Bill C-2 (Historical)

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

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) amend the child pornography provisions with respect to the type of written and audio material that constitutes child pornography, and with respect to the child pornography offences, defences and penalties;
(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, for failing to provide the necessaries of life and for abandoning a child;
(d) make child abuse an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing and direct the courts to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for offences involving abuse of a child;
(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
(f) create an offence of voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material.
This enactment also amends the Canada Evidence Act to abolish the requirement for a competency hearing for children under 14 years of age.

Supply

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today. I want to thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, who seconded the NDP motion on employment insurance, for giving such prominence to the employment insurance issue. The problem faced by seasonal workers across the country is so serious as to warrant putting before the House a motion that will be debated all day today.

Let us examine this motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, employment insurance benefits paid to Canadians in areas of high unemployment (10% or greater unemployment rate) should be based on either: 1) the best 12 weeks of income in the last 52 weeks preceding the claim; or 2) the best 12 weeks of income since the beginning of the last claim, whichever is shorter.

I believe this is a step in the right direction, but I have to add that it is not what is really needed. Many Canadian workers are aware that I toured Canada in 1998. I have talked about it time and time again in the House of Commons. The purpose of this tour was to see how other parts of the country, besides the riding of Acadie—Bathurst, were affected by this problem.

At the time, the minister responsible for employment insurance said the problem existed in Atlantic Canada and nowhere else in the country. I travelled through 10 provinces and one territory, the Yukon. Everywhere I went, this problem existed.

The problem, as everyone knows by now, was so serious that during the various elections the Liberals would always tell voters that if they voted Liberal, then changes would be made to EI. They did that every time.

I remember one of our colleagues who used to be in the House of Commons, Georges Farrah, the representative for the riding of Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. His first day at the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, a session the Minister of Human Resources Development attended, he made an appeal to the minister on behalf of the people of Gaspé and Îles-de-la-Madeleine. He said people were unable to qualify for benefits and that the divisor of 14 was the hindering factor for workers.

The current member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac clearly said—and I have the newspaper clippings to prove it—that officials in Ottawa did not understand seasonal workers and that the government needed to make changes to the system.

The former member for Shediac—Cap-Pelé, Bernard Richard, who is now the New Brunswick ombudsman, is someone who is quite respected in that province. One newspaper reported that Bernard Richard demanded that the federal government find solutions to the employment insurance program.

I introduced a bill in the House of Commons after tabling my report on my tour across Canada. The report included 15 recommendations. The Liberals and the Conservatives chose to vote against the bill. I want to thank the Bloc Québécois for voting in favour of it. We fought hard to improve the employment insurance system for seasonal workers.

That said, the following question might be asked today: why take the best 12 weeks in an area with an unemployment rate of 10% or greater? I predict someone will ask that question.

The reason is as follows. Bill C-2 was introduced prior to the 2000 election—I remember it quite clearly and, obviously, so do other members of the House of Commons. Subsequent to that election, we realized that not many amendments had been made. The parliamentary committee had written a report that went beyond Bill C-2. Then it made a number of recommendations that the government completely ignored.

During the 2004 election, a few more minor amendments were made, such as extending the number of weeks by five. We called for additional changes, but we were told that they would be made after the election.

The problems with EI are extremely important. The former Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, struck a parliamentary committee comprising Liberals to travel around the country and identify these problems. After the report was tabled, the current Prime Minister even decided to follow up on this work. This committee still exists, as a matter of fact.

When the committee started to draft its report, the senator from Madawaska, Ms. Ringuette-Maltais, made a dissenting comment to the effect that it did not go far enough. However, the Liberal Party did not share that opinion.

It is our responsibility as members of this House to have parliamentary committees. The report of the Subcommittee on Employment Insurance Funds presented another 28 recommendations in February 2005. The Liberal Party had agreed to use the best 12 weeks. The Liberal members of the committee had even voted in favour of the report, which refers to the best 12 weeks, so that it could be tabled in the House of Commons. However, after the budget was tabled, the minister announced in a press release that she was in favour of the best 14 weeks in regions where the unemployment rate is 10% or higher.

Today is an opposition day, and we are proposing that the House adopt the best 12 weeks instead of the best 14, and we are using the government's own motion to do it. So we hope it will be adopted.

Consider the seasonal regions. We do not choose where we are born. We do not choose our parents. One fine day, bingo, we are here. We are born, and we learn whatever language we are taught. Nature, not us, determines who we are. However, I do think that Acadia, along Chaleur Bay, where I come from, is the most beautiful region in Canada.

My colleague over the way says he might like to move to Quebec in order to have a view of the beautiful St. Lawrence as it flows into the Atlantic. That is not far from where we live, but our cousins in Gaspé have the same problem we do. In fact, when the people of Gaspé and the North Shore invited me to Forestville, there were 2,500 people out in the streets. Workers from the local businesses, business owners and clergy were out to show us that this is no longer a political matter. It is a human matter. It is time the EI problem were addressed.

For Canadians in the regions who have to accumulate 14 weeks to qualify, the divisor is 14. If there are regions where 17 weeks are needed, then the divisor is 17. Yet there are regions where there is high unemployment and 12 weeks are required. Twelve weeks is 420 hours with an average work week of 35 hours.

So why punish these people and tell them the figure will be 14? They are already getting only 55% of their income, so they are being punished twice.

A problem has developed in the southeast of the province, where people work 17 or 18 weeks out of the year. Some 1,500 people there broke the law by stockpiling time. The Liberals understood the problem and settled it by proposing the 14 best weeks, since there are 17 or 18 weeks worked.

But the problem is not limited to this one place. People must be treated the same everywhere. Since the minimum required to quality for EI is 12 weeks, it is completely normal for those to be the best 12.

People who work in the fishery or forest industry—whether in northern Ontario, Kapuskasing, Hearst, Hornepayne, Manitouwadge or White River, or in northern Alberta, or in Prince George, British Columbia—everywhere I went, have the same problems with EI.

This week in parliamentary committee, when we were debating Bill C-280 proposed by the Bloc Québécois, the parliamentary secretary was worried. If money were taken from the employment insurance fund and put into an independent fund, our country could be driven to the verge of bankruptcy. We balanced our budget and paid our debts with it when we had a deficit.

Is it really up to working people who have lost their jobs to pay for the country's deficit and balance the government's budget? They are attacking families, children. They are taking money from these families that could be used to help them buy food and clothing and send their kids to school. They are creating poverty in Canada, and that is totally unacceptable.

When we speak about employment insurance, it is not only in Acadie—Bathurst. Newfoundland has similar problems. We could talk to the Minister of Natural Resources who said that he has the same problems in Newfoundland because it is a fishing region. It is not the fault of the working people if the fishery stocks have gone down in the Atlantic Ocean. It is not the fault of the fish plant workers if the fishery stocks have gone down around the Gaspé coast. It is not the fault of the working people, with all the high technology now even in the forestry sector, that the woodcutters have been removed. Even there they only have short weeks which are not enough.

Some are under the impression that if we bring it down to the best 12 week of earnings, it will encourage people to quit their jobs and go home. Who is encouraged to quit their job and take 55% of their wages? As a matter of fact, the law is very clear in employment insurance. If people quit their job, they will not have employment insurance because they will not qualify. This is an excuse the government is using to not give employment insurance. It is only an excuse to take that money and use it to balance the budget and have a zero deficit.

I recall in 1986 when the Conservatives moved the account from employment insurance to general revenues. People were on the street because they did not want the change to employment insurance.

The minister responsible for employment insurance in 1996 was Doug Young. When he was in the opposition in 1989, he asked all New Brunswickers to fight back against the changes in employment insurance because they would be a disaster for New Brunswick. In February 1993 Jean Chrétien himself, when he was in opposition and leader of the Liberal Party, said the Conservatives were wrong to make changes to employment insurance because the problem was not the people. He said we should not punish people. He added that the problem was economic development, and we had to create jobs and put people to work.

Sadly, in the fall, when the Liberals were elected, they continued to make the changes that the Conservatives had been doing which was to cut employment insurance. When the Liberals took the money from EI and put it in general revenues, it gave them a way to get money. Then they became greedy. It is not the workers who depend on EI any more. It is the government that depends on EI for all those surpluses. Some $46 billion of surplus on the backs of workers who lost their jobs is totally unacceptable in this country.

