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.

[John Muise]

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the current mandatory minimum of four years for a conviction involving a firearm and commented specifically on the wanton and reckless disregard displayed as a result of the use of a firearm by the offender.

In addition, it is important to note that for those offences where the mandatory minimum sentences increased on the second, third, and subsequent offences, in terms of this bill it is only in relation to the specific offences included in the proposed legislation. So this government bill does not include any other crimes. It is about a continuation of the unlawful possession and use of firearms. In other words, it is about those offenders, particularly repeat offenders, who make the choice to possess, acquire, and use firearms illegally.

If indeed our culture here in Canada is about the proper licensing, storage, and possession of firearms, surely the same strict standards should be brought to bear on those who choose to brandish firearms for a criminal purpose. If you want to safeguard Canadians, we would suggest that you can't have one without the other.

Although we suspect that commentators on the other side of this debate feel otherwise, we would go so far as to say that, if crafted appropriately—and we think this bill is—mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment are generally consistent with the fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Sections 718 and 718.1 of the Criminal Code—you talked about them earlier—set out the principles of sentencing that must be followed by the court. The court is allowed significant latitude when deciding how to balance what are often very disparate principles. Although many judges know intuitively what the balance is, over the years Parliament, from time to time, has weighed in with a variety of sentencing, parole, and post-sentence order amendments in response to concerns expressed by the community about public safety and justice in particular.

It is entirely appropriate for Parliament to provide specific statutory direction ultimately to the court. Most recently, it has done so with respect to mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences committed against children, in Bill C-2, and previously for certain serious firearm offences. The community expresses its revulsion to certain kinds of crimes, usually violent ones, and if parliamentarians are listening, they respond in an appropriate way. We think this enhancement of the current mandatory minimum sentence provisions is precisely that.

What about the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on crime? As the legislative summary from the Library of Parliament that was made available makes clear, the studies to date have mixed results in terms of the impact of mandatory minimum sentences and increased rates of incarceration and the deterrent effect and impact on recidivism rates. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, as they say.

Rather than focus on whether these proposed amendments have a deterrent effect or not—and I would echo Chief Blair and Attorney General Bryant's comments on the deterrent impact—it is our position that targeting the most violent repeat offenders, and that's what people are who use firearms or possess firearms for an unlawful purpose, and locking them up for sustained periods of time will have a direct effect on the crime rate. It is an undeniable reality that a disproportionately small number of offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large number of offences. This axiom applies to repeat offenders who use firearms in the commission of their crimes.

Although they didn't get it entirely correct south of the border—California's “three strikes and you're out” law for felonies, including pizza theft, comes to mind—a precipitous drop greater than the drop in Canada over the same time period in the violent crime rate south of the 49th parallel went hand in hand with a crackdown on violent crime. A variety of studies done by American criminologists, including Marvell and Moody, and Kovandzic, confirm a reduction in homicides and violent crime rates.

It's about incapacitation. How many robberies with a firearm can you do when you are behind bars? If the right offenders are targeted, which we believe this bill does, it works.

Is violent crime on the rise in Canada? When it comes to statistics about the rates of crime, there's no denying that a whole lot of cherry-picking goes on, and it happens on both sides. Even the criminologists, lawyers, law professors, and other academics who are quick to remind you about sticking to the facts and getting it right are sometimes guilty of relying on short-term or year-to-year increases or decreases to make their cases. This is both misleading and inappropriate; some would call it downright dishonest.

I believe the committee clerk has given you a page from Juristat. In the middle column, check the violent crime rate. As you all know, it's calculated on the basis of 100,000 population. Dating back to 1962, it shows an increase from 221 per 100,000 in 1962, to 1,084 in 1992, levelling off since then to slightly under 1,000 for the past nine years. I would suggest to you that this is an extraordinary increase by any measure, and the levelling off that has taken place over the last dozen years still has us light years away from those good old days in the sixties.

Although the CCA did not have access to corresponding long-term tables for firearm offences, we are confident that they would mirror or exceed the general violent crime rate. We encourage the committee to obtain the same long-term table from the justice ministry for firearm-related offences. In addition, violent crime as a proportion of the overall crime rate is up over that same time period.

On gun play in Toronto over the past 30 years--I know Chief Blair spoke about much of this--my experience is anecdotal, but I want to share it with you. We suspect the same things that occur in Toronto are occurring in other urban jurisdictions across the country. I had a very unique perspective as a law enforcement officer on the Toronto Police Service, starting in 1976 until I retired this year. In those early years it was exceedingly rare, even in the busiest downtown divisions, that offenders arrested were in possession of illegal handguns or semi-automatic weapons. Even the most organized narcotics and drug traffickers did not carry or possess these kinds of firearms. I know because I worked in the drug squad, made hundreds of buys, and kicked in hundreds of doors from 1982 to 1986. We rarely seized a handgun. Uniformed, plain-clothes, and undercover officers rarely confronted these kinds of weapons.

That changed in the late eighties and coincided with the crack trade--free-based cocaine--and continued into the early 1990s and onwards with the proliferation of American-style street gangs, usually arranged along ethnic lines, that now commit crimes in support of territory and profit. The results are in full view in our housing projects and on our crowded downtown streets. There are drive-by shootings and shots fired because of perceived disrespect--something that, as Chief Blair indicated, was usually handled in the past with a punch in the nose. There are brutal and often random home invasions. No self-respecting crack dealer will leave home without his trusty Glock pistol or 9 mm handgun, and whole communities are marginalized and living in fear.

We have a new vocabulary of violent and brutal crime, and the violent crime statistic that I provided from Juristat reflects that reality. It's not Andy of Mayberry and it's not Leave it to Beaver any more.

What about the amendments? I think this is the important work the committee is doing.

Criminal Code

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no excuse for exploiting a young person for a sexual purpose and we have legislation that makes that absolutely clear.

Before the law was amended in the last Parliament by the previous government, which the member was a part of, it was strong legislation. It was first introduced by the Progressive Conservative government when former Governor General Ramon Hnatyshyn was the minister of justice. When he was minister of justice he was responsible for introducing the basic law on the age of consent that we have now.

I remember being an assistant to an MP at the time and being part of the committee discussion. I listened to the debate in committee and I do not believe many, if any, organizations or individuals who appeared as witnesses opposed the legislation that established the basic age of consent law where a person in a position of trust or authority was prohibited from having a relationship with a person in the age group of 14 to 18.

That was good legislation and it was made stronger in the last Parliament by Bill C-2, which further delineated areas of exploitation and made it very clear what the problems of exploitation were. It was very explicit. It included prostitution and the production of pornography.

If people took the time to look at that law, they would see that it is an excellent educational tool around understanding what was good and what was bad about relationships. No matter what kind of relationship or what age a person was, it contained guidance about the qualities that go into a good relationship, that raise the issues of exploitation and the power dynamics that happen within a sexual relationship. There is good material there and I wish we would use it more often.

I am concerned when organizations, like the Canadian AIDS Society, Planned Parenthood and the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, which are among the most pre-eminent sexual educators in Canada, raise concerns about this legislation. They are saying that it may drive young people's sexual activity underground and put them out of range of discussions about appropriate expressions of sexuality and appropriate ways to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and HIV-AIDS.

When those organizations are concerned that we are not putting enough emphasis on education and developing the kind of capacity for our young people to understand the importance of the various things that need to be considered when people enter into sexual relationships, we need to be putting more emphasis on that side of the equation and I wish it was possible.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act.

This is an important debate that we are having today. It is an important debate that we need to continue to have around this particular piece of legislation. Here in this corner of the House in the NDP caucus we have different points of view on this matter. We have already seen that this afternoon in the debate. A number of NDP members have taken differing positions on this piece of legislation. I think that debate has been healthy in our caucus, where we have explored the issues relating to the age of consent for sexual activity and to people's concerns around the sexual activity of young people in Canada.

