Bill C-12 (Historical)

Quarantine Act

An Act to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases

This enactment repeals and replaces the existing Quarantine Act.
Its purpose is to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases in Canada. It is applicable to persons and conveyances arriving in or in the process of departing from Canada.
It provides measures for the screening, health assessment and medical examination of travellers to determine if they have a communicable disease and measures for preventing the spread of communicable diseases, including referral to public health authorities, detention, treatment and disinfestation. Provisions for the administrative oversight of the detention of travellers are also included.
It provides for additional measures such as the inspection and cleansing of conveyances and cargo to ensure that they are not the source of communicable diseases.
It imposes controls on the import and export of cadavers, body parts and other human remains.
It contains provisions for the collection and disclosure of personal information if it is necessary to prevent the spread of a communicable disease or, under certain circumstances, for law enforcement purposes.
It also provides the Minister of Health with interim order powers in the case of public health emergencies and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the Act.

Quarantine Act

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-12. My first foray into talking about the Quarantine Act was a few years back when the new public safety act was coming into place. The Quarantine Act is not something one would normally talk about in everyday life in Canada. Nobody thought a quarantine would ever be put in place in Canada until the SARS epidemic.

It is good to see this new bill before us. I have listened to my colleagues from all the parties who have spoken today. It is interesting to note that all of us seem to be highlighting the same concerns. We all seem to want the bill to go to committee where we will be able to ask questions regarding the areas of concern.

For those people who may be watching this debate on TV and have not heard about the bill, I will highlight some aspects which may have been highlighted by others as well. If my colleagues on the government side are wondering whether I will be making any riveting remarks on the Quarantine Act, and I can assure them I will be.

As has already been mentioned, the old Quarantine Act has not been updated since 1872. Bill C-12 would apply to people coming into Canada and leaving Canada. It would not apply to people moving between provinces because the legislation respects their jurisdiction and the right to public health in their own areas.

Conveyance and transportation organizations would be subject to the proposed legislation. We can understand why, considering the traffic going back and forth between Canada and our southern neighbour. Literally thousands of vehicles and different modes of transportation such as air traffic move across our borders. It is important that transportation be included in the Quarantine Act.

My colleague from the Conservatives indicated the cost to travellers with regard to a quarantine and possible medical examinations. I have to admit he did not appear to be overly sensitive to the fact that travellers would have to pay money for that and there may not be anything wrong with them. He was much more concerned about getting the dollars from them. On the contrary, I am concerned because refugees and immigrants coming into Canada have already paid a fair amount of money to get to our wonderful country and they may not have a lot of resources available to them. They will face additional costs.

I hate to say this but I have become a bit skeptical about the government wanting to be a money making operation. A good example of this is when a person applies for a passport. A person applies for a passport and pays the required fee. Should something be wrong with the application, the person applies again, pays the fee again, and it goes on and on. It becomes a cash cow. I have seen that happen with visas, passport applications and numerous other areas in the government. My party does not want that to happen. I hope it is taken into consideration because we do not want to increase financial hardship on travellers coming to our country.

I want to highlight what my colleague from the Bloc mentioned about the minister's over-reaching authority. I am a little concerned in that a quarantine officer could put a quarantine order in place but it could be overruled by the minister. I would hope that it would be a medical quarantine officer who would make the decision rather than the not necessarily medical minister making the decision. I would hope that would be brought into question at committee. Possibly the head of the new public health agency, or the head of the public health agency in individual provinces in order to recognize jurisdiction, would be the only individual able to overrule a valid quarantine order.

There were a number of areas I wanted to mention, but those were the most important.

My colleague from the Conservative Party did mention the cost to business. Certainly, if a business were to be affected, there should be some understanding as to the costs that would be incurred and every effort should be made to keep those costs down.

We can all imagine if a transport truck came across the border and for some reason it was found that the driver could not get rid of whatever toxin and it was quarantined. If the toxin could not be done away with, then this vehicle would have to be disposed of, which seems to be the farthest stretch of the imagination. We must take into consideration inflicting orders as well as the business people and their costs.

I look forward, as my other colleagues in the House have mentioned, to the bill going to committee. I know that our health critic has done a thorough job of ensuring that our caucus was informed about the Quarantine Act. I know he will also do a thorough job of bringing our concerns forward in committee.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to outline our position on Bill C-12, which sets out to prevent the introduction and spread of highly communicable diseases that can have a devastating effect on the people of Canada and Quebec, such as the Ebola virus, anthrax, and SARS.

The concern about the spread of communicable diseases is nothing new. The first Quarantine Act was enacted in 1377 by the Republic of Venice.

In 1832, the Parliament of Lower Canada passed legislation making Grosse Île, Quebec, a quarantine station in order to prevent the spread of cholera.

This station was under the jurisdiction of the Government of Lower Canada from 1832 to 1841, of the Province of Canada from 1841 to 1867 and of the Government of Canada from 1867 until it was closed in 1937.

Between 1867 and 1918, until this responsibility was turned over to the Department of Heath and Welfare, in 1919, the Department of Agriculture was in charge of the quarantining of immigrants. Given the casual attitude of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food on the issue of mad cow disease, I am glad to know that this department is no longer in charge of quarantines.