The employment insurance surplus is about $46 billion. It is no longer working people who depend on employment insurance but the government itself, which needs it to balance the budget and have a zero deficit.

In the case we are talking about, the best 12 weeks, people made arguments such as it would cost too much, be too expensive, cost $150 million.

For the information of the House and all the hon. members, I asked our researchers to look into this. When we were in parliamentary committee, some people from Human Resources Canada came and gave us some figures because we were pushing for the 12 best weeks out of 52. The best 12 weeks would cost $320 million.

In the minister's remarks after the budget was tabled, he announced some changes, saying that the 14 best weeks would be used, the number of hours would be reduced from 910 to 840, and one could also have earnings of $75 a day. The cost would be $300 million.

If the costs of the 12 best and 14 best weeks are compared, which would be $320 million compared with $300 million, the difference is $20 million and not $150 million. That is not very much—$20 million—to help families, children and industry, when they have a surplus of $46 billion. Just last year, in one year, the government generated a $3 billion surplus.

I ask my Conservative colleagues, who opposed the recommendations on employment insurance—apart from an independent fund—to take a look at their colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador and support them too. I ask all my colleagues in the House of Commons and in the Bloc Québécois to support the changes requested in the motion. I ask my Liberal colleagues to do a very honourable thing next week and support the motion before the House of Commons.

I am sure that working people will thank everyone in Parliament, all the political parties, because finally they will have put their political partisanship aside and done something for people in need, for working people.

Criminal Code

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-313, an act to amendment the Criminal Code, prohibited sexual acts. Bill C-313 proposes criminal law amendments to raise the age of consent to sexual activity for some but not all sexual offences against children.

The protection of children and youth is an issue that is well-known to hon. members. The age of consent to sexual activity, as a component of this broader issue, is also not a new issue for us. Although I think we should agree that the protection of our youth against sexual exploitation is a priority for many, if not for all of us, it is clear that we cannot agree on the best and most effective ways to achieve this objective.

I cannot support Bill C-313 for it is an incomplete and ineffective approach. Bill C-313 proposes amendments that will raise the age of consent to non-exploitative sexual activity from 14 to 16 years for some but not all sexual offences against children.

The age of consent is not a term that is used in the Criminal Code, but it is one that is commonly used to refer to the age below which the criminal law does not recognize the legal capacity of a young person to consent to sexual activity. All sexual activity with persons below this age, ranging from sexual touching such as kissing to sexual intercourse, is prohibited, but any non-consensual activity regardless of age is a sexual assault.

One shortcoming of Bill C-313 is that it seeks to provide youth with greater protection against sexual exploitation by focusing, not on the exploitative conduct of the wrongdoer, as the Criminal Code does generally with sexual assault, but rather on whether the young person consented to be exploited. This is an odd approach.

Another limitation is that Bill C-313 only recognizes one factor as an indicator of a young person's vulnerability to being sexually exploited, namely the young person's chronological age. Bill C-313 appears to arbitrarily set it at age 16. Again, this is a bit at odds with the fact that most would readily acknowledge that not all 14 year olds have the same level of maturity and even that some 14 year olds are more mature than some 17 year olds.

Therefore I am not sure why the bill would not similarly consider the specific circumstances of the young person as being reasonable indicators of the young person's vulnerability to being sexually exploited.

Another significant shortcoming of Bill C-313 is that it does not propose to impose a uniform age of consent for all related offences. It does not amend the following offences: section 159, anal intercourse; section 172.1, luring a child over the Internet for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against the child; section 273.3, removal of a child from Canada for the purpose of committing one of the enumerated child sexual offences; section 810.1, peace bond to prevent a known or suspected child sex offender from frequenting places where children can be expected to congregate or from engaging in activity that involves contact with young persons, including communicating with young persons through the use of a computer system such as the Internet.

The most significant shortcoming of Bill C-313 is that it would criminalize youth for engaging in consensual, non-exploitative sexual activity even with peers. The bill does not provide a close in age exception. For example, it would be illegal for a 15 year old to engage in sexual activity with her 16 or 17 year old boyfriend, even though such activity may have been legal immediately before his 16th birthday and importantly, even though we all know that such activity is common. Turning these persons into young offenders does not provide them with better protection.

I do not support Bill C-313 for its approach. Instead, I think the better and more effective approach is the government's approach as reflected in Bill C-2, protection of children and other vulnerable persons, currently before the justice committee.

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 years.

Under this new offence, courts would be directed to infer that the relationship with a young person is exploitative of that young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship. The bill would direct the court to consider specific indicators of exploitation including: 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 of influence exerted over the young person.

Simply stated, Bill C-2 would recognize chronological age as well as other factors as indicators of vulnerability. It would recognize that the particular circumstances of some youth, including 16 and 17 year olds, may put them at greater risk of being exploited. It would recognize that the way in which a relationship develops, for example, secretly over the Internet, can also be an indicator.

Under Bill C-2 all youth between 14 and 18, not just 14 and 16 years as proposed by Bill C-313, would receive increased protection, irrespective of whether the exploitation was at the hands of someone who was much older or close in age.

Bill C-2 also focuses the law's attention on the wrongdoer instead of whether the young person ostensibly consented to that conduct. Bill C-2 says, in fact, that young persons cannot legally consent to be sexually exploited.

While some may debate whether young persons should engage in any sexual activity and at what age, the fact remains that Canadian youth, as young or younger than 12 years old, are sexually active.

It is clear that Bill C-313 would criminalize youth for engaging in normal adolescent sexual activity, even when that activity is engaged in with a peer. As I said, while one may not agree with youth engaging in such activity, there are other far more effective ways than using the state's strongest power, the criminal law power, to educate our children about their sexuality.

For all these reasons, I do not support Bill C-313.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved that Bill C-313, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibited sexual acts), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton—Sherwood Park for seconding this motion today. He will also be taking part in this hour of debate. I appreciate him being here on a beautiful Friday afternoon in Ottawa.

I am honoured to rise in the House today to debate my private member's bill, Bill C-313. The bill has a very worthy goal of amending Canada's Criminal Code by raising the age of sexual consent from 14 years to 16 years. The bill embodies a cause that I have inherited from the hon. members from Calgary Northeast and Wild Rose, both of whom have spent tireless hours over the past 12 years in an effort to achieve the protection of our children that this bill calls for. Mr. Speaker, you know full well that they have worked very hard in other aspects of protecting children in Canada.

As I have mentioned, this is not the first time the House has been faced with the opportunity to take meaningful action to protect our children from adults who use legal loopholes to engage in sexual activities with minors. For years the House has been presented with many private members' bills aimed at raising the age of consent and today that call continues. It continues largely because the House has yet to provide an appropriate answer to those calls for protection.

Despite claims by the government and Liberal governments that predated it, Canada's Criminal Code remains ineffective in its protection of our children when it comes to providing deterrents for adults who seek sexual relations with the most vulnerable and impressionable citizens of our society: our children. I use the words “our children” because, whether we have children of our own or not, as citizens and members of Parliament we possess a collective responsibility to provide meaningful protection for the children of Canada as if they were our own.

Although my children are now adults, they in turn have children, making me a pretty proud grandfather. The children of our neighbours, our co-workers, our colleagues and even strangers we pass on the street from all regions, ethnic backgrounds and faiths, are all Canada's children. They are Canada's children and therefore, as Canadians and legislators, they are our children to protect.

As members of Parliament, we are elected to make laws that respond to the various needs and necessities of our constituents. I would state that an essential virtue of this bill is that it affords much needed protection for children in not only my constituency of Lethbridge but every single constituency represented in the House. I look forward to the day when Canadian parents can rest assured that no adult can lawfully pursue sexual relations with their children.

The Criminal Code of Canada, as exists today, provides tacit approval for sexual relations between adults and adolescents as young as 14 as long as the sexual relations are consensual and the adult is not in a position of authority or trust over the minor. The same Criminal Code also excuses adults who have sexual relations with children as young as 12 years of age as long as the adult involved was under the impression that the minor was at least 14 years of age, the sexual relations was consensual and there was no abuse of position of authority or trust. As hard as that is to believe, that is what the law is in Canada.

