit. Why is it that these types of perverse decisions receive protection while children are left to fend for themselves? Lip service is paid by adding a few little things in courts, but the substantive issue of children being preyed upon by sexual predators virtually goes unaddressed.

Instead of a straightforward, effective provision, the bill creates the category of sexual exploitation with the intended aim of protecting children between the ages of 14 and 18. In determining whether an adult is in a relationship with a young person, which is exploitative of the 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 adult over the young person. Anyone who has had experience in the courts will explain what this means. This is another complex law that will simply grind the system to a halt and, in the end, will do nothing to protect children. This is lip service, not a substantive recognition of the problem that the Toronto police recently pointed out to us.

Currently it is against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority, or with whom a young person, someone between 14 and 18, is 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 protect young people.

By the Liberals' failure to prohibit adults exploiting, in a sexual sense, children under the age of 16, police and parents are faced with a continuing risk to children that is not effectively addressed by these amendments. As has been said by more than 80% of Canadians, only by raising the age of sexual consent will young people be truly protected under the Criminal Code.

While I realize that the Solicitor General has introduced a separate bill concerning the sexual offender registry, I want to comment briefly on that since the Liberal failures in that department are quite significant in this context.

After reviewing the Solicitor General's proposal for the registry, I have concluded that the Liberal idea of justice defies all common sense by targeting law-abiding Canadians while giving convicted child predators the benefit of the doubt.

The Liberals continue to pour millions of dollars of taxpayer money into a registry of law-abiding firearms owners but still refuse to create a registry that includes all sexual offenders. We heard the Solicitor General's weak and very lame comments in excusing why convicted criminals, who are serving time in prison today for brutally destroying the lives of children, will not be on that sexual offender registry. He says that it is double jeopardy when he knows this has nothing to do with the constitutional doctrine of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy relates to two criminal convictions for the same offence. This sex offender registry is not a conviction. It follows that conviction. It is done in every other context where we seek to identify those who present a danger to society. What better criteria can we rely on than when someone has been convicted by a court of these crimes?

In reality the Liberal proposal for a sex offender registry appears to be a poorly disguised public relations strategy. The proposed registry is nothing more than a blank piece of paper. I know and Canadians know that without a comprehensive list of offenders convicted in the past the registry will be virtually useless.

Pedophiles and other sex offenders who have a notoriously high rate of reoffending can only be added to the registry if they offend and are caught in the future. Furthermore, none of this information will be available for members of the public who may need to know when there is a sexual offender in their midst. In effect, known sexual predators will be exempted from the Liberal plan until they are convicted of more offences.

The Liberals did not say that about farmers and duck hunters who might have a shotgun or a .22. No, they put them on the registry right away. They have done a very poor job of even establishing a registry but they did not say that they would wait until these people were convicted of an offence. We need to remember that these people, who are otherwise lawful gun owners, have never been convicted of any offence. If they had been they would not have received the right to possess a gun. Now the Liberals are saying that convicted pedophiles get a break despite the fact that they have been convicted by a court. They will not go on a registry because that would be double jeopardy. What about innocent Canadians who have committed no wrong? We all know that t cannot be double jeopardy because they have not even been convicted once. If the Liberals want to be consistent they should at least wait until someone breaks the law before putting them on this kind of registry.

In effect, known, convicted sexual predators will be exempted from the Liberal plan until they are convicted of more offences. The reason the Solicitor General gives is that he has concerns about the charter and privacy rights. This is simply nonsense and it has no credible basis in law. The minister should have focused on drafting a law that protects victims instead of trying to guess what the courts might do. If the courts think that the protection of children and other victims should be compromised, Parliament should not make it easier for the courts or for pedophiles or for other sexual offenders,

Furthermore, the federal law prohibiting retroactivity could impact negatively on existing provincial registries. The provinces, as a result of the failure of the federal government to proceed, have acted. Ontario, especially, has gone to great lengths. Other provinces have set up different types of registries. In the United States, virtually every single state has a registry. We can go on the Internet today and put in a name and the face of the convicted felon comes up on the computer screen. That is how public the access is. In some states the access is not that public.

There are reasons perhaps, philosophical, legal or other, but we are not even having that debate here in Canada. Basically we are saying that victims do not deserve this protection and that is the end of the discussion. The same thing is true about the sex offender registry as it is with this particular Bill C-20. It does not focus on the needs of victims. It focuses on what courts might do, and, in the process, renders it ineffective.