While we agree that Bill C-12, which improves the 1970 act, should be sent to committee before second reading, we must keep in mind that health is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. However, we recognize that infectious diseases, such as SARS and the West Nile virus, do not stop at the borders. This is why we agree that Bill C-12 should be sent to committee, as long as the measures do not duplicate those that may have been taken previously by Quebec.

However, there are several of these clauses that concern us and for which we would like to suggest some changes or additions.

When the first International Sanitary Conference took place in Paris in 1851, the basic principle of protection against international propagation of infectious diseases was outlined: maximum protection with a minimum of restriction.

Here, the current Quarantine Act was designed when maritime transportation raised more concern than air transportation. However, in the last few decades, air transportation has increased much more than maritime transportation. As evidence of this, last year's events—SARS, the West Nile virus and the flu—showed that outbreaks of infectious diseases are increasing more rapidly than ever.

You will agree that to continue to abide by the principle stated at the 1851 Paris conference, we need to react more quickly, methodically and appropriately to the introduction and spread of communicable diseases. Such a reaction must be supported by fair and adequate legislation.

The existing Quarantine Act was promulgated in 1970. It was passed for the very first time, however, in 1872. It helps protect Canadians and Quebeckers from the introduction of dangerous, infectious and communicable diseases. It prevents those diseases from spreading beyond Canada.

While the existing act is somewhat flawed, we must first ensure that the new act will not ignore basic values such as human respect and dignity.

For instance, whereas under the 1970 act an officer had to have reasonable doubt regarding the health of a traveller before having the individual undergo medical screening, clause 14 of Bill C-12 provides for a completely different mechanism.

Any person authorized by the minister may, to determine whether a traveller has a communicable disease or symptoms of one, use any screening technology that does not involve the entry into the traveller's body of any instrument of other foreign body.

This clause provides for efficient screening methods for all travellers, whereas under the existing act, screening can only take place if there are reasonable doubts.

This authority appears quite broad at first glance. It should be limited through the addition of something like “any medically appropriate technology”.

As far as data management at the first screening stage is concerned, the identity of travellers should be protected. If a traveller were found to have the symptoms of a communicable disease, he would be the only one to be advised. It would only be when such symptoms are detected that personal information could be obtained.

Also, with regard to the disclosure of personal information obtained, clause 56 should contain provision requiring the minister to seek assurances that such information would be held in confidence and that it will only be used for the purposes of the act.

We also have problems with certain clauses which are liable to lead to incursions into provincial areas of jurisdiction, in particular the one allowing the Minister of Health to enter into an agreementwith a public health authority, particularly if this refers to medical personnel.

Then we have clause 30, which states: “The Minister may, on the Minister’s ownmotion, review any decision of a quarantineofficer to detain a traveller and orderthe traveller’s release”.

It would be appropriate to delineate this power in such a case, for instance that the minister's decisions could be based on reports by a committee or group of experts.

Finally, we also have some misgivings about the concept of interim orders, just as we did before when the government wanted to make them part of the Public Safety Act in connection with the infamous military zones.

We need proof that this approach is necessary, particularly since the bill appears to already cover a broad range of possibilities and sets out the powers for those it designates as screening or environmental health officers.

As you can see, we are not spoilers, contrary to what many people might think. We have made a careful and comprehensive analysis of Bill C-12, and it is both our right and our duty as members of Parliament to make sure that decisions made here are an appropriate and respectful reflection of the needs of our fellow citizens in Quebec and Canada.

In conclusion, despite the concerns I voiced earlier, we should not forget that all of this must be put in context with the purpose and the schedule of the bill. The list of diseases it contains is impressive. They are extremely contagious and could have a devastating effect on the public in Canada and in Quebec.

To deal with this kind of disease, precautionary and public health measures should be upgraded from time to time. We must remain alert. Bill C-12, which will supersede the former Quarantine Act, promotes a good principle, even if parts of the bill should be examined in committee to make sure we do the utmost in the fairest and most efficient way.

Health is an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. But the Bloc admits that communicable diseases such as SARS and the West Nile virus do not stop at our borders. That is why the Bloc will support the referral of Bill C-12 to committee, with the caveat that the measures taken must not duplicate those in Quebec.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-12, which as the House knows is a piece of legislation that repeals and replaces the existing Quarantine Act. As the House is aware, the Quarantine Act has not been significantly amended since it was introduced in 1872.

An effective Quarantine Act is an important component in our ability to deal with outbreaks of infectious diseases. The changes we are examining now emanate in part from the lessons learned from the SARS outbreak and the recommendations of Dr. David Naylor, chair of the national advisory committee on SARS.

The Naylor report noted that travel has become a key means for transmission of infectious diseases. SARS was introduced through air travel by a passenger who brought the disease with him from Hong Kong. Many of us will remember the panic Canadians felt as people got sick and died from a mysterious respiratory ailment.

As a community, Toronto was hardest hit with this disease. At the peak of the outbreak, over 6,000 people were quarantined in the Toronto area alone. However, it was our front line health care workers who carried the heaviest burden of dealing with the disease. More than 100 Canadian health care workers became ill with SARS and three died.