I do not think the NDP has come to a common position on this legislation. I would be surprised if we did. I think members will see that NDP members take different points of view on it, but it is important that we air those different points of view and have them taken into consideration as part of the debate on this legislation.

It is particularly important in light of the proposal that was made late last week by the Liberal House leader that six crime bills go directly to the Senate from this place. One bill that was suggested to go directly to the Senate was Bill C-22. At the time the suggestion was made, there had not been any debate in the House on this bill. That debate began today. At the time the suggestion was made there had been no debate whatsoever here in the House of Commons on Bill C-22. It would have been very irresponsible to send Bill C-22 directly to the Senate without having given it any debate or consideration, even if there were complete unanimity in this place on this legislation, which there is not.

It is very important that Bill C-22 go to committee and that there be a thorough discussion, that witnesses be called and that people be given an opportunity to discuss their point of view and their concerns about this legislation. People should be able to say why they support the bill or why they oppose it.

It is particularly important that we hear the voices of young people on this issue. There is no one in the age ranges that are contemplated in this bill represented in the House. There is no one who sits in this place that is within the age range that we are contemplating in this legislation. It is very important that we take some pains to try and hear some of those voices as part of this discussion. I think young people do have a particular perspective on both sides of the issue. It would be very important to hear from both sides, but especially to hear from young people.

I am concerned that when we make these kinds of decisions we can too easily be seen as paternalistic. As older people we may have a particular perspective and concerns that are not shared by those who are directly affected by this legislation. It would be a very important step for the committee that will be looking at the bill, whether that be the justice committee or a special legislative committee, that it actually take the time to seek out and hear from young people.

Within the New Democratic Party we have had a vigorous debate on Bill C-22. Young people who are active in our party have taken a very strong position in opposition to raising the age of consent. In fact, they sent a number of resolutions to our recent federal convention that addressed that very issue. I want to read one intervention from the NDP youth of Canada which said:

WHEREAS the Conservative government has indicated that it plans to increase the age of consent for sexual activity, excluding anal intercourse, from 14 to 16 years of age;

WHEREAS the laws governing sexual consent currently protect minors from sexual abuse and exploitation;

WHEREAS increasing the age of consent will not remove the causes of sexual exploitation of minors; and

WHEREAS increasing the age of consent will effectively criminalize sexual activity amongst young people insofar as it may lead to a restriction in access to safer sex information and resources;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Federal Council direct Caucus to oppose any legislation that would increase the age of sexual consent, or that would further criminalize sexual activity between minors.

That is a very serious statement of their concern. Any time a group within any of our political parties seeks to direct a caucus to take a particular position on an issue I think expresses their very strongly held position on that legislation.

I think those folks deserve a hearing. Those young people who have concerns about the legislation deserve a hearing. That is why I am glad we are having this debate. I hope there will be no attempt to short-circuit a full and free discussion of this legislation before a House of Commons committee. We need to hear those witnesses. We need to have that full discussion. We need to have the bill back in the House, whether it is amended or not, to have further discussion on it. I personally would feel very strongly that any attempt to short-circuit that process with regard to this piece of legislation would be absolutely the wrong thing to do.

At the same time I do recognize that there are strongly held positions in my own community on this issue. I have heard from many people in my community on this issue, many people who support raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. Just last week I presented petitions in the House from about 80 people from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, including quite a few from my own constituency, who asked that Parliament take that remedy, that it increase the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. I know that is a very strongly held position in my constituency.

I also know that the City of Burnaby has taken a very strong position through its task force on the sexual exploitation of youth which rose out of concerns in south Burnaby for street prostitution and the fact that there were young people involved in street prostitution in south Burnaby. One of the recommendations made by the task force that looked into it was to increase the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan is a very strong and passionate supporter of that particular initiative.

There are people in my community who are very concerned about the age of consent and seek a remedy. At the same time I want to make sure that the remedy we propose will actually address the concerns that people have about the exploitation of young people. I am yet to be convinced that the law we currently have on the books does not take the right measures to do that.

Right now it is illegal to be involved in an exploitive relationship with a young person in Canada under the age of 18 years, a person between the ages of 14 and 16 years of age, and this law does not change that. In fact, what the law does is it only criminalizes non-exploitive sexual activity for young people in the age group 14 to 16 years. Right now exploitive sexual activity is clearly prohibited in the Criminal Code of Canada. This bill, in changing the age of consent, really will only criminalize non-exploitive sexual activity in that age group.

That is something we need to consider very carefully. I do not believe that criminalizing sexual activity is the best way to deal with any of the concerns that we might have about young people engaging in sexual activity. I do not think a criminal sanction is the way to go. I do not think that ultimately solves the problem. If anything, I think a criminal sanction only drives the activity underground where we do not have the ability to discuss it, to address it and to deal with the real issues about why that hurts young people and why that relationship may be one that we would have concerns about.

I grew up at a time when sexuality was largely criminalized, when my sexuality as a gay man was largely criminalized in Canada. I do not think that prohibited people from engaging in gay and lesbian relationships, even though it was against the law in Canada, but it certainly did drive it underground. It certainly did drive the solution of problems around relationships, around sexually transmitted diseases and around other issues underground at the time. I think that we recognized back in the late 1960s in Canada that it was not a helpful circumstance and we removed that prohibition from the Criminal Code.

The same effects are possible with this kind of legislation. I do not want to make it more difficult than it already is for young people who, say, contract a sexually transmitted disease, from getting assistance with that health issue. If they know that the relationship they have been in is one prohibited by law, then I think there will be a real reticence on their part to seek the kind of treatment they need in that circumstance. That is a serious concern about this legislation in the way that it currently stands.

That concern has been raised by a number of organizations. The Canadian AIDS Society board of directors adopted a statement on the age of consent back in July. One of the things that the society said was:

The Canadian AIDS Society is concerned that increasing the age of consent could result in young people being more secretive about their sexual practices and not seeking out the information they need. This will place youth at an increased risk of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

We already know that young people in that age group are among the group that is most affected by sexually transmitted diseases and HIV-AIDS. We want to make sure that we do not put any barrier to improving the circumstances where they get the information, where they get the treatment, where they know about the appropriate ways of preventing these diseases and this virus.

When an organization like the Canadian AIDS Society raises a concern of this magnitude about this legislation, I want to share that concern. The society also said that it believes that Bill C-2 which was passed in the last Parliament created some new protections for young people. I want to read the section where the society addressed that issue:

Passed by Parliament in July 2005, Bill C-2 created new protections for youth under 18 years of age against exploitative sexual activity. Bill C-2 takes into account the nature and circumstance of the relationship, including the age of the young person, the difference in age between the youth and the other person, how the relationship evolved, and the degree of control or influence exercised over a youth under 18.

Bill C-2 in the last Parliament actually further defined the issues around exploitive sexual activity, around what it meant to be in a position of power or authority in a relationship. We need to see what the effect of those changes are, if they went some way to actually improving the circumstance of relationships where there was exploitation.

It is clear that the legislation that is in place in the Criminal Code already protects people under the age of 18 from sexual relationships that happen in circumstances of exploitation, in circumstances related to the production of pornography, in circumstances related to prostitution, or in circumstances where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. The legislation is very clear.

Over the years when I worked as a constituency assistant I would often have conversations with people on the phone who were concerned about the age of consent. Often they did not understand that those provisions were in the current legislation, that the legislation was very clear about what it meant to be in a relationship of trust, authority or dependency, what it meant for there to be an exploitive relationship.

I actually believe that the current legislation provides a good opportunity, should anyone choose to take it, for discussion with young people about the nature of a relationship and what are important criteria to see in relationships. I really do not see the problems with this legislation. I think it has gone some way; I think the revision in the last Parliament also goes some way to improving that circumstance.