In short, the laws of this land leave our children, as young as 12 years old, vulnerable to the lowest seductions and manipulations of troubled adults who would seek to rob them of their innocence. Clearly, it is time for the House to provide meaningful protection for our children.

Recent Liberal governments have taken a piecemeal approach to protecting our children from opportunistic adults seeking sexual relations with children. One example of this is the Liberal government's Bill C-15A of 2002 which outlawed the use of the Internet to communicate with a child for sexual purposes. While criminalizing Internet luring was a positive step, it really did not provide meaningful protection against very real threats.

Bill C-15A merely removed a stepping stone from the path. While removing a mere stepping stone from the illicit path is positive, it does not eliminate the destination to which the path winds, and that is sexual relations between adults and children.

The Criminal Code of Canada must be amended in order to establish truly robust and effective protection for our children and it is time for us to take real action against a real problem.

A recent event right here in Ottawa highlighted the need for this very action that my bill pursues. Just two months ago, a 38 year old man travelled from the United States to Ottawa with the express purpose of having sexual relations with a 14 year old boy. This individual's trip to Ottawa was the culmination of an Internet relationship that began in an online chat room several months before.

Because the age of consent in Canada is 14, he was not charged with sexual assault or any child sex crime. Under the current Criminal Code, the only charges that the police and parents could pursue against this individual were two charges of unlawfully taking a person under 16 away from his parents against their will and one count of using the Internet to facilitate this. Unfortunately, these charges carry no minimum penalties and have maximums of only five years.

Ironically, this individual faces heavier consequences in the United States where there are strict laws against adults crossing state and international borders in order to have sex with persons under the age of 16, even if it is consensual. It is shameful that the laws of another nation currently provide stronger protection for our children than do our own Canadian laws.

It is no coincidence that this troubled man travelled to Canada to have sexual relations with a minor. Our ineffective laws lacking deterrence and consequences leave the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, much more vulnerable and unprotected than need be.

There was a case in eastern Canada where another person came from the United States, contacted a 14 year old, was apprehended, was thrown in jail and had to be released because the young person with whom he had come to Canada to have a sexual relationship was 14 and legal. He therefore had to be released.

As long as our laws remain complacent in the face of such threats, Canada will remain vulnerable to the cold calculations of those who seek to exploit the innocence of and have sexual relations with our children. We are in real trouble when we have such troubled persons from outside our country travelling into Canada for that expressed reason: to take advantage of our lax laws and to have sexual relations with our children.

The Criminal Code as it stands today is powerless in the face of such brazen acts of illicit opportunism where a minor, who, in the Ottawa case, was suffering from depression, is seduced and manipulated prior to being drawn into actual sexual encounters with an adult.

I will speak of another event here in Ottawa where a 35 year old man was found guilty of having repeated sexual relations with a local 13 year old. He was not found guilty but he was charged. Although this individual has clearly broken the current law that supposedly protects our children, he was simply sentenced to house arrest. During the first 12 months of his sentence he is merely obliged to follow a curfew and to participate in sexual behaviour assessments and treatments if his corrections officer deems them necessary, and that is “if”. The court also required this individual to make a $1,000 donation to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

That incident illustrates how, even when the laws meant to protect our children are clearly broken, no real consequences are assigned as a deterrent for the guilty individual or others who may follow suit. We have laws that together reflect our society's disapproval of adults having sexual relations with minors but there is no definitive principle or legislation supporting them.

This is the crux of my argument today. This bill is aimed at protecting, not limiting our children and their rights. I invite members to read the bill and join me in its promotion by considering a peer exemption for close in age categories so as not to criminalize teens who are sexually active with their peers. The true aim of the bill is the protection of our children from adults who intentionally pursue sexual relations with minors. With this bill Parliament will send a clear message.

It is time for Parliament to state clearly and with authority that our children are not fair game for those troubled adults and it is time for Parliament to state clearly and with authority that we will support the parents and law enforcement agencies which are the front line defenders of our children by providing them with laws clearly stating that sexual relations between adults and children are not only unacceptable but unlawful.

If the government and this House cannot support the bill, a Conservative government will.

Article 85 of the Conservative policy statement states:

A Conservative government will act to protect children by eliminating all defences that are used to justify the possession of child pornography. A Conservative government would rename the age of consent to the age of protection and raise it from 14 to 16 years of age.

Raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age will empower parents and law enforcement agencies to vigorously protect some of the most vulnerable citizens from the darkest threats posed to them.

We have seen an attempt by the government to address this issue, but it falls far short of what needs to be done. The bill that the government brought forward is Bill C-2 which was tabled last fall. However, it does not address the issue of the age of sexual consent. I will read some comments from our justice critic, the member for Provencher, who stated:

Yet, despite the stated goals of the bill and the lofty promises of the Justice Minister, C-2 fails miserably in many respects. Most notable is its failure to protect a very vulnerable category of children--14 to 16 year olds--from the grasp of sexual predators. Children at these ages can easily become targets of pornographers, pedophiles and Internet sex scams while their parents are horrified to learn that Canadian law fails to provide them with legal recourse.

In most democratic jurisdictions that include the United Kingdom, Australia, most American states and European countries, adults are prohibited with having sexual relationships with children less than 16 or even 17 years of age. In Canada, a child may legally consent to sex with an adult at age 14.

As I indicated before, in some circumstances that can be as low as 12 and still be acceptable in the courts. The member further stated:

Despite persistent calls from provincial attorneys general and premiers, child advocacy groups, police, and countless other organizations, including the Conservative Party of Canada, successive Liberal ministers of justice continue to resist the proposal to raise Canada's age of sexual consent.

The most frequently cited reason provided by Liberals for not raising the age of consent is that it might criminalize sexual activity between young people.

That is why I mentioned the close in age exemption category that could be easily implemented. The member stated further:

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

There are many issues to be dealt with on this subject. Hopefully, when we hear what the other parties have to say there will be some consideration for this. I feel it is important to note that children who are between 14 and 16 years of age are still children. They still need direction and our protection. As legislators and lawmakers in this country, it is up to us to provide that protection while they are the most vulnerable in our society.

I look forward to the debate today and returning for the second hour and going to a vote. I hope that members of Parliament, when they deliberate, will find it in their hearts and thoughts to support the bill and pass it into law, so that we can say that we have taken a huge step toward helping to protect our children.

Age of Consent

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on Motion No. 221 proposed by my colleague, the member for Fleetwood--Port Kells.

The member from Fleetwood--Port Kells is one of our hardest-working members. I want to acknowledge that in this House and thank her for her hard work and for sticking up for our children.

The justice minister spoke to our justice committee today. He said that the protection of the most vulnerable, our children, is one of his highest priorities. He shared with us about his daughter; actually I believe it has been three times that he has shared that same story. He looks at justice and protecting children and he applies it to his own daughter.

I can identify with that. I believe he is a man of compassion and wants to protect our children, but I am puzzled as to why it is just words and why we are not seeing some action.

To be specific, let me look at my children. I have five children and one grandchild. My children are grown now, but I look at them and ask myself if 14 year olds have the cognitive skills to be able to decide to give consent to sexual relations. Are they mature enough?

No, they are not. That is what we are hearing from the professionals. They do not realize the consequences of their decisions. It could be a sexually transmitted disease. It could be pregnancy. It could be long term problems that are associated with that decision, and it is about building a relationship. Does a 14 year old have those skills? The experts are telling us no.

We have heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents municipalities across Canada. It has said to raise the age of consent. It says that 14 is way too young. We have heard from police chiefs and we have heard from the experts. They are saying to raise the age of consent.

At the justice committee about a month ago, we had some of the experts dealing with Bill C-2. One of the primary reasons they were there was to show us how we compare to other countries in the world. Canada has one of the lowest ages of consent.

The member for Fleetwood—Port Kells is right on the mark. She is saying what Canadians want and what the experts are saying. She is saying what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is saying. The vast majority of Canadians are asking why this government would resist raising the age of consent. It is beyond understanding.