Canada was not in a position of being prepared to deal with SARS, despite the fact there had been earlier warnings. Colleagues may recall during the Ebola scare of 2001, when it was thought a woman who had arrived in Canada had the deadly disease. Fortunately, the woman did not have Ebola and recovered from her illness, but this incident clearly demonstrated that we were not ready to deal with a communicable disease outbreak or epidemic.

The bill before us today will provide the government with the legislative authority to deal with travellers coming into or leaving Canada. Travellers can be ordered to undergo medical examinations at their own cost. I am not certain what the government will do if the people cannot pay or refuse to pay for their health examination. Will we, for example, be sending collection notices to travellers throughout the world? This is not clear in the package.

The bill defines conveyances as a watercraft, aircraft, train, motor vehicle, trailer or other means of transportation and includes a cargo container. Conveyances can be diverted from the planned entry point in Canada by the legislation if there is concern about the spread of a communicable disease. The proposed bill also creates the authority so that an order can be given to disinfect or even destroy the conveyance if there is belief that the conveyance is the source of a communicable disease.

The bill would give the minister very wide powers to appoint screening officers, quarantine officers and environmental assessment officers. Doctors or other medical personnel can be designated as a quarantine officers. The minister can establish quarantine facilities anywhere in Canada and take temporary possession of a premise to establish a quarantine facility.

If cabinet is concerned about a severe risk to public health, it can establish an emergency order prohibiting people from entering Canada if they have been in a foreign country that has seen an outbreak of a communicable disease. Items being imported into Canada can be blocked for the very same reasons.

The proposed bill authorizes a peace officer, at the request of a quarantine officer, to arrest people who refuse to be isolated or comply with measures that have been put in place to prevent the spread of disease. There are significant offences outlined in the bill. People convicted on indictment of wilfully contravening the act resulting in death or bodily harm can be fined up to $1,000,000 and/or face up to three years in jail.

There are some items that will need to be examined closely in committee. How, when and what personal information is to be disclosed and shared with other countries need to be examined. In terms of property rights and business interruption, the bill states that compensation may be provided to owners of conveyances that are destroyed. However, says nothing about business losses that are incurred as a result of being detained.

In addition, we must ensure that adequate resources are in place to carry out the legislative powers in the bill. The national advisory committee on SARS recommended that Canada ensure that an adequate complement of 14 officers be maintained at all ports of entry and that better collaboration with port authorities and personnel be established to clarify responsibilities in the event of a health threat.

The Conservative Party supports the bill, in principle, as it is an important component of public health. We look forward to hearing from witnesses at committee.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of State (Public Health)]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada's objective was to modernize the legislation on health protection.

From the Naylor report to budget 2004, from the creation of the Public Health Agency, to the recent first ministers and health ministers meetings, the government has demonstrated its clear commitment to enhancing and protecting the public health of Canadians.

While the current health protection system has served Canadians well, the time has come to update and integrate our existing laws into a stronger, comprehensive and flexible public health system, precisely what Dr. David Naylor, as well as the Senate committee which studied SARS, recommended we do.

The amendment of the Quarantine Act is the first of a series of improvements such as the public safety agency act that the Government of Canada wants to introduce to reinforce our public safety system.

With the SARS crisis we had to face the fact that our current legislation is outdated. The existing Quarantine Act has remained largely unchanged since the adoption of the first Quarantine Act in 1872, a time when automobiles and jetliners were the subject of science fiction.

Needless to say, times have changed. We live in an age where people move from continent to continent in hours and days rather than weeks or months, often in airplanes and ships whose confined spaces provide a perfect breeding ground for highly communicable diseases to spread.

We now acknowledge that our planet all of a sudden has become very tiny. Infectious diseases move like wildfire across the planet. Germs do not respect borders, so we know that we will face repeated threats to public health in the future.

Among the many hard lessons learned from the experience of SARS is the need to strengthen our quarantine legislation to help prevent the introduction and spread of both emerging and re-emerging communicable diseases.

As a response to concerns about the spread of communicable diseases, we decided to move forward immediately with new quarantine legislation. The legislation before the House today delivers on our pledge to correct many of the problems brought to our attention by the recent events such as SARS which underscored how fast and how hard diseases can hit our health care system and our economy.

The government understands how important it is to address the gaps in readiness. In budget 2004 we pledged $165 million to establish the health emergency response teams and enhance surveillance. We have also created a new department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Now, with Bill C-12, we will replace the outdated quarantine legislation with an improved and modern Quarantine Act so that we can better protect Canadians from the importation of dangerous communicable diseases and ensure Canada can meet its international obligations to help prevent the spread of diseases beyond our borders.

The modernized act we propose has a new focus on airline travel and would provide the Minister of Health with additional abilities. For example, he could divert an aircraft to an alternate landing site if it is necessary to isolate passengers. He can establish quarantine facilities at any location in Canada and order that carriers from certain countries or regions of the world not enter Canada if there are serious concerns that such an arrival may threaten the public health of Canadians. He would be able to close Canadian border points in the event of a public health emergency. The proposed act also lists many more communicable diseases for which Canadian officials could detain departing passengers.

While these measures would only be used in rare instances where circumstances warrant, these changes are essential if we are to keep pace with emerging infectious diseases and protect the health of Canadians.