The Canadian AIDS Society has made some important points. It also says that we should be focusing on promoting “consistent comprehensive AIDS-HIV and sexual health education across Canada”, that that is the side of the equation on which we need to be putting our efforts. Sometimes a Criminal Code amendment may seem like an easy and popular step when the preventive kinds of measures that the society is talking about through education are the ones that will actually address the problems that do crop up.

Educating young people to make better choices in their relationships is the way that we need to go. Anything we can do as members of Parliament to increase the ability of young people to have access to important information about relationships and about sexual relationships is the way to go. I would certainly support anyone who was increasing the availability of that information and the ease of access to that kind of information for young people across Canada.

The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, which I believe is the umbrella organization for planned parenthood organizations across Canada, has also made a position statement on the age of consent. I want to quote from its statement as well:

The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health does not support raising the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 years to 16 years, as there is no evidence that this increased restriction on individual rights will increase protection of youth from sexual exploitation or provide any other benefit sufficient to justify the intrusion into personal privacy and consensual activity. Rather, the prospect of legal sanction and third party disclosure could seriously discourage youth from accessing preventive and therapeutic health services and other forms of information and assistance.

Again, it has raised the whole question of the access to health care, health services and information and assistance for young people who contract a sexually transmitted disease, and that is a very important consideration. It is flawed legislation without other provisions in it.

It also goes on to say that the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health believes that at any age, consent should be informed. It further believes that the best way to protect and support young people is to ensure that they have access to accurate, comprehensive, timely and non-judgmental sexual health education and services that inform them about their rights and options and the risks and benefits of engaging in sexual activity. Again, we are back to that need for information and education for young people rather than a criminal sanction against sexual activity, and that is very crucial.

The legislation also does not address the question of a uniform age of consent. Since I believe 1987, we have had calls for this in Parliament when an all party committee, in its “Equality For All” report, called for a uniform age of consent. We still have on the books a differential in the way anal intercourse is treated. We know this has been thrown out of the courts, but an amendment should have been in the legislation. If the legislation really sought to deal with issues around the age of consent, it would have included and amendment, making it a uniform age of consent for all sexual practices. I am very disappointed this not there.

For me, if there is any reason for this legislation not be approved, it is because this amendment is not in it. We cannot leave that law on the books. It would be inappropriate to prosecute people for engaging in sexual activity and it would be inappropriate to prosecute young people for engaging in that, no matter what we think of the sexual practice. This criminal sanction is wrong and the amendment should have been included in the legislation. If this goes to committee, I hope it is one thing members of the committee will seriously consider.

Another amendment required in the legislation is one which would allow for conversations about sexually transmitted diseases. When a young person discloses this and disclosed a relationship with an older person, it would be considered a privileged conversation, which would not have to be reported. If the legislation goes forward, as a minimum, it has to include that kind of protection. Otherwise, in this circumstance I do not think young people will make this disclosure. They will not seek the kind of assistance they need when they have a medical issue and when they are involved in a relationship outside of the parameters of this law. That is an absolutely crucial addition to the legislation before it is a viable.

We cannot do anything that makes it more difficult for young people to get the assistance, to seek the treatment and to get the information they need around sexual issues. That is a very important piece of any legislation dealing with the age of consent for sexual activity.

I am also concerned there is still a real bias in our society against young people taking any initiative to discuss issues of sexual activity and relationships. An example of that is the current controversy whipped up by some folks on the religious right about a publication from St. Stephen's Community House in Toronto called The Little Black Book for Girlz: A Book on Healthy Sexuality, which is a book of sexual relationship information produced by young women in that community. It is part of the collection of the Library of Parliament now and I have had a look at it. There is some very important information in it, presented in a way that is accessible to young women in our society.

I want to commend both the community centre and the team of young women for their efforts in putting that resource together. It is exactly the kind of resource to which young people should have access. It presents the information they need in a very helpful way.

With that commendation on the work in this general area, I cannot support the legislation in principle at this stage. I need to know that it has a full and free discussion in this place, that it goes to committee, that witnesses and particularly young people are heard on the issue of this age of consent legislation and that their perspective is taken into account. I believe there are some important places in this legislation that need to be amended before I could give approval in principle to it, and that is around the uniform age of consent and privileged sexual health conversations with young people.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act.

Essentially, Bill C-22 proposes changes to the Criminal Code to better protect young people, age 14 and 15, against any form of sexual exploitation by adult predators. That is a rather clear and simple objective that the members of this House should understand and support.

It is also an important element of our government’s commitment to tackle crime. We recognize that families should be able to raise their children without fear of sexual predators. In that regard, Bill C-22 enables us to take a very big step toward the achievement of that commitment and, I would even go so far as to add, to satisfy the expectations of Canadians.

The age of consent, or the age of protection, is the age at which the Criminal Code recognizes the capacity of a young person to consent to sexual activity. In other words, it is the age below which any sexual activity with a child or young person is prohibited.

At present, the Criminal Code prohibits all sexual activity with a child under two categories of offences: general offences of sexual assault of a child or an adult, and specific offences that apply only to children. Those prohibitions deal with any form of sexual activity, whether it consists of sexual touching or sexual relations.

The criteria under which an assault is “sexual” was established almost 20 years ago by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Chase, a 1987 case in which the court concluded that sexual assault is an assault which is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. This criterion requires any court to consider all the circumstances, such as the part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the situation in which it occurred, and the intentions of the accused.

Bill C-22 does not seek to amend the already well established legal status on this question. In fact, it proposes rather to build on the approach adopted by the Criminal Code concerning the prohibition of sexual activity with those who have not reached the age of consent

Currently, the minimum age of consent to sexual activity that is in any way exploitative is 18 years. This applies to prostitution, pornography and sexual activity involving a relationship of authority, trust or dependence or situations in which a young person is exploited in some other way.

The bill does not change the existing age of protection for these purposes.

For other kinds of sexual activity, however, the current age of consent is 14. There is only one exception to this rule: 12- and 13-year-old youths can consent to sexual activity on condition that their partner is less than two years older than they are, although this partner may not be 16, and the relationship is not one of trust, authority or dependence or a relationship in which the youth is exploited in some other way.

Bill C-22 does not change this two-year age proximity exception, although it does advance the age of consent from 14 to 16 years. It also creates a new age proximity exception for 14- and 15-year old youths.

More specifically and as is currently the case with the age proximity exception for 12- and 13-year old youths, Bill C-22 would create a new age proximity exception that would allow 14- and 15-year-old youths to consent to sexual activity with a person who is less than five years older on condition that this relationship does not involve a position of authority, trust or dependence and is not exploitative in any way.

The bill contains a broader age exception for 14- and 15-year-old youths in recognition of the fact that they are more likely to engage in sexual activities than 12- or 13-year-olds and the peer group of secondary school students is generally larger than that of children in intermediate school. This measure also reflects the general purpose of Bill C-22, which is to better protect 14- and 15-year old youths against adult predators while avoiding the criminalization of consensual sexual activity among adolescents.

This is not the first time that we have studied a proposal to extend the age of protection from 14 to 16 years of age. This issue has actually been raised, studied and debated on numerous occasions over the last 20 years.

Allow me to mention some of the landmark reports on the subject.

First, in 1981, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, together with the Minister of Health and Welfare, struck the Committee on Sexual Offences against Children and Youth. The committee was given a very broad mandate to examine the incidence of sexual offences against children and adolescents in Canada and to recommend improvements to laws protecting adolescents against sexual abuse and exploitation.

The committee, often referred to as the Badgely committee after its chair, Robin Badgely, submitted its report in 1984. This was the first comprehensive interdisciplinary report to provide a national overview of the sexual abuse and exploitation of children in Canada. The committee made 52 recommendations that addressed the need to reform criminal and evidentiary law, as well as social services and programs to better protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation.