Should a 14 year old have relations with a 40 year old, a 50 year old or a 60 year old? That is legal in Canada if he or she gives consent. We have even heard of an example where a 12 year old told the adult that she was 14, so therefore it was okay. She was only 12. It is not okay. This government has to protect our children and it is not doing that.

Fourteen year olds cannot buy cigarettes. Children have to wait until they are 16 to get a driver's licence. They cannot drink alcohol. But this government says it is okay for them to give consent. A 14 year old does not have the maturity to make that decision.

The most vulnerable in every Canadian community are our children. They are our future. If we do not protect them from abuse, we are falling down in our responsibility. Our fundamental responsibility is to protect our children.

A week ago I saw pictures. They were horrible pictures. They were pictures of child pornography. They were disgusting. That is what adults do. They will look after children, take them out for a pizza and video games, build the relationship, show them pornographic pictures and groom them for their consent.

That is absolutely wrong. We are not protecting our children. A 14 year old can be manipulated. Why are we not raising the age to 16? As I have said before, the experts are telling us to raise the age. Why the resistance?

Today the justice minister said that we do not want to have a restriction on teenagers experimenting. That is not what we are talking about. There can be built into that a difference in age of two years or five years so that if there were a relationship between a 16 year old and, if there were a two year spread, an 18 year old, it would be a 16 year old and an 18 year old. If it were a five year spread, it would be a 16 year old and a 21 year old. We are not talking about criminalizing teenage relationships. We are talking about the terrible abuse of our children.

We have people from other countries coming to Canada. Why? It is because they want to have a relationship with our children. Canada is one of the most lenient countries and the age of consent is one of the lowest, which is why we have a child pornography problem and why our children are being abused.

When will we protect our children? When will the government get serious? The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells is right on the mark and we need to listen to her.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that we are debating a motion tonight as opposed to a bill. It is simpler to deal with the motion. It is more flexible in terms of House procedures. While adoption of the motion would not directly bring about a change in the law, it is intended to influence the evolution of the law.

The object of the motion is to protect young people believed to be vulnerable. I think most people in the House regard young Canadians as sometimes vulnerable in some contexts. As I see it, the difficulty in this area perhaps began back in 1988. In the remarks by the mover of the motion, she referred to the reforms in 1988 of the definitions used to proscribe and prohibit sexual assault, or rape as we called it in the old days, and other sexual assaults.

At that time, the sexual assaults were bundled into one definition of sexual assault. The definition does not distinguish between matters such as sexual touching, which could be a sexual assault in some contexts, and other more aggressive sexual assaults. If one is looking at a spectrum, sexual intercourse by rape. As a result of that, when it comes to defining sexual conduct and what is prohibited, because of the bundled definition in the Criminal Code, we are forced to use the big basket definition rather than an individual one.

When we talk about sexual assault or activity, we are not referring only to sexual intercourse. Because of the definitions within the Criminal Code, we are forced to deal with the full bundle of sexual activity that is described by the term “sexual assault”. That should be kept in mind as I make my remarks and as other members debate this. We are talking about sexual touching as well as other sexual conduct.

That makes it sometimes difficult because some Canadians have certain views of some types of sexual activity and different views on other types of sexual activity. For example, a game of spin the bottle by 15 year olds, might garner a reaction from some Canadians a certain way but not others. Yet the motion includes all the above.

When I look at our young people, I am concerned because I am not sure I can make a distinction between a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old or a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old. The motion recommends that we remove the ability to provide consent, therefore, create a prohibition on all sexual activity for anyone 14 or 15 years of age, even if the 15-year-old associates with a 16-year-old. This is a conceptual problem but a real problem. We are in a sense remaking the Criminal Code, reaching down into the conduct between two young people and criminalizing it in effect by changing the definitions.

While I respect the objective, I have concerns about how it is done. The Criminal Code has been evolving, but there is now a recognition that there is a problem related to the luring of young people into situations, the inducement coming not from the boyfriend or girlfriend but from adults.

That is sometimes happening on the Internet now, where there is much freer communication between people and their desktop computers and, as members around here know, even with BlackBerries. There is a lot of communicating. If that communicating involves the luring of a young person by an adult, a 15 year old or 14 year old young person, Canadians find that quite objectionable. I do too. I think every member in the House finds it objectionable.

I want to commend to the House the approach taken by Bill C-2. My colleague on this side of the House has described the bill. The bill takes a different approach. It certainly is there to protect our children, but it focuses on the persons who attempt to induce the sexual conduct, who attempt to induce the vulnerable. That bill is currently before the justice committee. It proposes the creation of a new prohibition against sexual exploitation of a young person between the ages of 14 and 18.

We should note that the current motion deals with the category of ages 14 and 15. The new Criminal Code bill deals with ages 14 to 18, the full range of underage persons who might be lured into sexual exploitation.

With the new prohibition, the focus is on the wrongful conduct or behaviour of the accused person, the person doing the luring. Just as when there is a sexual assault case between adults, the proscribed conduct is not with the young person, the victim, but with the person who engages in the luring. The consent of the young person is actually not relevant here. The person does not have to consent or not consent. What we have happening, in the typical case I have mentioned, is an adult person seducing the younger one.

Under Bill C-2, a court could infer that a sexual relationship with a young person is exploitative of the young person, and therefore prohibited, by considering the nature of the relationship and the circumstances surrounding it. One consideration is the age difference between the youth and the accused person. Next is the evolution of the relationship. For example, did it develop quickly? Did it develop over the Internet? Where did that relationship evolve? Last is the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person by the accused.

In other words, Bill C-2 includes a list of factors, not just chronological age. I think that most reasonable people will acknowledge that factors like these will be a better indicator of a young person's vulnerability. That is a key difference between what the motion recommends and what Bill C-2 is intending to define in this Criminal Code amendment.

As I understand it, that bill is before committee now and it is anticipated that it could be back into the House very shortly at report stage, within days, and that will allow the House and Canadians to have a better look at it.

In the meantime, we are discussing this motion. As I say, it is a bona fide initiative intended to regularize an area where we have seen some difficulty.

In dealing with Bill C-2 again, with the broader consideration of all of the indicia of exploitation, we recognize that some youth may be vulnerable to being exploited, not only by persons who are much older but in some cases even by their peers. Again, the vulnerable person might be vulnerable in many contexts: by age, by maturity or in terms of other factors. Bill C-2 will take those factors into account.

I have already pointed out that the bill deals with the age group of 14 to 17 years, whereas the motion does not.

I acknowledge the importance of this debate. It is important that Canadians understand some of these differences as we attempt to address this area of concern. I believe that the bill before Parliament will. There will be more debate on it later.

I congratulate the member for taking up the issue in private members' business.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in speaking to Motion No. 221, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults by amending the Criminal Code to change the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

The motion, sponsored by my colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells, is a very important for the protection of Canada's young people. Canada's justice minister has legislation relating to issues like the age of sexual consent currently in the parliamentary system, Bill C-2. However, his legislation does not protect a very vulnerable category of young people between 14 and 16 years of age. As has been noted by my colleague from Fleetwood--Port Kells, the federal Liberals are prepared to leave the 14 and 16 year olds within the grasp of sexual predators.

The member has commented that young people at these ages can easily become targets of pornographers, pedophiles and Internet sex scams and that those children's parents are horrified to learn that Canadian law fails to provide them with legal recourse.

As member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia, my interest in speaking to Motion No. 221 relates to a polygamist sect in an area called Bountiful within my constituency. I have always made my position clear publicly and privately that I do not support the practice of polygamy and I am fully supportive of the current laws against the practice of polygamy.

However, there is a concern on the part of the attorney general of the province of British Columbia, who is responsible for prosecutions within our province, that the current law on polygamy would not withstand a charter challenge. It is important for Canadians to respect the laws of our great nation and realize that whether people live in Coquitlam or Creston, Burnaby or Bountiful, that all residents in Canada must have laws applied equally.

Further, laws must be made for all Canadians and for the good of all Canadians. Laws for exceptions invariably create unintended consequences. If all Canadians must be equal, then all laws for Canadians must be equal and the enforcement of the law must be equal.