I want to ensure parliamentarians that Canadians' privacy rights are guaranteed. While the updated act authorizes the collection and sharing of personal health information, the authorization to do so is limited to what is required to protect the health and safety of Canadians. That is what citizens clearly want. They want the assurance that we are taking every possible precaution to prevent the spread of communicable diseases that could put their personal health and the welfare of their communities at risk.

The new version of the Quarantine Act will give us an additional level of protection by providing solid, flexible and updated legislation that will allow us to react more efficiently to current and future health risks, while ensuring adequate protection of human rights.

The scope of the Quarantine Act is limited to ensuring that infectious diseases are prevented from entering Canada or being spread to other countries. It will not affect interprovincial movement. We continue to work with our provincial and territorial government partners regarding the quarantine measures that can be taken to control the spread of infectious disease within and between provinces. In this regard, I would like to express our appreciation for the FPT special task force on public health which models a clear approach to mutual aid, information sharing and collaboration.

Canada is a responsible partner of the global public health arena. The updated act is aligned with Canada's obligations under the World Health Organization's international health regulations. The updated act, the creation of the public health agency of Canada, the appointment of the first chief public health officer and the Canadian pandemic influenza plan are all complementary steps in the Government of Canada's strategy for strengthening Canada's public health system. These innovations ensure better communication, collaboration and cooperation among partners as well as better clarity about who does what and when.

They will build on the expertise and strengths we already have in many areas of public health and communicable disease control to ensure Canadians are safeguarded by a seamless public health system throughout this country. Taken together, they will help ensure that Canadians are fully protected from the outbreaks of emerging diseases such as SARS and whatever else awaits us in the future.

Given that we cannot predict what the next infection will be or when it may surface, we need to be ready. We need this improved legislation now. By introducing a new and modern Quarantine Act, Canada will be better positioned to respond to any and all potential for threats to the health and well-being of our citizens.

It is clear that the health and safety of Canadians is a priority of the government. Canadians expect no less. I look forward to the work of the parliamentary committee to listen to the stakeholders and experts to help us make the bill as good as it can possibly be.

By passing the progressive bill that we are discussing today, within a larger public health strategy, I am convinced that we will not disappoint Canadians.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, for the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-12, an act to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Health.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)

(Bill C-12. On the Order: Government Orders)

October 8, 2004--the Minister of Health--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health of Bill C-12, an act to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the debate on the Conservative opposition day motion.

On Friday we will debate a motion of reference before second reading of Bill C-10, the mental disorder legislation. We will then turn to a motion of reference before second reading of Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act amendments. We will then resume this debate commencing on Tuesday and follow it with second reading of Bill C-7, the parks reorganization, and Bill C-8, the public service human resources agency bill.

We would then turn to second reading of Bill C-14, the Tlicho legislation. This will be followed by reference before second reading of Bill C-13, the DNA bill, followed by Bill C-9, the Quebec regional development bill.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Monday, instead of a normal sitting of the House, there will be an address to both Houses by President Fox of Mexico. This will take place at 2:15 p.m.

With respect to my hon. friend's last question, that legislation will be coming forward in due course.

Canada Shipping Act

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 73(1) it is the intention of the government to propose that Bill C-12 be referred to committee before second reading.

Criminal Code

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to speak to Bill C-2.

Bill C-2 is a recycled bill. It was Bill C-12 and Bill C-20 in the past. I have spoken to this bill in the past and my colleagues have contributed quite a bit on the issue of the protection of children.

The Liberal government continues to recycle this bill but it has not taken the appropriate action. Much public pressure and public outrage made the Liberals drop the term “public good” as a defence for the possession of child pornography. They have now replaced “public good” with the new defence of “legitimate purpose”. Legitimate purpose is defined to include, among other things, art.

The bill's criteria for evaluating whether a relationship is exploitive is vague and subjective, and by not raising the age of consent from 14 to 16, the Liberals have put Canada's children at risk.

Since 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes enter the trade as children, we as lawmakers have the moral responsibility to protect children. Children deserve nothing less than full protection from child pornography.

The legislation that is before us is simply smoke and mirrors. The Liberals ignored the evidence from child advocates and front line police officers who came before us with lots of information to make the legislation effective.

The important mechanism that should be in place to protect children is not there. One is in the definition part, and rather than public good or whatever the legitimate purpose or for the sake of art, that is not good enough.

The second component is the age of consent. Because the Liberals have failed to prohibit all adult-child sex, children will continue to be put at an unacceptable risk. Only by raising the age of consent will young people be truly protected under the Criminal Code.

As was the case with Bill C-12 and Bill C-20, Bill C-2 fails to raise the age of consent for sexual contact between children and adults. In all western democracies the age of consent is at least 16. In Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent is 15. In many other countries, including Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom, the age is 16. Despite all the premiers agreeing unanimously that the age of consent should be raised from 14 to 16, the Liberal government failed to provide that protection to our children. The age of consent could have even been raised to 18.

The Liberals have simply ignored the mounds of evidence that came before the committee in the past demanding that children be protected from child predators. The Liberal government has failed to provide our children with that protection. Children are our future and they are vulnerable. They need and deserve nothing less than full protection from child predators. We, as lawmakers, should provide that protection to children, otherwise we are failing in our duty.