The committee studied existing Criminal Code prohibitions concerning sexual activity with children. For example, at the time, the only thing a man was absolutely prohibited from doing was having sexual relations with a female who was not his spouse and who was under 14 years of age. Sexual relationships with 14 or 15 year old girls were prohibited only if the girl in question was “of previously chaste character” or if the accused was more to blame than the girl for the behaviour.

It is easy to see why the committee recommended modernizing these prohibitions to protect both boys and girls, not only from sexual relationships, but also from all forms of sexual activity, regardless of whether they were “of previously chaste character”.

It is interesting to note that the committee also recommended that the age of protection be raised from 14 to 16 years. However, even though several of the committee's other recommendations were followed in what was then Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, which came into force on January 1, 1988, the age of protection was not raised.

Former Bill C-15 required that Parliament review the implementation and the effectiveness of these reforms four years after they came into force. In June 1993, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, chaired by Bob Horner, tabled its report on the four-year review of the child sexual abuse provisions of the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act (formerly Bill C-15).

Once again, the issue of age of consent was examined. Some of the submissions the committee received recommended raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 and including a close in age exception of three years. However, the committee concluded that the testimony received did not warrant raising the age of consent.

So it is that Bill C-22 is before us today. The issue is still there; it has not gone away. But do we have more evidence today than in 1993 to justify raising the age of consent? I think so, and I believe that the people of Canada think so as well.

First, children and adolescents continue to be greatly exposed to the risks of sexual assault and exploitation.

In 2005, Statistics Canada said that children and adolescents accounted for 61% of all victims of sexual assault reported to police. According to its report, and I quote, “Sexual assaults are largely crimes committed against children and young people.” [Juristat: Children and youth as victims of violent crime, April 2005].

As well, the adolescents that Bill C-22 is seeking to protect better are among those at highest risk of being victims of sexual assault. Again according to Statistics Canada's 2005 Juristat, girls aged 11 to 17 account for a high proportion of victims of all types of sexual assaults committed against children and adolescents: 31% or nearly a third of victims were adolescent girls between 14 and 17, and nearly 23% of victims were adolescent girls between 11 and 13.

These same adolescent girls are also more likely to be lured over the Internet. Luring over the Internet has been an offence under the Criminal Code since 2002. The Criminal Code prohibits the use of the Internet to communicate with a child or an adolescent for the purpose of committing a sexual offence or an abduction.

In 2005, Cybertip.ca, a national tipline for reporting the online exploitation of children, reported that during its pilot phase from September 2002 to September 2004, 10% of the tips it received were about online luring.

In 93% of cases, the victims were young girls, most of them—about 73%—between the ages of 12 and 15. Given the popularity of the Internet among teens, we have every reason to believe that this trend will continue.

For example, three years ago, Statistics Canada reported that 71%—nearly three quarters—of 15 year olds used the Internet at least a few times a week; 60% said they used it primarily for email and chatting. My source is a document entitled Canadian Social Trends published in the summer of 2003 by Statistics Canada.

The 2004 report of the Canadian branch of the World Internet Project, which was released in October 2005, included a survey of Canadian Internet users and non-users. In the survey, parents estimated that their children spent an average of 8.9 hours a week on the Internet.

Third, young Canadians engage in sexual activity relatively early. Let us look at some of Statistics Canada's data about sexual activity among youth.

In May 2005, Statistics Canada reported that the percentage of teens who said they had sex for the first time before turning 15 has been increasing since the 1980s. As reported in The Daily on May 3, 2005, it is estimated that 12% of boys and 14% of girls have had a sexual relationship before turning 14 or 15. In 2003, an estimated 28% of 15 to 17 year olds reported having had at least one sexual relationship.

Fourth, many other countries already recognize that 14 and 15 year olds are at risk of sexual exploitation. Their age of protection is higher than Canada's 14.

Take the Commonwealth countries, for example, where the criminal law derives from the same sources as Canada’s. We find that the age of protection is 16 in England, and 16 at the federal level and 16 or 17 at the state level in Australia. In New Zealand, the age of consent is 16. If we look south of the border, we find that the age of consent is 16 at the federal level in the United States, and that it varies essentially from 16 to 18 at the state level.

It is particularly worth noting how Hawaii recently dealt with this question. In that state, the age of consent was set at 14 until 2001, when it was temporarily raised to 16 so that additional analyses and studies could be done. In 2003 it was permanently raised to 16, and an exception for age differences within five years was adopted for all sexual activity with a young person 14 or 15 years of age.

Today we know much more about the risk of 14 and 15 year-olds being sexually exploited than we did 20 years ago. It is now time to act on what we know.

I am aware that some people have decided that Bill C-22 serves no purpose, arguing that former Bill C-2, which dealt with the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, extended the existing prohibition on sexual application to cover young people aged 14 to 18. That amendment imposed a duty on the courts to consider all of the circumstances of a sexual relationship with a young person, such as the age of the young person, any age difference between the two partners, the evolution of the relationship and the degree of control or influence by the older partner over the young person, in determining whether the situation was a case of sexual exploitation.

That amendment was simply not sufficient. It did not adequately clarify things and it did not protect young people aged 14 and 15. However, that is what Bill C-22 does. Bill C-22 eliminates all conjecture and draws a very clear dividing line: if you are more than five years older than a young person who is 14 or 15 years old, you are prohibited from engaging in any sexual activity with that young person. This rule will provide protection for all young people 14 and 15 years of age against anyone who is more than five years older than them.

It is not the aim of Bill C-22 to criminalize all sexual activity on the part of young people. In fact, this bill provides for very clear and very reasonable exceptions, to ensure that sexual activity between young people to which they have freely consented is not criminalized. Bill C-22 will not operate to criminalize marriages or common-law relationships involving a partner who is 14 or 15 years of age and a partner more than five years older than that person that exist when it comes into force. There will be an exception for those cases.

However, there should be no doubt regarding who will be held criminally liable under Bill C-22: any adult who is five or more years older than a young person with whom he or she engages in sexual activity. This is not just something that must be done to protect young people against sexual predators, it is also the only fair thing to do.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why are the members of her party speaking to this issue today? Clearly, the protection of our children is something that is extremely important.

We introduced Bill C-2 in previous parliaments that looked at enhancing opportunities to ensure our children were protected. Her members are talking about a variety of other issues, as if the rest of us do not care. It is the government that is filibustering its own legislation. We on this side of the House announced last week that we were very supportive of the legislation.

Why do we not just move forward today and pass the legislation rather than filibuster it and delay it? It is my understanding that none of us on this side of the House have any objections to it, and we indicated that.

Let us just get on with supporting the legislation and move on to the other issues on the agenda.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to speak to Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act. It is a very important bill and it is something our government tried to get through during our 13 year tenure as government in the House of Commons. Age of protection is one of the most important issues because it means protecting our young children.

We debate many issues each day in this House and while they are all important, there can be no doubt that when it comes to talking about the protection of Canadian children and youth against sexual exploitation, this debate rises to the top of our priorities. It is quite understandable. We are parliamentarians who also are parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles and we share the same concern about safeguarding children against such exploitation.

Bill C-22 is about recognizing that our youth, in particular 14 and 15 year old youth, need and indeed deserve better protection against adult sexual predators.

Youths of this age are experiencing constant and rapid change, including social, physical and cognitive changes. While there is nothing new about this, the environment in which the change is occurring is quite different today than it was 20 or even 10 years ago. The impact of such things as the Internet and what youth see and hear through the media and the entertainment industry today cannot be underestimated. It is in the faces of our youth 24/7.