It is important that children across Canada are protected between the ages of 14 and 16 and this includes the colony of Bountiful. I note that women representing the Bountiful community have called on the government to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. To be clear, a law that could be applied in Bountiful must also be equally applied in Burnaby.

As stated by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells, young people at 14 years of age do not have the maturity to make responsible decisions in regard to sexual activities with adults. In most democratic jurisdictions that include the United Kingdom, Australia, most American states and European countries, adults are prohibited from having sexual relations with children less than 16 or even 17 years of age. However, in Canada, a child may legally consent to sex with an adult when they reach age 14. Our laws excuse criminal responsibility where the victim is as young as 12 if the adult believes the child to be 14.

In this case, despite persistent calls from provincial attorneys general and premiers, child advocacy groups, police and countless other organizations, including the Conservative Party of Canada, successive Liberal ministers of justice continue to resist the proposal to raise Canada's age of sexual consent.

I restate, in the judgment of the Attorney General of the province of B.C., the polygamy law that people wish applied in the polygamist colony of Bountiful is unenforceable because of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Until the polygamy law is enforceable, it is imperative that we do what we can to protect those between the ages of 14 and 16. Neither the existing Canadian law nor the proposals in Bill C-2 effectively address the sexual exploitation of children under the age of 16 by adults. By raising the age of consent, the law can truly protect children. This motion is not the answer, but may be a small part of working toward ensuring the protection of 14 and 16 year olds.

It is distressing that the federal government is not supportive of the motion, not only because of the Bountiful issue, but because it is the right thing to do. The clear message to society is that all adult sexual activity with vulnerable youngsters will not be tolerated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Motion No. 221, which proposes to restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults by amending the Criminal Code to raise the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age.

The apparent goal of the motion is laudable, namely, to better protect youth against sexual abuse and exploitation, but I do not support the means chosen to achieve this goal. The protection of our youth against sexual abuse and exploitation is very important. It is, however, equally important to ensure that whatever we do to achieve the objective, we get it right.

Unfortunately, the motion does not get it right. Before I discuss the motion, I think it is important to remind hon. members about what the existing age of consent criminal laws are.

Currently, the age of consent to sexual activity is 18 years of age where the relationship is exploitative, such as where it involves prostitution, pornography, or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. Where none of these exploitative circumstances exist, the age of consent is 14 years. However, it is important to be clear about this: any non-consensual sexual activity, regardless of age, is a sexual assault.

It is important to recall that these laws apply to all forms of sexual activity, from sexual touching to sexual intercourse. Accordingly, all sexual activity below the age of consent is prohibited.

Motion No. 221 proposes to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years, presumably to address the exploitative type of conduct. Yet it does not propose, and this is very important, the creation of any exception, such as, for example, for youth who engage in consensual sexual activity with peers.

There are many views about when and at what age it is appropriate for young persons to engage in sexual activity, but the fact of the matter is that young persons do engage in sexual activity and they do so at perhaps a younger age than some may think.

On May 3 of this year, Statistics Canada's The Daily reported that by age 14 or 15 about 13% of Canadian adolescents have had sexual intercourse. The percentage was almost the same for boys and girls, 12% and 13% respectively. From this, one might presume that youth are engaging in other or lesser forms of sexual activity at an even earlier age.

Under Motion No. 221, it would be okay for two 16 year olds to engage in sexual activity, but it would not be okay for a 15 year old and a 16 year old to kiss. If we consider how Motion No. 221 might impact on these youth, it seems pretty clear that it would criminalize at least 13% of Canadian youth and probably more. Is this how we protect our youth? By making them young offenders? And just who are we protecting them from in these circumstances?

This is why I do not support Motion No. 221. I prefer instead the government's broader and more effective response to this very issue. This response is found in 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, which is currently before the justice committee, 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 at least 14 years of age or older and under 18 years.

Under this new offence, the courts will be directed to infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitative of that young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship. The bill directs the court to consider specific indicators of that exploitation, including the age of the young person, any difference in age between the young person and the other person, the evolution of that relationship, and the degree of control or influence asserted over that young person.

The bill provides a clear direction to the courts to infer that the relationship is exploitative of the young person after examining the nature and the circumstances of the relationship and the youth himself or herself.

In other words, Bill C-2 recognizes that chronological age is not the only indicator of vulnerability. Instead, it recognizes that the particular circumstances of some youth, including 16 year olds and 17 year olds, may put them at greater risk of being exploited. It recognizes that the way in which a relationship develops can also be an indicator of exploitation.

For example, Bill C-2 will apply to better protect youth who are lured over the Internet by persons who would prey on their vulnerability. Such encounters usually occur secretly and quickly. Bill C-2 says to the courts: take this into account in the evolution of the relationship as an indicator of exploitation.

Bill C-2 provides increased protection to all youths between ages 14 and 18 and not just the 14 year olds and 15 years olds, as Motion No. 221 proposes.

Bill C-2 also focuses the law's attention on the wrongdoer instead of on whether the young person ostensibly consented to that conduct. Bill C-2 says in fact that young persons cannot legally consent to be sexually exploited.

Motion No. 221 seeks to restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults. In contrast, Bill C-2 seeks to protect youth against sexual exploitation by any person who would prey on the young person's vulnerability, whether that person is considerably older than the young person or close in age.

As I said at the outset, while I can appreciate the apparent underlying rationale of Motion No. 221, I cannot support it. It falls far short of achieving the objective and at the expense of those whom it seeks to protect.

I agree with Bill C-2's response to this issue. I respectfully submit that Bill C-2 gets it right. This motion does not.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me say first that it is an honour to speak to this bill, especially since you are in the chair. We have an opportunity to work together on another committee. I must say that, up to now, it has been very pleasant, although the situation has at times been tense for reasons that escape you and me.

To begin, I would like to make two preliminary remarks and eight comments, which I hope will provide food for thought. My first preliminary remark is as follows. It is somewhat odd to be speaking to this topic, the age of consent. These days, in the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, one of the topics we are discussing is Bill C-2, which also concerns the age of consent and the sexual exploitation of children.

We are having this debate for Bill C-2. I think that it should take place in that context and not now, in this House. I believe it is a bit of a duplication of the resources and efforts of parliamentarians. The member could easily have introduced his bill as amendments during discussion of Bill C-2.

The second preliminary remark is as follows. It is something to see a party wanting to toughen the Young Offenders Act and the application of the Criminal Code as it pertains to young people, thus reducing the age of criminal liability, on the one hand, and raising the age of consent, on the other. In my opinion, it makes no sense. I realize the Conservative Party is not necessarily known for the logic of its positions, but this is a flagrant lack of rigour on a matter of considerable sensitivity.

In the Bloc Québécois we oppose Motion M-221, and Bill C-313, which propose to raise the legal age of consent in sexual relations from 14 to 16 years.

I have to say right off that our position in the Bloc in no way means we would like, support or promote sexual relations between young adolescents. Far from it. We do, however, believe that this is not the right approach.

I shall now proceed to my comments. First, sexual exploitation of children under 18 is already illegal, and consent is not a valid defence. That is already the case.

My second point is that, by raising the legal age of consent, we would be jumping on the bandwagon of sexual repression. Many sexually abused youth have reported that the huge industry of prostitution is, unfortunately, created and fostered by the absence of a healthy sexual climate and of adequate sexual education.

The third point that is important to make is that a higher age of consent would in fact criminalize sexual activity between peers. This means that persons below the age of consent would be prohibited from consenting to engage in sexual relations, regardless of the age of their partners. For instance, such an amendment would enable the courts to try a 16-year old for having sexual contact of any kind with his 15-year old girlfriend.

My fourth point about the age of consent is that raising it does not really solve anything, because there are adults who want to have sexual relations with children. If adult predators are the problem, they should be dealt with directly. Perhaps we ought to assess how evidence is collected and presented and what the role of the courts should be in protecting children. We have to ask ourselves the following question. How can we protect children against abuse through exploitation when the abusers flout the law?

Even setting the age of consent at 25 would not eliminate abuse. The only way to protect adolescents is by educating and empowering them.