I have been here since 1997 and I have listened to the Liberal government dither and be indecisive when it comes to providing full protection for family values, whether it is age of consent or providing protection to children.

As lawmakers, we need to make laws with teeth, and increasing maximum sentences does not help. We need mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offences, such as the possession of child pornography, so we can secure the protection of children. This is the place where we must do our best to provide protection to our children.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

Bill C-2 proposes a broad package of criminal law reforms that would significantly improve the criminal justice system's protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

The key elements of Bill C-2 are: strengthening the existing child pornography provisions; providing increased protection to young persons against sexual exploitation; increasing penalties for offences against children; facilitating the receipt of testimony by children and other vulnerable victims and witnesses; and creating new voyeurism offences.

This is positive legislation which can be supported by all parties and I urge all members to do so.

I would like to focus my comments on the proposed amendments relating to child pornography, an issue that is very much in the minds of hon. members, my constituents in the Niagara region, including the Catholic Women's League and their White Ribbon campaign, and indeed all Canadians.

Child pornography is an issue on which we find almost daily accounts of new charges and prosecutions in Canadian newspapers as well as those around the world. To my mind this demonstrates two very important factors. On the positive side, our existing child pornography prohibitions are working. On the negative side, we need to do more to combat the sexual exploitation of children through child pornography. This is exactly what Bill C-2 does.

Bill C-2 proposes to broaden the existing definition of child pornography to include audio format. Specifically, it would include audio recordings that advocate or counsel unlawful sexual activity with a child as well as such recordings that have, as their dominant characteristic, the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of unlawful sexual activity with a child.

The existing definition of written child pornography would also be expanded to include written material that describes prohibited sexual activity with children where that description is the predominant characteristic of the material and it is done for a sexual purpose.

Bill C-2 would also create a new prohibition against advertising and possession for the purpose of advertising child pornography. This new offence would be punishable on indictment by a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. This is a wake-up call for the predators that their criminal acts will be vigorously prosecuted and severe sentences imposed.

Bill C-2 also proposes significant reforms relating to sentencing in child pornography cases. First, it proposes that the maximum penalty for all child pornography offences, on summary conviction, be tripled from 6 to 18 months. Second, it would make the commission of any child pornography offence with intent to profit an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. In other words, those who seek to profit by sexually exploiting children through child pornography will get a tougher sentence.

The intent and impact of these child pornography specific sentencing reforms are further underscored by the fact that Bill C-2 also proposes two amendments to the Criminal Code's sentencing principles.

In particular, in cases involving the abuse of a child, Bill C-2 directs courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence of such conduct in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed. Bill C-2 also requires a court to consider the abuse of a child as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

In addition, Bill C-2 proposes to replace the existing defences of artistic merit, education, scientific or medical purpose and public good with a two-part, harm-based legitimate purpose defence. This new defence narrows the existing defences and replaces what had previously been proposed as the public good defence in Bill C-12 in the last session of Parliament with a clear and more easily understood defence. This new defence incorporates the harm standard adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada when it upheld the constitutionality of the child pornography provisions in 2001.

Under Bill C-2, a defence for an act in relation to child pornography would only be available where the act in question has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art and does not pose an undue risk of harm to children.

Under this new defence, the availability of a defence does not change the child pornographic nature of the material. Material that has been found to constitute child pornography as defined by the existing Criminal Code provisions or as expanded by Bill C-2 would remain child pornography.

Instead, Bill C-2 would require the court to consider whether the use made of the material in each instance is protected by the defence. For example, possession of child pornographic photographs by police for purposes associated with the investigation of a child pornography case would benefit from the defence, because the act of possession of the photographs is for a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice and does not pose an undue risk of harm to children. Possession of the same photographs by a child pornographer for his personal use would not be protected by this defence.

As I said at the outset, Canadians want us to do more to combat child pornography and I am pleased to see that this is what Bill C-2 delivers. In addition to the new reforms proposed by Bill C-2 in May 2004, the government launched a national strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet.

This new national strategy is providing just over $42 million to expand the RCMP's national coordination centre against child sexual exploitation and provide law enforcement with enhanced resources to investigate Internet-based child sexual exploitation, including child pornography. Funding is also being used to enhance public education and to nationally expand Cybertip.ca, a 24/7 public tip line.

Together, Bill C-2 and the recently enhanced resources send a clear and strong message that we condemn the sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect of children and other vulnerable persons. It sends a message that we have declared war on child pornography. I call upon all members of the House to support the bill and I ask that it be given quick passage.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-2, the child protection bill. This bill is almost identical to previous legislation, Bill C-12 and Bill C-20. They were primarily intended to address concerns regarding Canada's child pornography laws.

Canadian children deserve nothing less than total protection from child pornography. This legislation, however, is little more than smoke and mirrors. As lawmakers, we have the tough task of weighing the protection of children from sexual exploitation against the protection of free speech and free thought protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On this question, I agree wholeheartedly with Cheryl Tobias, a lawyer from the Department of Justice, who said, when appearing before the Supreme Court during the John Robin Sharpe case that if pedophiles have a constitutional right to free expression, “it is dwarfed by the interests of children in our society...We ought not sacrifice children on the altar of the Charter”.