It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to remain vigilant in ensuring that we are doing all we can to safeguard youth against harm or the risk of harm. Police have been asking us to do exactly that for a number of years. For instance, the Canadian Professional Police Association, the national voice for 54,000 police officers across the country, has consistently advocated for increasing the age of consent for youth to have sexual relations with adults from 14 to at least 16 years of age. Many police officers have said that it is absolutely deplorable that in our nation 14 year olds can legally have sex with adults.

That is what we are trying to accomplish with Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is a bill to protect our youth. Bill C-22 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to increase the age of consent from 14 to 16 years. The age of consent, which Bill C-22 proposes to rename as the age of protection, refers to the age at which the criminal law recognizes the capacity of a young person to consent to engage in sexual activity. Any sexual activity with a young person who is younger than the age of consent, irrespective of whether that young person purported to consent to the activity, is prohibited.

Currently the age of protection for sexual activity involving prostitution, pornography or relationships involving authority, trust, dependency or otherwise exploitive use of the young person is 18 years. Bill C-22 would maintain 18 years as the age of protection for these activities but for all other activities or relationships the age of protection is now only 14 years of age.

There is an exception to this. It is what is often called a close in age or peer group exception and it is this: a 12 year old or 13 year old can consent to engage in sexual activity with a partner who is less than two years older and under age 16, as long as the relationship does not involve authority, trust or dependency and is not otherwise exploitative of the young person.

Bill C-22 would maintain this two-year close in age exception for 12 and 13 year olds, but would raise the age of protection from 14 to 16 and would create another close in age exception for 14 and 15 year olds. In this way, Bill C-22 would not criminalize consensual teenage sexual activity, but it would prohibit anyone who is five years or more older than the 14 year old or 15 year old from engaging in any sexual activity with that young person.

I recognize that there may well be different views on whether and when teenagers should be engaging in sexual activity. The fact that Bill C-22 proposes to maintain the existing close in age exemption for 12 and 13 year olds and to create a new one for 14 and 15 year olds should not be interpreted as condoning such activity.

We know intuitively as parents of young children--and health professionals can confirm--that early sexual intercourse can have serious consequences for any young person. For example, Statistics Canada's May 2005 Health Reports, volume 16, number 3, describes these consequences as including longer exposure to the risk of an unwanted pregnancy or of contracting a sexually transmitted infection, and greater difficulty for teenage mothers completing school, with the additional consequence of restricted economic and career opportunities. As for babies born to teenagers, they are at greater risk of premature birth and low birth weight and of dying during their first year of life.

But Bill C-22's proposed close in age exception reflects the reality that teenagers are sexually active and that sexual experimentation among teenagers does occur. In fact, the same Statistics Canada report states, “By age 14 or 15, about 13% of Canadian adolescents have had sexual intercourse”. There are similar percentages for boys and girls, at 12% and 13% respectively.

Bill C-22's proposed close in age exception also reflects the reality of the broad scope of our criminal law's prohibitions against sexual activity below the age of consent. They apply to all sexual activity, ranging from sexual touching to sexual intercourse. So even if only 13% of teens have had sexual intercourse by age 14 or 15, it is quite possible that more have engaged in lesser forms of sexual activity. Bill C-22 is not seeking to criminalize such activity between consenting teenagers.

This is why I support Bill C-22. It directly responds to a gap in our existing Criminal Code protections by criminalizing adult sexual predators of 14 year olds and 15 year olds while at the same time proposing the necessary additional reforms to prevent the criminalization of consensual sexual activity between teenagers.

One of the very real and practical benefits that I see flowing from Bill C-22 is the certainty that it will bring. Currently, and as a result of Criminal Code reforms enacted in the previous Parliament by former Bill C-2 on the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, a court may infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitative of that young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship, including: first, the age of the young person; second, any difference in age between the young person and the other person involved; third, the evolution of the relationship; and fourth, the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person.

In my view, this approach is inadequate. With it, there is too much uncertainty, uncertainty for the adult, for the young person and for the police and the prosecutors. It might protect some 14 and 15 year olds, but not all, or not all 14 and 15 year olds in the same situations.

Under Bill C-22, there is no such uncertainty. If the adult is five years or more older than the 14 year old or 15 year old, all sexual activity with that young person is prohibited.

Bill C-22 proposes long awaited criminal law reforms to better protect youth against adult sexual predators. I call upon all hon. members to support its swift passage so that our youth do not have to wait any longer for such protection.

Indeed, it has hit home very closely to me as the mother of a police officer who worked in the ICE unit, the Internet child exploitation unit. Time and time again, young people, our most vulnerable citizens, were exposed to sexual predators over the Internet. They were young people who were on the streets and without homes, young people who were left vulnerable to those who had authority over them.

I think that now there is a relatively new crime that is not on the horizon but on our streets. We are addressing it right now in the status of women committee. It is the issue of human trafficking. When we have laws that do not protect our young and our vulnerable, the traffickers are able to coerce our young people into the sex trade industry. In my view, and in the view of the members on this side of the House, that crime is not an industry, and the sex trade, as it called, is not a trade. It is all about intimidation, exploitation, disrespect and criminal activity against very young people in our nation.

Today Bill C-22 has come to the forefront. I implore all members on all sides of the House not to hold up this bill. Last year under the former government, we tried our very best to raise the age of consent. We have answered all possible questions. We know it is common practice in a minority government for members opposite to drag their feet and make a lot of excuses, but I implore all members from all sides of the House to take very careful consideration, through their vote, of raising the age of consent.

I would implore all members on all sides of the House to vote in favour of Bill C-22 and get it through the Senate as quickly as possible. What we are seeing in the Senate now with the federal accountability act and some of our laws that we have put through the Senate is that they are being stopped in the Senate, so we cannot go any further. With much pride, some members opposite have been stating that they are just holding the bills there, looking things up and putting in amendments

The raising of the age of consent has been brought to this House under the former government, which was in government in Canada for approximately 13 years. The age of consent was not raised from 14 to 16 when we tried very hard to have it happen as early as last year. Now I get the sense that all members are ready to pass this bill. I would implore all members to do exactly that, because without it our youth are at risk on a daily basis. Our police officers and everybody are in concert in asking the House of Commons and every member of Parliament to stick up for our young people and raise the age of consent. That is what we have to do.

As for human trafficking, it puts young people who are trafficked from other countries into our country and it puts our own youth at risk in human trafficking. Human trafficking, as members know, is not a choice for young people. Human trafficking occurs when the youth are actually captured. I have known of youth who actually were put in bondage and told that they must participate in sexual activities and pay off debt. Under human trafficking, there are even training camps for youth who refuse to comply. These young people are sent to training camps. A lot of terrible things are done to them to make sure they comply.

Raising the age of consent addresses a lot of issues across our nation, from human trafficking to sexual exploitation, and it puts Canada on alert and on the map as saying that we as a nation refuse to have our young people exploited, we refuse to accept the fact that sexual exploitation is an industry, and we refuse to accept allowing anything happening in that venue in our nation.

Today again I have to say that I hope all members, instead of arguing, debating and bringing up all sorts of different things, will know this bill has tried to address all issues. It tries to ensure that teenagers who are in a consensual sexual activity are not condemned or judged. It just tries to protect our youth against very serious sexual predators. I hope that the House of Commons will stand on Canadian soil today and with one voice say that we are not going to allow sexual predators to use and abuse our young people, whether those young people live at home or are strangers or immigrants from other countries. Our youth are here to be educated and given opportunities, not used and abused. They are here to be respected.

I have heard from many youth who say they know how weak the laws are here in Canada. I would suggest that the age of protection be widely advertised after the bill is passed so that people will know our youth are protected.