The legislation should be based on the activity engaged in, not the age of those involved. Age does not matter, if abuse and exploitation are illegal and criminal.

The problem lies not with the legislation, but with its application. If current federal legislation against exploitation is difficult to enforce, then it has to be changed. That is what we are doing with Bill C-2.

Increasing the age of sexual consent could have the perverse effect of introducing some young people to the justice system. There are many lawyers in this House and others watching us. The justice system is complicated and cumbersome. People involved in it often pay a personal, psychological and moral toll. It is not something we would want for our young people.

Increasing the age of sexual consent also prevents young people from making decisions for themselves. I find that the age of consent is often used as an excuse to limit access to sexual education and contraceptives.

In closing, I want to reiterate the following. We are absolutely against the exploitation of children. I introduced Bill C-303 to impose tougher sentencing on anyone found guilty of sexual offences involving a minor, whether related to pornography, pedophilia, or the sexual exploitation of children. Bill C-303 will provide for minimum sentences, mandatory prison sentences, for the people who exploit these children who are the future of our society and who are so dear to our hearts.

I have already mentioned in this House and I will repeat it again today, my Bill C-303 to impose tougher sentences on those found guilty of sexual offences involving minors, will be presented as an amendment to Bill C-2 at the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. We will discuss it on the Tuesday when we come back from our break.

I can guarantee that the next time Bill C-2 comes before this House, it will include minimal sentences for sexual predators who attack our children. It will be a major improvement in law in general and also in the protection of our children who are, as I was saying, vulnerable persons. These young people deserve the protection of all the members in this honourable House.

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults by amending the Criminal Code to change the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to lead off the debate on my Motion No. 221, which seeks to amend section 150.1 of the Criminal Code to change the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

Currently, the age of consensual sex in Canada is set at 14 years of age. This is below the international norm of 16 years of age, and significantly out of line with the international convention on the rights of the child's recommendation of 18 years of age.

While I do not think consensual sex among teens should not be illegal, steps must be taken to prohibit sexual relations between adults and young people under 16 years of age. As it stands now, there is nothing in the Criminal Code about the age of the partners of children aged 14 to 18. So, in effect, adults can have sex with anyone 14 or older as long as they are not in a position of power or authority.

Recent reports in the media of adults engaging in sexual acts with 14 year old children confirm that people are taking advantage of the law.

Earlier this year a 40 year old man, who had sex with a 14 year old mentally handicapped girl, was acquitted of sexual assault. With the legal age of consent for sex at 14 years of age, the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the girl did not consent to have sex with the older man and it was unable to do that.

One of the reasons why I became involved in elected politics was to fight for the protection of our children. Raising the age of consent is an important step that must be taken by government for it will give law enforcement officials another tool with which to pursue adults who prey upon our children.

Canada has a long history of prohibiting sexual intercourse with young females, regardless of consent. From 1892 to 1988 sexual intercourse outside of marriage with females under 14 years of age, and for those under 16 years of age and of previously chaste character, was illegal.

The maximum penalty upon conviction for sexual intercourse with a female under 14 years of age was life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for sexual intercourse with a female under 16 years of age was five years imprisonment. The law made no reference to young males.

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 that 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.

The offence of sexual exploitation also makes it an offence for an adult to have any such contact with boys and girls over 14 years of age but under 18 years of age where a relationship of trust or authority exists between the adult and the child.

Since 1988 there have been repeated attempts by MPs to increase the age of consent. For example, in April 2002 the Canadian Alliance introduced a supply day motion for debate that called upon the government to raise the age of sexual consent to at least 16 years of age in order to give underaged children greater legal protection from sexual predators and child pornographers.

The government refused to support the motion and it went down to defeat by a vote of 163 to 62. The justice minister at the time, Mr. Martin Cauchon, said the Liberal government could not support the motion because consultation was needed. Besides this motion, there have been many private members' bills introduced and debated, including one by the member for Calgary Northeast in the 35th, 36th and 37th Parliaments, and another by the member for Wild Rose in both the second and third sessions of the 37th Parliament.

In this very session of Parliament we have been debating Bill C-2 with its proposed amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at enhancing the protection of children from sexual predators, pedophiles and pornographers, but noticeably absent from that bill, as I noted in my speech at second reading, is any proposal to raise the age of consent. The government apparently lacks the political will to make this vitally important change.

In 1982 former Prime Minister Chrétien, then justice minister, told the Toronto Star :

Children are innocent victims of vicious people. They cannot protect themselves and we have to protect them. I hate the thought of these people abusing people who are too young to realize in what it is they are participating.

If only his government and the one here today had shown the same sort of single-minded determination to protect children.

There is no question that sexual exploitation is a real and serious risk for children and youth in Canada. Our country's low age of consent for sexual intercourse is putting our children at risk. There are many reports of an increase in the number of youth being sexually exploited. With our lax laws, Canada is becoming a sex tourism destination for Americans and other foreigners as demonstrated by a Texas man who allegedly lured a 14 year old boy to an Ottawa hotel room last month.

Canada is listed on the Internet as an international source for sex with children and youth. The current age of consent leaves children and teenagers open to becoming targets of Internet sex scams, pornographers, pedophiles and sexual abuse.

About one-third of the child luring cases in Canada involve Americans trolling the Internet for sexual prey, according to a national tip line for web-based child sexual exploitation. In the last two years, cybertip.ca has had 20 tips on child luring cases that were later investigated by police. Of those, 32% of the suspects were American and 58% were Canadian. By the end of 2004 there were 75 web related child luring cases before the courts according to the Department of Justice.

Most of the tips reported to cybertip.ca since 2002 involve 13 and 14 year old girls. While it is difficult to document the reasons for the trend, one reason may be Canada's low age of consent laws. It is well known among police investigators that pedophiles use chat rooms to share secrets. Websites, for example, list the age of consent laws by country to facilitate sex tourism. Raising the age of consent to be more consistent with other western industrialized countries would discourage sex tourism. Having an older age would send a message internationally that children in Canada are not available for sex.

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

Recruiters consciously choose to form consensual relationships with youth over the age of consent but 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 children because the adults could be charged with sexual assault and it would not be necessary to prove that there was negotiation for money or other consideration.

In B.C.'s lower mainland we are all too familiar with the problem of prostitution. Studies have found that 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes entered the trade as children. There are literally hundreds of prostitutes under 17 years of age currently working Vancouver 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 are being recruited into the trade. They argue that if the police had the ability to pick up girls or boys, regardless of their consent, and return them to their family or take them to a safe house, then many youth would be saved from entering the sex trade.

It is no use looking at the age of consent from the perspective of the advantaged, critically thinking, well protected 14 year olds. Asking them if they want Big Brother to interfere in whom they are sexually active with at 14 is folly indeed.

If one were to ask them if they thought 50-year-old men should be able to target 14-year-old runaways for sex, give them AIDS or other diseases or get them pregnant, one might get a different response.

There is widespread consensus that 14 is simply too young for the age of consent. Child psychologists agree that children younger than 16 lack the maturity and development to make good judgments and are unlikely to recognize the manipulative nature of pedophiles.

The results of dozens of studies show the effects of adult sexual contact with children. There is a 21% higher risk of clinical depression, a 21% greater chance of suicide, a 20% increase in post-traumatic stress disorder and a 14% jump in extreme promiscuity and involvement in prostitution.

Studies have also shown that between the ages of 13 to 15 years children are at the highest risk of sexual exploitation. However, despite all this evidence, the government continues to argue that youth are mature and sophisticated enough to ward off the advances of pedophiles and predators.

It is vitally important that we do no confuse physical maturation with psychological maturation. The “age of majority” is a term used by lawyers to describe the time in life after which a person is legally no longer considered a child. In essence, it is an arbitrary time when a child becomes an adult in the eyes of the law.

Why is it that we as a society feel children are ill-prepared to drive, drink, vote, marry, drop out of school or even watch violent movies but feel they are totally ready to decide for themselves with whom they should have sex? This makes no sense.

Raising the age of sexual consent would put us more in line with other western nations. In Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent is 15. In Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom it is 16.