What we need are laws with teeth. Toothless laws will only hamper police and crown attorneys as they try to catch producers of child pornography.

Children should not be sexually exploited, but it continues to happen thousands of times a day. There does not seem to be the political will to stop it by the weak and arrogant Liberal government.

The Department of Justice proposed Bill C-2 and its predecessors to expand the offence of sexual exploitation and the definition of pornography, and to eliminate the defence of artistic merit in child pornography proceedings.

As well, the bill would increase maximum sentences for people convicted of these crimes. If passed, the bill would create a new offence of voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material.

Bill C-2 is a reaction to the case of John Robin Sharpe, a child pornographer charged with possession of child pornography. Sharpe was initially found guilty of possession of child pornography, but on appeal, two lower courts acquitted Sharpe citing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sharpe had as many as 400 images of boys younger than 14 engaged in sex and a collection of his own stories entitled “Kiddie Kink Classics”. In March 2002 Sharpe's conviction concerning the images was upheld by the Supreme Court; however, he was ultimately acquitted of related charges that had been filed against him in connection with stories he had written, specifically because those writings were deemed to have artistic merit.

This ruling resulted in the current legal status of child pornography in Canada which is too permissive and threatens the safety of children. Earlier forms of Bill C-2 sought to close the loophole that allows people to create child pornography using artistic merit as a defence by establishing a standard of public good.

The Liberals have now been forced by public outrage to drop the term public good as a defence for the possession of child pornography. They have replaced public good with a new defence of legitimate purpose. Legitimate purpose is defined to include, among other things, art.

The Conservative Party wants the elimination of all defences that justify the criminal possession of child pornography. There is nothing artistic about child pornography. It is wrong and has been shown to lead to the sexual abuse of children.

Police and prosecutors still do not have the tools to deal with child pornography cases effectively or efficiently. In the first three years that members of the Toronto child exploitation unit spent tracking child pornography, they made 27 arrests and seized 84 computers with millions of images, but the police have been frustrated in their attempts to get jail time for these offenders. Most get conditional sentences or house arrest. The police frequently spend more time investigating the cases than offenders will spend in jail. This is the case for other crimes as well.

In my riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells marijuana grow operations are a significant concern. The RCMP recently announced that there are 4,500 marijuana grow ops in the City of Surrey. That represents about 6% of the city's households.

There will be 2,000 to 3,000 grow ops raided and shut down this year in the Fraser Valley. Across the border in Whatcom County there will be less than 10. The difference can be explained by the tougher sentences handed out in Washington State. There, operators of a grow op with more than 100 plants face an automatic five years in jail. For the first offence it is three months in jail and seizure of assets. In B.C. a person can be charged seven or eight times and still not be incarcerated.

The judiciary must hand out tougher sentences that better reflect community values. The higher maximum sentences contained in Bill C-2 for child pornography and predation will not be effective unless the courts enforce them.

Increased maximum sentences are 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, and no conditional sentences for child predators.

Conditional sentences which allowed child sex offenders, murderers, rapists and impaired drivers the opportunity to serve their sentences at home rather than in prison must be eliminated for serious offenders.

In 1999, 66,000 pornography images were found in the home of convicted pedophile Tony Marr. Police spent a year preparing the case against him, but Marr ended up with a conditional sentence and probation. One of the conditions of his probation was that he not use the Internet and computers except for medical purposes or work. Recent surveillance video showed him apparently working around a computer and exchanging CDs. This shows the absurdity of conditional sentences.

It is estimated that there are more than 100,000 child porn Web sites on the World Wide Web. A research group at the University of Cork in Ireland that studies child pornography is seeing an average of three to four new faces of abused children each month. About 40% of the girls and 55% of the boys are between the ages of 9 and 12. The rest are even younger. The group estimates that there are 50,000 new child abuse images being posted to newsgroups every month. Various studies have shown that about 35% to 50% of child porn collectors have a history of abusing children.

In the past three years 44% of the people arrested in Toronto for possessing child pornography have also been charged with or convicted with sexually abusing children.

The landslide child porn bust in the United States provided Canadian authorities with 2,329 Canadian leads, but almost 2,000 have never been looked at by police. That is because most communities simply do not have the will or resources or the officers who are trained to do the job.

Child killer Michael Briere admitted that he had been aroused by watching child porn on his computer just before he kidnapped, sexually molested and killed Holly Jones.

At present, the age of consent for sexual activity is set in the Criminal Code at 14 years of age. There have been recent reports that cross-border pedophiles are luring vulnerable children by way of the Internet. This cross-border pedophile activity into Canada has been enhanced by two factors: first, Canada's age of consent for sex is set at only 14 years, being one of the lowest of all western nations; and, second, Canada is one of the world's most wired countries; there are more than 10 million Internet users in this country.

According to a study by Microsoft, 80% of children in Canada have computers in their homes and 25% of them had already been invited to meet strangers that they had chatted with on-line.

The Internet has become a massive vehicle for criminals to lure and abuse Canadian children and to distribute illegal material. Research shows that pedophiles will often manipulate young children by showing them pictures on the Internet making them believe that sex with adults is acceptable.