Today is a day for very serious consideration. I think that all elected members from all parties, from all sides of the House, are elected to act in an extremely responsible way to protect our young people. I will acknowledge that there has been a great deal of evidence in the House of Commons to show that we definitely have a difference of opinion, but there has been much debate about this over a long period of time. It has gone back and forth. Now it is time to stop going back and forth. It is a time to instruct the people in the House of Commons, the people in the Senate and the law makers of the nation that the highest court is here in the House of Commons.

As the member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul in the House of Commons, as a mother of six children, the mother of a police officer and the former justice critic for the province of Manitoba, I am standing here now and saying that raising the age of consent is mandatory. It is the right thing to do. We have to cross party lines and stop the arguing. We have to bring forth our declaration, in a strong Canadian voice, that raising the age of consent is the right thing to do.

I would ask every member of Parliament before voting to think about their own daughters or their own children or grandchildren. Is the sex industry something that they want their children in? As a member of Parliament, I have to say no, it is not what I want my children in. As members of Parliament, we are the responsible ones who have to stand up and protect all the youth for all of Canada. We cannot have a double standard. It is our responsibility to stand up for Canada and for the young people in our Canada. I ask each and every member to put down their swords, protect the youth and make sure that the political arguments are buried long enough to pass Bill C-22.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We did increase the penalties for offences against children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rosalind Prober, President, Beyond Borders Inc.]

Good afternoon.

My name is Rosalind Prober. I'm the president of Beyond Borders, which is a volunteer, non-profit organization dealing with global child sexual exploitation.

Beyond Borders is part of a multinational NGO, a non-governmental organization, called ECPAT, End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes. ECPAT is based in Bangkok, Thailand, and I'm on the board of directors.

To be transparent, a criminal lawyer with the same last name as mine has been ultra-vocal in the media, ranting against a fellow Manitoban, Vic Toews, and this legislation. That would be my husband. We disagree when it comes to “home sweet home” jail sentences. Incidentally, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not apologizing for that.

I'm here today to speak on behalf of children who are sexually victimized by adults. Holding perpetrators accountable is certainly not easy for children. Many abused children do not live in Canada. Many are victims of Canadian child sex tourists. Many are totally incapable of withstanding punishing cross-examination on the intimate details of their sexual victimization in our “win at all costs” adversarial system. Many are found to be not credible.

As we all know, sex crimes can be life altering, and they have a heavy impact, especially on the most vulnerable in society, who are the easiest to abuse, in many cases. The disconnect between victimization statistics and criminal justice statistics shows all too clearly that most sex crimes are not reported.

On behalf of these children and children who do manage to successfully prosecute abusers, Beyond Borders supports Bill C-9. We support the removal of conditional sentencing for sexual assaults or other sexual offences against anyone under eighteen when the state has prosecuted by indictment for a crime that carries a maximum sentence of ten years or more.

Tough laws on paper are nothing more than lip service when they are constantly ignored. This is an egregious violation of children's rights to justice.

Should Canadians be reluctant or hesitant to use the justice system to denounce sex crimes against children? In Beyond Borders' view, the answer is a clear no. Society has a right and a duty to children, as documented in all the international conventions and protocols we sign, to condemn conduct that it finds intolerable. Surely sexual activity with children is such conduct. Surely the message from the justice system to the public should be that these crimes are abhorrent and very serious.

Has the judicial branch failed in its duty to protect the most vulnerable in society by giving slap-on-the-wrist sentences for serious sex crimes against children? Yes, it has. Conditional sentencing has been abused and overused. The fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence has gone out the window.

Aside from leaving the age of consent at fourteen, Beyond Borders supported Bill C-2, which was brought in by the previous government. That bill imposed on the judiciary mandatory minimums for those convicted of sex crimes specifically against children. Bill C-9 will ensure that those who sexually assault children, commit incest, and so on, will not escape incarceration. It should be pointed out, however, that unlike Bill C-2, which imposed specific minimum sentences, this bill still leaves the door open to judges to impose suspended sentences and probation for sex crimes against children.

Is jail in the community, or house arrest, equivalent to incarceration in prison? Clearly not. Crime victims have the right, especially children, to be treated respectfully in the court and told the truth about sentencing perpetrators. A person's home should never be equated to jail; that is preposterous. Sex offenders against children who get house arrest are going home to their own beds. Because there are so many sex offenders against children from upper-income brackets, many return to luxury. It is not credible to refer to homes as jails. It is disrespectful of everyone to pretend that going home after being sentenced is the equivalent of real jail. House arrest is an undeserved soft touch; if it weren't, it would not be so sought after by criminals.

In 2001, a young 12-year-old first nations child in Saskatchewan had the enormous misfortune of being spotted by three adult men. When any 12-year-old ends up hysterical, dead drunk, and has to be hospitalized due to clear evidence that she was sexually assaulted, one would think that a sentence of house arrest for a perpetrator of this crime would be impossible. However, not only did Dean Edmondson get house arrest, he also became the victim in this case as the 12-year-old was portrayed as not just a consenting and willing participant but as a sexual aggressor as well. As precedents go, this is one Canadians should not look to with pride.

Sex crimes against children are often premeditated, with some involving elaborate planning and manipulation of not just the kids but their parents as well. Sex crimes can leave long-term scars and, as we all well know, can lead to destructive lifestyle choices and suicide.

There are strong societal sanctions against sex with children. Millions of tax dollars are sadly going into teaching kids how to protect themselves. So when an adult chooses to cross that barrier into behaviour that harms society's most vulnerable and cherished members, he or she should have no possibility of what is in reality just an inconvenient curfew. House arrest should not be an option in sentencing child sexual exploiters.

Bill C-9 closes that option, is in the best interest of children, and should be supported by this committee.

Thank you.

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 148 members of St. Anne's Women's Group in Peterborough. They point out that Bill C-2 did not change the age of consent. The age remains at 14 years, yet 14 to 17 year olds do not have the maturity to recognize exploitive relationships.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect children rather than adults by moving swiftly to change the age of consent.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the provisions of Bill C-2, which I indicated would come into force on November 30, will come into force November 1, a month earlier.

Justice

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has placed great emphasis on its responsibility to protect our children. An example of this is the fact that the first bill we tabled following the last election was Bill C-2 for the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

Can the Minister of Justice please tell us when we can plan to see that bill come into force?

Criminal Code

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the government wanted to do something truly good about protecting citizens, then Chuck Cadman would have been leading debate in the House on his own private member's bill and it would have sought unanimous consent to pass it at all stages so Canadians would have been protected. That would have been a fitting tribute while he was living. That is what it should have done in the House. Instead it brings forward a watered down bill.That is the worst argument I have ever heard over there, that it is somehow doing some on behalf of Canadians to protect them.

I rise on behalf of the people of Essex to speak to Bill C-64. I am here also with thoughts of my former seat mate, Chuck Cadman. I have to be honest, I miss him terribly.

Chuck's brought forward his private member's Bill C-287, on the alteration and obliteration of vehicle identification numbers, because there was no provision for the direct prosecution of a person engaged in the physical act of tampering with a vehicle identification number, a loophole that has been masterfully exploited by organized crime. Instead what we have is Bill C-64, a partial attempt by the Liberal government to address that loophole, which is insufficient.

Also, I am here to talk about what the Liberals have been falsely claiming as a fitting tribute and honour to the late Chuck Cadman, member of Parliament. The only fitting tribute to the memory of Chuck Cadman would be to take his private member's bill, ironically unaltered, and pass it in the House. Instead what we have is the Liberals trying to fulfill a promise they made to Chuck after he gave the government life in that crucial May 19 budget vote.

I was sitting in my seat next to Chuck after that vote. It was interesting to watch the long lineup of Liberal members of Parliament eager to shake Chuck's hand. I thought the most interesting moment of that whole night was when the justice minister was face to face with Chuck. If we can believe it, he looked him in the eyes and said that he did not know why Chuck came to this Parliament, but that he would do something about the issues that were important to him.