In Virginia, like many other American states, the age of consent is 18. Adults having sex with 13 year olds to 15 year olds may be found guilty of felony “carnal knowledge” and face up to 10 years in jail and steep fines. Adults having sex with minors aged 16 to 18 may be guilty of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor”, a misdemeanour that can carry jail time and a fine.

It is time for the Canadian government to follow the lead of other western governments and prohibit adults from having sex with children under the age of 16.

Some argue that raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 would criminalize sex between teens close in age. This was the argument used by the Secretary of State for Children and Youth a couple of years ago in the House. She said that young people worry that they would become criminals if the age were raised. She stated:

They want to know they would have not only protection from predators but from a system that could unduly confine or prosecute them.They do not want to be doubly victimized by both the predator and those proposing to protect them.

In a similar vein, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the member for Vancouver Centre, writes on her website:

Raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 would place unprecedented limits on the freedom of young persons. It should be noted that raising the age of consent to 16 would criminalize sexual activity between adolescents that is now legal. Such an amendment could allow a 16 year old to be prosecuted for virtually any sexual contact with a 15 year old boyfriend or girlfriend. Instead of criminalizing the sexual activities of consenting teenagers who are of a similar age, the Liberal government has focused on protecting our children from sexual predators.

This is sheer nonsense and borders on fearmongering. There is an easy solution to the concern of raising the age of consent. Too often young girls think they have found their Prince Charming. They are young and everything is beautiful. They cannot see the big picture. The government's refusal to budge on the age of consent further demonstrates how out of step the Liberals are with the values of Canadians.

As parliamentarians we need to act now before more innocent lives are ruined. Motion No. 221 proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code that is consistent with the recommendations of all provincial governments and various stakeholder groups, including Beyond Borders, the Canadian Police Association and REAL Women of Canada.

Parliament now has the opportunity to send a direct and clear message to Canadians that it will no longer stand for the potential abuse of innocent 14 year old children by perverted 40-year-olds.

I call upon my fellow members to support this initiative and give our children the protection they deserve.

Canada Elections Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Before beginning private members’ business, I have a statement to make concerning the provisions of Bill C-312, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (appointment of returning officers).

As with all private members’ bills, the Chair has examined this bill to determine whether its provisions would require a royal recommendation and thus prevent the Chair from putting the question to a vote at third reading.

This bill proposes to alter the manner in which returning officers are appointed. Presently, section 24 of the Canada Elections Act gives the governor in council the authority to appoint 308 returning officers at pleasure. Bill C-312 proposes that appointments be made by the Chief Electoral Officer following an open competitive process for a term of 10 years.

This initiative already has been the focus of some commentary regarding the financial initiative of the Crown. Specifically, on April 11, 2005, during the take note debate on the Standing Orders, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean argued that the need for a royal recommendation is being interpreted much more strictly now than in the past, and that this particular bill does not entail any new or additional spending authorization. Indeed, he claimed that in the 2nd session of the 36th Parliament similar initiatives were proposed as amendments to Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, without any procedural objections being raised regarding an infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown.

As to the matter of a stricter enforcement of the royal recommendation requirements, I would reply that the Chair is taking its responsibilities under Standing Order 94 very seriously. This is primarily due to the fact that all items of private members’ business are now votable. Previously, they were not.

At that time, if a private members’ bill appeared to require a royal recommendation but was not subject to a vote, then there was less of an obligation on the Speaker to inform the House of the exigencies of Standing Order 79(2), that is, the rules pertaining to the introduction of a royal recommendation.

I remind the House that on November 18, 2004, I alerted members to this situation. As I mentioned on page 1554 of Hansard , as the House has not yet begun to debate items of private members' business I felt that it would be of assistance to alert hon. members to the important impact that the requirement for a royal recommendation may have on their bills.

The standing orders leave no doubt that the House cannot be asked to decide on the motion for third reading of a bill requiring the expenditure of public funds unless proper notice of a royal recommendation has been given.

Should members have any concerns about the provisions of individual bills in this regard, it would be prudent for them to raise such concerns well before the third reading stage is reached.

It has been the practice in this Parliament for the Chair to raise concerns about private members’ bills at the commencement of second reading debate so that submissions may be made before a decision is taken by the House at second reading.

In this particular case, Bill C-312 contains some provisions which caused the Chair to pause and consider its impact on the financial initiative of the Crown. As most members know, bills which involve new or additional spending for a distinct purpose must be recommended by the Crown. The royal recommendation is also required where a bill alters the appropriation of public revenue “under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out” in the bill. What this means is that a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is being significantly altered.

Bill C-312 transfers the power to appoint returning officers from the governor in council to the Chief Electoral Officer. Normally, the power to appoint includes the authority to pay. The transfer of this authority would appear to affect the manner in which spending was being authorized and so would appear to infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. However, a closer reading of the Canada Elections Act seems to indicate that the authority to pay remains with the Governor in Council. Subsection 542(1) of the act states:

On the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, the governor in council may make a tariff fixing or providing for the determination of fees, costs, allowances and expenses to be paid and allowed to returning officers and other persons employed at or in relation to elections under this act.

Therefore, it appears that the bill is solely transferring the power of appointment without transferring the authority to remunerate returning officers. If this is the case, there is no infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown.

Bill C-312 contains two other provisions which appear to involve spending. It is proposed that returning officers are to be appointed by means of an open competition. Although this will involve the spending of public monies, it appears to the Chair that this would be an operational expense of the Chief Electoral Officer that would be within the annual appropriations provided to his office.

Another provision fixes the appointment period for a returning officer at 10 years whereas it is presently at pleasure. This is not an infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown as it does not increase the public spending but only the identity of the persons to be paid over a 10 year period, that is, there would be fewer changes, if any, in the roster of returning officers during this period but the same number of returning officers in any event.

As with other bills, the Chair would seek short submissions from members on these specific points prior to the resumption of debate on second reading. In this way, the reasoning behind the decisions of the Chair in regards to the financial initiative of the Crown may be better understood, and the decisions will be dealt with in a timely manner. I believe that in the long run, the House will be well-served by this approach.

The Chair appreciates the patience of all members. The issues which are being raised on a series of bills in private members’ business touch on some of the fundamental concepts of our system of parliamentary government. It behoves us all to ensure that this process is conducted in a rational fashion so that decisions are consistent, and well-understood.

Justice

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the protection of children against all forms of sexual exploitation, including child pornography, is a priority of the government. It was reflected in the first piece of legislation, Bill C-2, introduced in this Parliament. In the Speech from the Throne, we announced that we would take steps regarding the trafficking in children.

We have signed the optional protocol. We are now consulting with the provinces with a view to securing ratification as soon as possible.

Employment Insurance Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for having introduced this bill in the House of Commons. I am flattered because there are a number of similarities with the bill I introduced before the election. In computer lingo, this virtually called cut and paste. It could be said that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have much in common when it comes to the needs of workers in regions providing seasonal employment.

Some Liberals also agree with us that changes are needed. There have been past examples of this. I remember our colleague in the House of Commons, Georges Farrah, from Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. I think he lost the election just over employment insurance.

This shows the hardships that people can experience in certain regions. We just need to consider the hon. member for Beauséjour, who is in favour of the EI reform. His experience representing people in the region of Cap-Pelé and Bouctouche, people working in the fish plants, has made him understand the importance of EI to seasonal workers.

Not so long ago, I met with the people of Cap-Pelé. The mayor asked if anyone was coming to recruit people working in fish plants to take them to Moncton. He said that he was happy for Moncton. He congratulated the city of Moncton on its unemployment rate, which is 5% or 5.6%. But if everyone from his region goes to work in Moncton, it means that the Cap-Pelé region might as well shut down. As the mayor of Cap-Pelé, he is not happy with the way things are going.

I was surprised to see my colleague from Peterborough shift and say that he cannot support such a bill. He was a member of the committee created after Bill C-2. The recommendations were along the lines of this bill. He has changed since he sat on that committee but, back then, he strongly supported the bill.

I remember too that the people of the Cape Breton region strongly supported it. When there is an election, people want to be part of the government so they can ensure that changes are made to EI because it needs changing. People are starting to realize that there have been a number of elections in which they say they want to sit on the government benches in order to change EI but it does not change.