Ontario police Inspector Bob Matthews told reporters recently that the light sentences that Canadian pedophiles receive are, in his words, a joke. He said:

It almost encourages child pornography to be distributed, if you know there's no punishment.

Courts regularly, even in my home province of Manitoba, are overturning the decisions of lower court judges who put pedophiles or child pornographers in jail and are giving them conditional sentences. Another Liberal excuse about these people really being in jail but serving their sentences at home. That statement and that process defies any credibility.

Inspector Bob Matthews and every other law enforcement officer knows that the current maximum sentences in Canada for distributing child pornography or for other child sexual offences are rarely given out.

The Minister of Justice has come here and said that the Liberals will raise the maximum sentences which shows their determination to take some effective measures against child predators. The minister knows that the courts do not give those maximum sentences. They do not give the present maximum sentences and they will not give the maximum sentences that will be in place if the bill is passed. This is window dressing designed simply to assure Canadians that something is being done when in fact nothing is being done.

If the minister were truly serious about punishing pedophiles and child pornographers and sending them to jail he would not worry so much about the maximum sentences. He would bring in minimum sentences so that the courts could not allow these individuals to escape the appropriate punishment. He would repeal conditional sentences for child predators and others who commit violent acts against Canadians.

We know that legislating higher maximum sentences for child pornography and predators, as this bill does, will not be effective unless the courts enforce them. We know that the courts simply have no will and no desire to enforce the laws as written.

The bill also fails to prohibit a number of other issues. I realize others want to speak but what I want to speak specifically and very briefly on, in conclusion, is the ever looming problem of the scarcity of resources.

Police and prosecutors simply do not have the tools to deal with child pornography cases effectively or efficiently. They do not have the legal tools they need and they have suffered crippling funding cuts over the past decade that prevent them from doing a thorough and complete investigation.

In addition to the strain caused by lack of resources that the Toronto Police brought to our attention, current evidentiary laws tie up additional police resources preventing police from investigating and prosecuting child pornography in a timely manner. While technology used by child pornographers has developed, the laws needed to address the problem have not kept pace, and that is a glaring omission in the bill.

Those are my opening remarks. I trust that the minister and Liberal colleagues will keep an open mind about possible amendments to the bill. Perhaps the bill should be sent back with specific instructions to ensure that victims, rather than child predators, are protected.

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

moved that Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first speech of 2003. I would, of course, like to begin by extending to you and all the members of your team my best wishes for this new parliamentary year. I would also like to extend best wishes to all my colleagues.

Here we have the opportunity to express ourselves in what is probably the finest democratic forum in the world. Not only is this an incredible opportunity, but also a duty. I believe that there have always been fine and constructive debates in this House aimed at ensuring our ability to continue to work together to build Canadian society. With that in mind, I again extend to all of my colleagues my best wishes for our continued constructive work together.

I am very pleased today to begin the second reading debate on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

The government's commitment to the protection of children is clear and strong. As stated in the Speech from the Throne, we believe that Canadians have a collective responsibility to protect our children from exploitation in all its forms, including sexual exploitation.

We have therefore introduced Bill C-20 in order to reform the Criminal Code, to increase penalties for abuse and neglect, as well as to provide more sensitive treatment for children who participate in criminal justice proceedings as victims or witnesses.

The bill proposes a package of criminal law reforms that address five key components: first,strengthening the child pornography provisions to respond to continuing concerns; providing increased protection to youth against sexual exploitation by persons who would prey on their vulnerability; strengthening specific sentencing provisions related to offences committed against children, including abuse and neglect, to ensure that sentences better reflect the serious nature of these offences; facilitating testimony by child victims as witnesses and other vulnerable persons through a number of measures that include providing consistency and clarity regarding the use of existing testimonial aids, and by providing that child witnesses are competent witnesses; and creating a new offence of voyeurism to address in defined situations surreptitious viewing or recording of others in situations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This package of criminal law reforms is based, in large part, on extensive consultations with provincial and territorial governments, as well as with the general public.

This shows how much the current government values the collaboration of the provincial and territorial governments, which share responsibility for the criminal justice system with the Government of Canada. It also shows the current government's commitment to ensuring the participation of Canadians and obtaining their opinion on current issues.