It is very interesting that our justice minister did not know that the reason Chuck Cadman came to the House for eight years was because of the death of his son and the fact that the criminal justice system did nothing about it. Shame on the government.

What has the government brought forward instead of bringing Chuck's bill forward and passing? We have a nice little add-on to the bill, and will read it. First I will read the words in Chuck Cadman's bill. It states that every one commits offence who, wholly or partially alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse.

The government decided it wanted to make an ad-on to that. It states, “and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”.

That is a substantial change from what Chuck wanted to achieve. Chuck's intention was that we would have a justice system that would get tough on criminals. He was a tireless crusader of rights for victims over the rights of criminals. Chuck's previous private member's bill on the issue put the onus of proof for lawful excuse on the person indicted, on the accused criminal. That tilts the balance in favour of the Crown on behalf of the victims of crime.

What the Liberals have done with Chuck Cadman's idea is change the onus now to put a double onus on the Crown.

It was Chuck Cadman's intention that someone caught with an altered vehicle identification number would have to explain themselves. It is not a great demand to put on somebody who is caught with a vehicle that has an altered VIN. If I were working at a wrecking yard and, as part of the normal process of business, removed a vehicle identification number, I would have a lawful excuse why that vehicle identification number was altered and removed. That would have sufficed under Chuck Cadman's bill. Now, the Crown, on behalf of the victims of crime, has to prove an additional burden that the vehicle identification number was altered or removed to conceal the identity of that vehicle. I can hear the criminal defence lawyers laughing already. Those are the people who the Liberals consulted, between talking to Chuck Cadman and bringing the bill forward.

I was thinking a little about lady justice earlier today. I think we all remember the lady justice symbol of her holding up the two scales, literally weighing the evidence, with a blindfold across her eyes to symbolize her impartiality in the weighing of that evidence.

Under the Liberals there is a new lady justice. Her arms are thrown up in the air in a show of helplessness as criminal after criminal gets soft treatment, or gets day passes to amusement parks or gets house arrest, while victims in our system get re-victimized.

This new lady justice has dropped the scales at her feet because the evidence seems to no longer matter. Witness a lot of the court decisions. The evidence suddenly does not matter any more. This new lady justice still has her blindfold on, not to reflect her impartiality any more but because she needs to shield her eyes from the injustices that are committed. This new lady justice has been brought on by 12 years of Liberals being soft on crime.

Let the numbers speak for themselves. Already this year there have been 64 murders in Toronto, 44 violent crimes committed with guns. The Liberals say that the gun registry that is supposed to protect people. It is their answer to everything, like Kyoto is their answer to everything in the environment. They have a gun registry to protect everybody. It has not. People are being gunned down in our streets.

James Caza has 42 convictions. He is roaming the interior of British Columbia. I am sure the people in British Columbia feel real safe these days.

Serial rapist Larry Fisher was surprised himself that he was let out of jail so quickly. While out on parole he raped and murdered.

Liberal Senator Larry Campbell wants a soft approach on hard drugs like crystal meth.

Legal counsel from the Liberal government testified before the justice committee that mandatory prison terms for criminals would amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

A parole board handed out day passes to pedophiles to attend children's theme parks. I have four young kids. I will rethink how I spend my summers. Will we go to Canada's Wonderland? I have no idea who will be roaming around there and who will be a threat to my children.

This is wrong. Canadians should not have to restrict their freedom from operating in society because they do not know what criminals are lurking there, criminals that the Liberal justice system has let go.

The Liberal government opposed Bill C-215, a bill sponsored by my Conservative colleague from Prince Edward—Hastings, which proposed mandatory minimum sentences on indictable gun crimes. The bill has gained support from the victims of crimes and from those who enforce the laws in the land, our police. They know the bill makes sense, but the government does not support it.

The Supreme Court of Canada refused to consider the case of Dean Edmondson who was convicted of sexual assault for trying to have sex with a 12 year old girl. Instead of a prison term, he got house arrest.

It brings me to the obvious question. What is the Liberal priority? The Liberals want to solve overcrowding in our prisons. They want to solve our court backlogs, the mountain of cases that have clogged up our courts. They want to do it by making it easier to stay out of jail, even though these people wreak havoc on society. The Liberals want it to be easier to make bail. They want to make it easier for the courts to give the criminal house arrest and to give concurrent rather than consecutive sentences. God forbid if one were convicted of multiple violent crimes that one would have to serve sentence after sentence. Why not get a group discount? That is what the government approves.

The Liberal priority is to make it easier for a Liberal patronage appointee filled parole board to give day passes to fun parks to convicted pedophiles.

With Bill C-64, Liberal so-called justice means to get the handcuffs off the criminal and put them on our crown attorneys instead. That is what the bill proposes to do. Once again the Liberals are siding with the criminals. They are not standing up for victims of crime. They are siding with the criminals and the Liberal defence lawyers who donate to their election campaigns.

I think we all remember that Allan Rock was the Liberal justice minister for a time. He gave us the failed long gun registry on which the government has spent $2 billion. For what? It is not serving its purpose. It is allowing the criminals to continue wreaking havoc on society. It goes after law-abiding farmers and duck hunters instead.

Allan Rock gave us the Liberal policy of conditional sentencing with no direction to the courts as to which serious violent crimes should be exempted from the concept of conditional sentencing. What is the result? Liberal appointed judges rightly interpret that the Liberal government's desire is to let violent criminals get out of jail free. That is the Liberal priority.

Bill C-2, the Liberals so-called child pornography legislation, is sitting on the Prime Minister's desk. It has the legitimate use defence in it. It used to be called the artistic merit defence. We can dress it up, paint it up or call it whatever, but it is a loophole one could drive a truck through. It leaves our vulnerable children unprotected.

The Liberals voted against raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. That is not much to ask to protect our young adolescents. Instead, the government wants to keep it legal for a 40 or 50 year old man to have sex with a young adolescent.

I think it is clear that the Liberals are soft on crime in general and on vehicle crimes specifically. Our Conservative colleague, my seatmate, had his private member's bill, Bill C-293, a bill I spoke in support of in this House, a bill that proposed mandatory minimum sentences for vehicle theft.

The other so-called Cadman bill, Bill C-65, the companion to this legislation, dealing with street racing, does not honour Chuck. The Liberal government this time left out something very important from that legislation, which was the scale that Mr. Cadman had built into his bill of increasing punishment for repeat offenders. Apparently those who continue to threaten the safety of our communities get a discount for their anti-social choices.

Mr. Cadman was on a crusade for eight years to get tougher on criminals in crimes involving vehicles before his premature demise. During those eight years, seven were under Liberal majority governments, not a minority government like it currently is. The Liberals, if they were serious about vehicle identification number alteration, could have passed Chuck's bill quite easily. They could have rubber-stamped it post-haste. They had majorities for seven years in this House and instead they reserved the right to fast-track things for political pork-barrelling to Liberal cronies and friends. The talk of Liberal concern for Chuck Cadman's crusade is hollow, quite frankly.

The least the Liberals could have done this time around, if they truly wanted to honour Chuck's memory, would have been to bring forward his bill unaltered. I find it a curious irony that we are talking about altering vehicle identification numbers and yet the Liberals altered the bill of the late Chuck Cadman, an honourable and distinguished man, for their own political purposes. It is a moral crime, a crime against Chuck's memory, to allow the Liberal government to alter a good bill.

The Liberals can talk about Chuck's memory all they want but they are waxing poetic. They did not listen to Chuck Cadman at all. The loophole in Bill C-64 is proof of that. The Liberal government listened instead to Liberal defence lawyers and now defence lawyers and organized criminals will have a great time watching the crown frustratingly try to prosecute under this legislation.