This week I thought it shameful that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development had the gall—excuse me for saying so—to lower the employment insurance premiums. I thought this was a bit rude of him, especially since the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development is currently considering changes to employment insurance.

Instead, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is listening to the Conservatives. That is why I say there is no difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The only thing the Conservatives ever ask for is lower employment insurance contributions, because they think the employers are being over taxed.

I do not know how many times I have said, here in the House of Commons, that no employer has ever called me to say that he was going to lose his business because he could not afford to pay the employment insurance premiums and that he needed them lowered. I hope my phone starts ringing tomorrow morning. I have not received those types of calls.

However, I have seen people demonstrating in the street to say that the employment insurance system does not cover seasonal employment adequately. That is what I have heard.

When I went to the Forestville area before the election, I was talking to people in the streets, including Forestville's young priest and the former priest, who is now retired. I remember what the priest told me. He said it was not a political story, but a human story. The cuts made to employment insurance by the Liberals in 1996 had a direct impact on families and children. That is where they are hitting.

There are 1.4 million children going hungry in Canada and it is the Liberals' fault.

During the election campaign, I remember hearing varying opinions from the Conservatives. In 2000, the Conservative leader said, in the West, “We must not change employment insurance. We must make some cuts in it”. In the east, he said, “We are going to change employment insurance for you.” He did not know that the Globe and Mail is sold all over Canada and that people read both messages.

The shameful thing is that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development listened to him and is reducing EI benefits to such a point that there will not be any money left in the EI fund to pay for what people need.

It may be a little comical, but as I have often said, you do not catch lobsters on St. Catherine Street in Montreal. The lobsters are in our waters, in Chaleur Bay and off Cape Breton. The lobsters are in the Bay of Fundy. People in Peterborough love our lobsters.

These people have seasonal jobs in regions like ours, in the Gaspé and Chaleur Bay, where everything freezes up in the winter. In fact, you cannot catch lobster in the winter. And besides that, we have to work within the quotas set for us by the government.

The people of Cap Pelé—and not just them, because this happens all over Canada—have found it necessary to cheat the system to accumulate hours, to do what some call “banking” their hours. They are breaking the law. In Cap Pelé, where the member of Parliament is a Liberal, 1,500 people were caught banking hours. The government told them, “We will not do anything to you. We will make the employer pay $5 million.”

At the same time, in my riding, 11 people were also banking hours. They had to repay the government $10,000 and $11,000. It is shameful that in a national program the government treats people represented by a Liberal member on way and the people represented by a member from another political party another—in a democracy like ours.

This is the biggest theft the government has committed in Canada: it has stolen $46 billion from the pockets of the workers and employers who have paid premiums into the employment insurance fund, and they took it to balance the budget and get to that zero deficit. It was all done on the backs of the workers who have lost their jobs and the children who have nothing to eat. It is shameful. That is what the Liberal federal government has done. Today it boasts that it has lowered premiums every year, and it does that to please the Conservatives.

I would like the people back home to know that the Conservatives are opposed to changing employment insurance. They think that slashing EI will send people back to work. I regret to say that my dear friends do not know their Canada. They do not know that some Canadians are in seasonal jobs and need employment insurance to get by. Punishing them and their families is not the way to help them get by.

I congratulate the member for Trois-Rivières on making recommendations, which I support 150%. I am not likely to ever need EI, but I see the hardships the Liberals have caused in my area.

When Doug Young lost his job here in Parliament, it was because he thrust the people of my area into abject poverty. I have women calling my riding office and talking of taking their own lives, because there is nothing left in the house. I have fathers calling and talking of suicide, because they are not able to support their families. The Liberal government is responsible for their desperate situation, with the help of the Conservatives.

know that I have said all this before. That is because the problem is still the same. There are Liberals who agree with me on this. I hope that this time they will be capable, in a minority government position, to do something about it. The same goes for the member for Beauséjour who has finally said—and it made the papers—that he hoped that, with a minority government, Parliament would be able to bring about the changes required to restore to workers what they are entitled to, and what has been taken from them.

The communities would be delighted to hear that. Workers are not the only ones hit by this. The Liberals are punishing the communities too. We are not all in Toronto, where there are jobs for the taking. In our area the situation is different, our workers are lured away to take employment elsewhere. Our regions are emptied. It is a kind of legal deportation. That is what is happening. The government is sticking it to the people in need.

Is this our Canada? Sometimes, we have to ask ourselves that question. We are not all as lucky as Alberta. If we had oil wells at home and if we no longer needed to fish, things would be different. I can assure the House that people back home are hard workers. When they move to Alberta, they are the first ones to get jobs, because they are hard workers. Contrary to what Doug Young once said in Hamilton, they are not lazy. That was written in the Globe and Mail .

In conclusion, I hope that hon. members will support this bill, that Liberals who are still not convinced will soon be and will do the right thing. It is not up to the Liberals to take that money and use it to reduce the debt and achieve a zero deficit. That money is there to help the needy, the families, the 800,000 people who do not qualify for employment insurance benefits.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to tell hon. members what I think and what seasonal workers in our region think.

Canada Labour Code

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we seek to protect the rights of children and to protect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the charter. It is not a question of doing one or the other. It is a question of protecting all children against the risk of harm through child pornography and in a manner that will withstand charter scrutiny.

This is particularly relevant for the hon. member. What he refers to as a loophole, we regard as being principled leadership. If we do anything less than this in a manner of prohibiting pornography, we fail our children. If the child pornography laws do not comport with the charter, are struck down, and we have no child pornography laws, we also fail our children.

I call on all hon. members to support Bill C-2 and thereby lend the support both to the protection of our children and to the protection of our charter, which will allow for those child pornography laws to be sustained and protect our children.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his statement on a matter of compelling concern. We do share the concerns with respect to child pornography and closing any loopholes in that regard.

The test of a just society is how it treats the most vulnerable amongst us, and the most vulnerable of the vulnerable are our children. Therefore, we introduced Bill C-2, the protection of children and other vulnerable persons act, on October 8, 2004, as the very first legislative initiative of this session and of our government.

Bill C-2 proposes a broad package of six criminal law reforms that would significantly improve the criminal justice system's ability to protect our children and other vulnerable persons. I am referring here to those provisions that deal with the protection of victims from domestic violence, voyeurism, and sexual exploitation of the vulnerable class between 14 and 18 years of age. Central to this package of reforms, as the hon. member has rightly identified, are those reforms that relate to child pornography.

Our existing laws, with regard to child pornography, are already comprehensive in the manner in which they enact prohibitions on the possession, printing, sale, access, exportation et cetera of child pornography.

Importantly, these prohibitions apply to depictions involving real children under the age of 18 as well as those involving imaginary children such as a computer generated depiction or composite of a child. This is because both are to be condemned. The former because it involves the sexual abuse of a real child, and the latter because it portrays children as a class of objects for sexual exploitation, and thereby poses a real harm to children and society.

It is against this background that our bill proposed a number of reforms to broaden the definition of child pornography: to include audio formats as well as written material that has as its dominant characteristic the description of unlawful sexual activity with children where that description is provided for a sexual purpose; prohibiting the advertising of child pornography; increasing the maximum penalty for all child pornography offences on summary conviction from 6 to 18 months; making the commission of any child pornography offence with intent to profit an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes; of particular importance to the member's remarks and within the context of the whole bill, replacing the existing defences of artistic merit, education, scientific or medical purpose and public good with a two-pronged, harm-based legitimate purpose defence that would only be available for an act that has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art, and even with that legitimate purpose would not pose an undue risk of harm to children. The harm-based test is often ignored when questions and comments are put to it.

Simply put, the proposed child pornography defence, even with artistic merit in the context I mentioned, provides a narrower and clearer test and incorporates the harm-based standard used by the Supreme Court of Canada in upholding the existing child pornography provisions in 2001.

There are no loopholes in the bill. It proposes reforms that clearly underscore the serious nature of all child pornography offences by broadening our existing definition of child pornography to encompass new formats; by creating a new prohibition against new forms of criminal conduct; increasing the maximum sentences for these offences; and significantly narrowing the availability of a defence to ensure that--

Criminal Code

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, October 5, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-2.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)