With regard to the merits of Bill C-20, I would first like to point out that it includes a preamble. Although this is not without precedent, it is nevertheless an exception with regard to the majority of bills introduced in this House. We have included this preamble for a very specific reason, which is to stress the importance of the issues addressed in Bill C-20, namely, the protection of the most vulnerable people in our society, our children, from all forms of exploitation, including child pornography, sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect.

Child pornography is an issue on which the government has demonstrated leadership both domestically and internationally by taking strong and effective measures to better protect children from this form of sexual exploitation.

Hon. members will recall that last July new offences came into effect that addressed the misuse of new technologies, including the Internet, to sexually exploit children. These new offences include transmitting, making available, exporting and accessing child pornography. The amendments also allow courts to order the deletion of child pornography posted on Canadian computer systems such as websites.

In addition to these reforms, we have developed and are delivering a training program for prosecutors on computer crimes which include child pornography. We are also supporting the pilot project by Child Find Manitoba on Cybertip.ca. Launched in September 2002, Cybertip.ca receives public reports about online child sexual exploitation. By mid-January 2003, as a result of reports forwarded by Cybertip.ca, more than 50 websites suspected of containing child pornography have been investigated by law enforcement. These investigations have led to many of the sites being shut down, including a number that were hosted in Canada.

At the international level, we continue to work with our G-8 partners on the implementation of a G-8 strategy for online child sexual exploitation. This strategy includes measures and aims at improving international cooperation, prevention, public awareness and outreach to other countries.

Today, Bill C-20 goes even further and directly responds to concerns regarding the issue of defence based on artistic merit and also the current definition of written child pornography.

As we respond to these concerns, it is important to remember that one of the key components that allowed the validity of the overall child pornography scheme to be recognized was the possibility of using various defences.

Bill C-20 is based on the Supreme Court's analysis and attempts to maintain this constitutional balance.

Bill C-20 recommends a twofold response drawing from the Supreme Court of Canada 2001 decision, which upheld the overall child pornography scheme. It would revise the child pornography defences to simplify and narrow their availability and broaden the definition of written child pornography.

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.

Under the current laws, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, there is currently no requirement to balance artistic merit or good against any potential harm to society. Under the new law, the defences would be merged into one of public good and the courts would be required to consider whether the good served by the material or act is outweighed by the risk of harm that it poses.

Bill C-20 proposes to broaden the definition of written child pornography. In addition to including materials that advocate or counsel prohibited sexual activity with children, it would also include materials that describe prohibited sexual activity with children where the written descriptions of that activity are the dominant characteristic of the material and they are done for sexual purpose.

All Canadians are concerned about protecting young persons against sexual exploitation. We have begun to respond to this concern with the creation of the offence of Internet luring. I am pleased to say that charges have been laid under this new legislation.

Given the serious nature of this issue, we must continuously re-evaluate and ask ourselves if we can do more. Some believe that young persons would be better protected against sexual exploitation by simply increasing the age of consent to sexual activity. We believe however that the issue is about how to protect young persons from the exploitative conduct of others and not about their consent to such conduct.

Currently, the Criminal Code sets the age of consent to any form of sexual activity--from sexual touching to sexual intercourse--at 14 for most purposes with two exceptions. First, for exploitive relationships, the age of consent is 18 years. The consent of a young person who is 14 or older but under the age of 18 is not valid where the other person is in a position of trust or authority over the young person or the young person is in a position of dependency on the other. The age is also 18 for purposes related to prostitution and pornography. Second, for those close in age, a young person who is 12 or 13 may consent to sexual activity with a peer provided that the older person is less than 2 years their elder and there is no position of trust, authority or dependency.

But, and I want to be very clear on this, when we talk about the age of consent we are referring to consensual sexual activity. Consensual means there is a genuinely voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual activity. Any non-consensual sexual activity, no matter what the age of the person, is a sexual assault.

I held consultations on this issue, and just recently I asked for comments from my provincial and territorial counterparts. While there is agreement on the need to strengthen measures to protect young people from sexual exploitation, they do not all agree that raising the age of consent is the best way, or even an effective way, of reaching this objective.

I recognize that people's opinions on the age at which it is appropriate for young people to begin sexual activity varies enormously. However, as adults, whether we agree with it or not, the reality is that adolescents do indeed have sexual experiences. In this context, I believe that what Canadians want is to better protect their children from sexual exploitation.