Amendments were made to the Criminal Code in 2002 to make the luring of children through the Internet an offence. Although that was an important step to protect children--

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as a former educator it saddens and disturbs me to know that there are individuals in our society who exploit and take advantage of children. Therefore, Bill C-2 is important in terms of addressing issues that I think are of concern to all of us in the House, that is, issues involving the welfare of children.

Bill C-2, and in particular the part dealing with the protection of children and other vulnerable persons under the Evidence Act, is important legislation. It is also important that we move on this legislation as quickly as possible.

I believe that this legislation also reflects the importance of the issue for Canadians in general, because it is something that I think all of us can agree on. No one can tolerate or condone the exploitation of young children. Bill C-2 has a number of key elements that I believe do address that issue.

One is the strengthening of existing child pornography provisions. It would broaden the definition to include audio recordings as well as written material describing prohibited sexual activity with children where the description is the predominant characteristic of the material and pornography.

The legislation would create a new prohibition against advertising child pornography, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment on indictment and would increase the maximum penalty for all child pornography offences, on summary conviction, from six to 18 months. As well, Bill C-2 would replace existing child pornography defences with a narrower, two-pronged legitimate purpose defence that incorporates a harm-based standard.

Bill C-2 would strengthen the protection for young persons against sexual exploitation. It would increase the penalties for offences against children. The legislation would also facilitate testimony by children and other vulnerable victims and witnesses. It also would create new voyeurism offences.

I want to clearly indicate my support for Bill C-2. The reforms that it proposes are all welcome indeed. However, I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on the bill's proposals to better protect youth against sexual exploitation.

Bill C-2 proposes to create a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation of a young person who is over the age of consent for sexual activity, that is, who is 14 years of age or older and under 18. Under this offence, the courts would be directed to infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitive of that young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship.

The bill directs the court to consider specific indicators of exploitation. They include: the age of the young person; any difference in age between the young person and the other person; the evolution of the relationship; and the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person. Bill C-2 provides a clear definition to the courts to infer the relationship is exploitive of a young person after examining the nature and the circumstances of the relationship.

In my view, this direction recognizes that all young persons are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. It also recognizes that the particular circumstances of some youth might put them at a greater risk of being exploited. As a result, the bill directs the courts to consider the nature and circumstances of each relationship and includes a list of factors that I think reasonable people will readily acknowledge are typical indicators of exploitation.

We often hear concerns about youth being approached over the Internet by persons who would prey on their vulnerability. Let us take, for example, a case where the young person secretly and quickly enters into a relationship over the Internet. Bill C-2 tells the courts to take this into account as a possible indicator of exploitation.

Another example that we often hear concerns about is the one where a young person is in a relationship with another person who is significantly older than the young person. Bill C-2 tells the courts very clearly to take this into account.

Bill C-2 would recognize that a young person can be sexually exploited not only by someone who is much older, but also by someone who is a peer and again close in age. Bill C-2 would apply to both situations because the government recognizes that both situations are wrong and should be prohibited.

I appreciate that there is a diversity of opinion as to whether and when young people should engage in a form of sexual activity. The reality is, though, that adolescents do engage in sexual activity. It is also a fact that the prohibitions against sexual activity with persons below the age of consent are very broad. They do not differentiate between sexual activity that consists of kissing and sexual activity that involves sexual intercourse. I do not think Canadians want to criminalize a 17 year old for kissing a 15 year old, but Bill C-2 would not do that.

I agree with the focus of Bill C-2. It focuses on the wrongful conduct of the offender and not on the consent of the young person. That is in fact the way the criminal law responds to sexual assault in general, namely, by focusing on the wrongdoing of the offender and not the victim. In my view, the focus of Bill C-2 on the exploitive conduct of the offender is both the right focus and the right response.

I would also note that Bill C-2 proposes to double the maximum penalty for sexual exploitation of a young person, including for this new proposed offence, from 5 to 10 years when preceded by indictment. Together, the creation of this new offence and the doubling of the maximum penalty underscore the seriousness of the form of sexual exploitation.

In addition, Bill C-2 would increase the maximum penalty on summary conviction for child specific sexual offences of sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation from 6 to 18 months. These reforms were previously welcomed by the Canadian Bar Association as part of former Bill C-12 from the last session of Parliament.

Bill C-2 would require sentencing courts in cases involving the abuse of a child to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and different proposals to consider such conduct an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Bill C-2 is important because of the initiatives in it. There are welcomed reforms to the criminal law to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. The time has come to deal with this issue effectively. I believe that the minister, in proposing this legislation, is addressing the concerns that we have heard both in the last session of Parliament and in this one. The time for action has come.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

First, I want to be very clear that there are some aspects of this bill that are worthwhile. I applaud those measures. For example, Canada is in need of legislation to deal with voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material. As a matter of fact, there is a lady from my home province of New Brunswick, Julia Buote, who has helped to lead the fight for tougher laws on voyeurism. I commend her on that effort. We also need legislation that helps to facilitate the testimony of child victims and witnesses and this bill provides a step in that direction.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in the House before, these worthwhile measures are thrown in with a bill that still falls far short of what Canadian children require from this government. In short, this legislation allows for the continuation of a dangerous loophole that will allow for child pornographers to continue to possess what should be illegal material.