Accordingly, the bill proposes creating a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation in order to better protect young people who have reached the age of consent, those who are between 14 and 18.

In addition to taking into consideration relationships of trust, authority or dependence, the courts must also take into account the fact that a relationship is based on exploitation and examine the nature and the circumstances of the relationship, including age difference and the degree of control or influence exerted over the adolescent.

In this manner the proposed amendment in Bill C-20 focuses on the other person's exploitation of the young person and not on the apparent consent of that young person to the exploitative conduct. I would also note that, unlike proposals to raise the age of consent to 16 years, the proposal in Bill C-20 would protect not only 14 and 15 year olds, but also 16 and 17 year olds from such exploitation.

The bill proposes several amendments to the sentencing provisions for offences against children to ensure that these provisions adequately reflect the serious nature of these offences. These include: increasing the current penalty for sexual exploitation, which includes the proposed new category, from 5 to 10 years when proceeded by indictment and from 6 to 18 months when proceeded by summary conviction; increasing the maximum penalty for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching from 6 to 18 months when proceeded by summary conviction; and increasing the maximum penalty for failure to provide the necessities of life from 2 to 5 years when proceeded by indictment and from 6 to 18 months when proceeded by summary conviction.

Similar amendments are proposed for the abandonment of a child, which is currently an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of two years. We are proposing to make this a dual procedure offence with a maximum penalty of 18 months on summary convictions and 5 years on indictment, as well as making the abuse of any child, in the commission of an offence, an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Bill C-20 also contains reforms to ensure that it is not as difficult for child witnesses to take part in criminal proceedings. A courtroom can seem strange, even austere for most witnesses. But for children, the experience can be very traumatic.

There have been important reforms in criminal law since the late 1980s in order to make the justice system more sensitive and better suited to the needs and realities of child victims and witnesses. These reforms recognized that the ability of child victims or witnesses to provide a clear, full and precise description of events can be adversely affected by both the trauma of the offence, but also by the criminal justice system itself.

The reforms contained in Bill C-20 follow up on these measures, including those that allow child witnesses to be accompanied by a person they trust, those that allow child witnesses to testify from behind a screen or by closed-circuit television in the case of certain offences, and those that restrict the questioning of a child by an accused person who is representing himself, and also in the case of certain offences.

When it comes to the current provisions, experience has shown that while these measures to facilitate testimony are very helpful for young witnesses, they are not always requested or applied in cases where they should be.

The justice department conducted extensive consultations concerning child victims and the criminal justice system. Responses obtained during these consultations show that the legislative reforms to make it easier for young victims and witnesses to testify during criminal proceedings enjoy considerable support. More specifically, respondents said they were in favour of the application of a uniform criterion for all victims and witnesses who are under 18, in terms of the possibility of testifying behind a screen, by closed-circuit television, or in the presence of someone they trust. The presumption by which these means would be provided unless they hinder the administration of justice is also supported.

Bill C-20 reflects these views and proposes to make testimonial assistance available for all young victims and witnesses under 18 years of age in all proceedings. Under the new law all children up to 18 years of age who are victims or witnesses in any proceedings, not only sexual offence proceedings, may request that a support person accompany them and may request to give their evidence from behind a screen or by closed circuit TV. The crown, in making the request, would not be required to prove the need for this assistance. The judge would order the use of the testimonial aid unless he or she was of the view that its use would interfere with the proper administration of justice.

Coming face to face with the person accused of the offence can be frightening and intimidating for young witnesses. Bill C-20 would ensure that a self represented accused person could not personally cross-examine a witness under 18 years of age in any proceeding. In such cases counsel would be appointed to conduct the cross-examination unless the judge determined that it was necessary to proceed in another manner.

We will also address the alarming issue of criminal harassment, or stalking as it is often called. A victim of criminal harassment should never have to face the possibility of being harassed again by an accused who chooses to represent himself and interrogates the victim personally. In such situations the court will appoint a lawyer who will represent the accused in order to avoid possibly traumatizing the victim with face to face confrontation.

Bill C-20 will also expand the provisions making video recorded testimony by a child admissible in court. Admissibility of a video recording can decrease the risk of anxiety or trauma for a child by reducing the amount of time spent testifying in court. Statements made on video will also allow the court to keep a recording of the statements made by a child at a time when the events were still fresh in his or her mind.