Much of the controversy over Canada's child pornography laws dates back to the court case of John Sharpe. In the Sharpe decision, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the Criminal Code defence of “artistic merit” should be interpreted as broadly as possible. This helped shape the decision that allowed Sharpe to be acquitted on two counts of “possession of child pornography with the intent to distribute”. The material in question contained violent writings targeting vulnerable children; however, the judge ultimately found that this material had artistic merit.

All across Canada, child pornography cases were put on hold while the Liberal government did nothing as the Sharpe case wound its way through the courts. For two years Canadian children effectively went without legal protection against child pornographers as police were compelled to put investigations on hold pending the appeals.

The Supreme Court held in Sharpe that artistic merit should be interpreted as including “any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art” and that “any objectively established artistic value, however small”, would support the defence.

When the Liberal government finally reacted to public outrage over the Sharpe decision, the response was woefully inadequate. Three times now, first with Bill C-20, then Bill C-12, and finally Bill C-2, which is before us today, the government has attempted to appear tough on child protection, but in reality is not closing loopholes that threaten Canadian children.

Actually, the government has now come full circle and is still including a type of artistic merit defence for the possession of child pornography.

Under Bill C-12 from the 37th Parliament, the existing Criminal Code defences for child pornography, which included artistic merit or educational, scientific or medical purpose, were reduced to a single defence of “public good”.

Despite the Liberals' attempt to sell the bill on the basis that the artistic merit defence had been eliminated, the former justice minister admitted in the justice committee that it was still included under the broader category of public good. He stated, “Artistic merit still exists in the sense that a piece of art will have to essentially go through the new defence of public good...”.

Interestingly, in the Sharpe decision the Supreme Court also briefly considered the defence of public good. The court found that public good has been interpreted as “necessary or advantageous to...the pursuit of, among other things...art or other objects of general interest”. Again, when Canadians discovered this loophole they were rightly outraged.

The Liberals are now proposing, in Bill C-2, another brand new loophole. This time it is called “legitimate purpose”. The new legislation replaces the term public good with legitimate purpose. The defence would be available if the act in question has a legitimate purpose related to, among other things, art, and if the act does not pose an undue risk of harm to children. The loophole for artistic merit has therefore not been closed and what constitutes “undue risk of harm to children” remains open to interpretation by judges.

In its 2001 Sharpe decision, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that artistic merit should be given as broad an interpretation as possible, a strong signal of how the courts view these defences.

I feel the question that Canadians are asking is why the government is contorting itself to leave open loopholes for the possession of child pornography. I believe the problem is that the government's focus is not on doing all it can to protect children but on what the courts might say if we passed effective legislation.

In my opinion, establishing a test of undue risk is an insult to Canadians. Any risk to the safety of children should be met with the strongest response possible.

I ask the government to listen to the people who work on the front lines of child protection. Listen to police offices who have to deal with the tragedy of child abuse. I will quote from Scott Newark, vice chair and special counsel for the Office for Victims of Crime. He said:

Almost invariably, as in the Sharpe case, it gets down to a section 1 interpretation by the courts; and frankly, rather than having the courts determine Parliament's intent, in every single piece of legislation, in my experience, you should be expressing it, particularly where what's involved is choices between priorities.

Again, the Sharpe case is an example of that. There was an absolute recognition in the Sharpe case that child pornography in all forms represents a risk of harm to children.

Sergeant Paul Gillespie of the Toronto Police Service 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.

Now police will be left to determine whether something serves a legitimate purpose or poses an undue risk before proceeding further.

I also want to talk about some other changes in the bill, one being maximum sentences. Again there is an appearance to the Canadian public that the Liberal government is being tough on people who commit offences against children. However increasing maximum sentences is meaningless if the courts do not impose these increased sentences. 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 minimum sentences, truth in sentencing, eliminating statutory release and no conditional sentences for child predators.

All across the country child pornographers are given conditional sentences for their crimes. These people are serving no jail time. Canadians may not be aware of that. How then is raising the maximum sentence going to help when the courts are not even approaching sentencing beyond the minimum sentences? Higher maximum sentences for child pornography will not be effective unless the courts enforce them.

The bill also fails to prohibit conditional sentences and child predators should serve their sentences in prison and not in the community.

I want to touch on the age of consent. The bill ignores the pleas of police groups, child advocacy groups and the provinces by failing to increase the age of consent. The age of consent for adult-child sex must be raised from 14 to 16. On this issue, 80% of Canadians polled have said that they want to increase the age of consent to at least 16 years.

In 2001, provincial ministers unanimously passed a resolution calling on the federal government to increase the age of consent to at least 16.

Like Bill C-12 before it, Bill C-2 fails to raise the age of consent. Instead, the bill creates the category of exploitive relationships. It was already against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority or with whom a young person was in a relationship of dependency to be sexually involved. It is unclear then now how adding people who are in a relationship with a young person that is exploitive in nature will add legal protection for young people.

I believe all Canadians care very deeply about our children. I believe that all members of this House sincerely want to protect 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.

We must act in the best interest for Canada's children and close all loopholes that allow for the possession of child pornography.

Quarantine Act

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, for the Minister of Health]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-12, An Act to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)