Currently, under the Criminal Code, statements recorded on video are admissible only for specific offences such as sexual exploitation, incest, child pornography, offences related to prostitution and sexual assault, and not in other offences involving violence such as murder or homicide. Video cassettes can also be entered into evidence when the complainant or witness is able to communicate the evidence but may have difficulty doing so because of a physical or mental impairment.

The new legislation will make an interview with a child witness or a witness with difficulty in communicating admissible for any offence, not just sexual offences.

As well, our reforms would also modernize those provisions of the Criminal Code allowing a publication ban in order to protect the identity of a victim or witness or to insure the fairness of a trial. Technological advances have given rise to new means of distributing information, and our legislation must reflect this.

Bill C-20 includes changes to ensure that a publication ban, when imposed, applies to publication, distribution or transmission by any means, including the Internet.

Bill C-20 also proposes amendments to the Canada Evidence Act to address continuing misperceptions of the reliability of children's testimony. Currently, child witnesses under the age of 14 years must undergo an inquiry into their competency and understanding of an oath or affirmation before being allowed to testify.

Bill C-20 proposes to eliminate the mandatory competency hearing and the distinction between sworn and unsworn testimony. The new test will be whether the child is able to understand and respond to questions. It will then be up to trier of fact to determine what weight to give to the evidence.

As well, Bill C-20 also creates offences of voyeurism aimed at remedying a shortcoming in criminal law. While voyeurism is not a new phenomenon, the means by which it can be perpetrated are.

Until very recently, voyeurism mainly related to peeping Toms. The Criminal Code currently allows for that type of voyeurism to be dealt with properly.

The development of new technologies has changed the situation considerably. Nowadays, it is possible to obtain miniature cameras at a relatively reasonable cost. It is easier to be a voyeur from a distance using such cameras, and to do so in locations that would not have been accessible before. The present provisions of the Criminal Code do not allow for this new form of voyeurism to be dealt with properly, which is why we wish to remedy this shortcoming with Bill C-20.

What we are proposing is to make it an offence to surreptitiously observe and record a person in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, not only when that observation and recording is for the purpose of sexual exploitation but also when it constitutes a serious violation of the right to privacy.

It will make it possible to seize copies of these recordings in order to prevent their being distributed or sold, as well as to delete all electronic copies of these recordings from computer systems, including the Internet.

Canadians value their privacy. This was confirmed again in the response we received from the public consultation on voyeurism. An overwhelming majority of respondents indicated that this offence should criminalize not only voyeurism conducted for a sexual purpose but also when it constitutes a serious breach of privacy. These new offences would reinforce the protection of the right to privacy valued by Canadians.

It is obvious that Bill C-20 responds in a very direct and meaningful way to many issues that are of concern to all Canadians such as child pornography, protection of youth against sexual exploitation, strengthening sentencing provisions related to offences committed against children, facilitating vulnerable witnesses and victims' testimony and creating the new offence of voyeurism.

I would ask all members of the House to support this very important bill for Canadian society.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, my response will not be in prose and verse. I just have not been hit yet with the attack of Jingle Bells , which undoubtedly seems to be striking here and there in the House.

We will continue this afternoon with the prebudget debate.

Tomorrow we shall consider report stage of Bill C-3, the Canada pension plan amendments. If there is any time left, we would then proceed with Bill C-15 respecting lobbyists. I intend to speak to other House leaders about that.

I shall communicate directly with members concerning the order of business, when we return from the adjournment on January 27. This will include any of the aforementioned business not completed, which includes: Bill C-3 and Bill C-15, obviously; Bill C-2, the Yukon bill; Bill C-6, specific claims; Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendment; Bill C-19, the first nations bill; Bill C-20, protection of children; Bill C-22, the divorce legislation; and Bill C-23 respecting certain offenders.

As members can see, there are lots of items on the legislative agenda.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my best wishes for the holiday season and, of course, a happy new year 2003 to all hon. members, our staff and pages, not to mention the busboys.

Criminal Code

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce today a bill entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

The bill would respond to the government's commitment in the Speech from the Throne to protect our children and other vulnerable members of society. This comprehensive package of reforms would help safeguard children and other vulnerable persons from sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect, and would better protect victims and witnesses in criminal justice proceedings.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)