I would contend that the Liberals, with their loophole in Bill C-64, have dishonoured the memory of Chuck Cadman. I do not say that lightly. I sat next to the man for my short time in this House and I spent my time getting to know him. He was one of the most decent men I have ever known, a good family man, a devoted husband and devoted father. He was not planning on being a member of Parliament. That was not his design, but he made it his crusade because he loved his son that much, to come here and ensure we had the laws and the direction to the courts that society wants criminals to be prosecuted to the fullest, that they should pay for their crimes, that Canadians should be protected and that they should not be revictimized in this process. Chuck was here to do that. I can say proudly that Conservatives have always stood for the principles in Chuck Cadman's original private member's bill.

Conservatives will continue standing up for safe streets, for healthy communities and on behalf of victims of crime and say, “No way”. The rights of Canadians should be respected in this country.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for two days in a row I have had the pleasure to reflect on Bill C-65 and now Bill C-64. The government claims these bills to be representative of what Mr. Cadman, the former hon. member for Surrey, was trying to accomplish during his tour here.

As I said yesterday with respect to Bill C-65, Bill C-64 has been altered with a few words that reflect the mushy, soft on crime Liberal attitude. The bill probably will be supported by my friends to the left, the softy Bloc. The Liberals have watered down both bills because they appear to be too harsh for their souls to comprehend.

Many years ago Mr. Cadman recognized how serious auto theft had become. It is a major problem in many cities all across Canada. Close to 200,000 vehicles are stolen every year. This bill is supposed to make it an offence to alter, or remove, or obliterate vehicle identification numbers, or VIN, on motor vehicles. That was the purpose of Chuck Cadman's private member's bill, which he presented quite some time ago in the House. However, in the opinion of the Liberal government and other softies in here who support being soft on crime, the bill was too harsh.

The government has taken Chuck's bill and added a few words. Section 377.1 states, “everyone commits an offence who wholly or partially alters, removes, or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse”. Chuck Cadman's bill would have made the onus on the person indicted. It would not be up to the Crown to try to justify the altering of the VIN in any way, shape or form.

The government added, “and under circumstances that give rise to reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle”. That sentence destroys the entire purpose of Chuck Cadman's private member's bill. It has changed his bill completely, even to the point that a number of people who were very supportive of his initial bill are not supportive of this one.

Members of Chuck's family and his campaign team back in Surrey are livid with Bill C-64. I understand that letters have been written by the campaign chairman of his committee to editors of various newspapers. Those people are livid that the government would dare change these things, water down the bills and say that Bill C-64 is in memory of Chuck Cadman. By making these alterations, the government has strongly dishonoured his memory by saying that this is Chuck Cadman's bill when in fact it is not.

It is pretty clear in people's minds that Bill C-64 will put the onus on the Crown to prove someone caught with an altered VIN intended to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle rather than to explain themselves, which was Mr. Cadman's original intention. That is a very strong point.

I was here during Mr. Cadman's tenure. Over the years Chuck fought so hard for these kinds of bills and amendments. The government consistently rejected any form of mandatory licence prohibitions similar to the type that Chuck constantly proposed.

The government ignored the recommendations related to VINs. It ignored the recommendations related to street racing. It continued to soft pedal on all of these efforts to confront crime. Mr. Cadman was definitely committed to seeing that crime fighting efforts were made law in this great country to bring more emphasis to the value of victims rather than constantly seeing perpetrators receive a lot more attention.

Today in question period even the answer that I received regarding the constant idea that the rights of perpetrators seemed to override the rights of victims in all cases indicated that there was an imbalance and that there were efforts to do something about it. When a bill on some very stringent issues regarding Chuck Cadman's ideas is watered down, that is just the opposite. Once again the focus is on the predator and not the victim. The government needs to wake up and realize that is the case.

What is even more disturbing is if this bill were amended, if it passed and became law, where would it go next?. I am really disgusted when I look at some of the things that have happened in regard to decisions that are made in the House of Commons. Let me provide some short examples.

Last week, while visiting my constituents in my riding, I ran across three people who were suffering from hepatitis C. One of them does not have very long to live. I believe some time around April the House concurred in a motion put forward by our health critic, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, that would implement the recommendation in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health that called for compensation to all victims of hepatitis C. It was passed in the House and all victims of hepatitis C were to receive compensation.

When these three people asked me when they would get their money, I was shocked. I knew it had been approved long ago by this place. What is going on? The House of Commons made a decision that all hepatitis C victims would be compensated, yet to this date they have not been. In other words, the government of the day is refusing to take any action. It is ignoring the decision of the House.

Let me talk further about that to illustrate my worry about these kinds of bills that may pass, and even if they are amended, but do not go anywhere.

Bill C-2, the child exploitation act, has been approved by the House of Commons. It has gone where it is supposed to go. It is supposed to be implemented and become law. This is about child exploitation. Where is it? It is my understanding it is still sitting on the Prime Minister's desk and is not going anywhere. The House of Commons passed that law and it is supposed to happen. Why has it not?

We need answers to these kinds of questions. The decision on hepatitis C was unanimous. Nobody voted against it. Everybody in this place was in favour of giving the victims of hepatitis C a cheque. Today they still have not received them, and I would like to know why. After eight months, the government cannot achieve that? Are the Liberals waiting for everybody to die and then they will not have to bother with it? That is extremely disturbing.

On November 30, 2004, the House approved another motion by the leader of our party which called upon the government to take appropriate measures to sell 11,000 acres of arable land back to the families and farmers whose lands were expropriated to build the Mirabel airport. Guess what? The government has refused to comply with the wishes of the House. It has not done that.

On April 5 the House adopted a motion by the member for Red Deer, concurring in a committee report disqualifying Glen Murray's appointment as chairman of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Today, Mr. Murray still continues to chair the round table. Once again, the government completely ignored the decision of the House of Commons.

On February 15, Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 were defeated in the House of Commons. The trade minister shrugged off the defeat of these two bills that would create a new international trade department separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs. He said that the two branches of government would continue to operate independently, even though Parliament did not give its blessing to do so. Even though they were defeated, the two bills were implemented. I find this amazing. Bills that are defeated are implemented and bills that are passed are not, because they do not suit the attitude on that side of the House.

Bill C-2 on child exploitation was approved and is laying dormant. Will the Liberals get on with it? Is it too harsh? It might be.

I was at committee on Tuesday and one of the witnesses was from the justice department. Guess what one of his statements was when the department objected to a private member's bill, which had been brought forward by my colleague, regarding the penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime? What did the official of the justice department say loud and clear? The bill was opposed because it was cruel and undue punishment. The punishment was too severe for people who would dare break the law in the commission of a crime using a gun. Yet the victims of these crimes never get to cry out about the harsh impacts on their lives from the actions of these perpetrators.

There is way too much of that going on, and it is no wonder. Every time a bill is brought in like Bill C-64, the outfit over there has to water it down because it is too harsh on the perpetrator. Never mind the guys who lose their cars to theft. Let us not get too harsh on those who steal them. How nonsensical can they get? Common sense does not prevail anywhere in the House of Commons. Decisions do not prevail in the House of Commons. It does not matter whether a motion passes, it does not get done.

I do not know if members would like more examples, but I have a ton of them, examples where the Liberals refuse to accept the decisions of the House. I do not know contemptible they can get.

Our health critic also had a motion in regard to the funding required to fight cancer and a few of the other serious diseases we are facing. He introduced a motion calling on the government to fully fund and implement a Canadian strategy for cancer control in collaboration with the provinces and all stakeholders. That was approved by the House, but there has been no action. Nothing is happening. The government refuses to give any effect to the motion. Why?

I am glad to see two or three Liberals here. I hope they are listening closely. Do they know of all the decisions that they took part in making but are not being done? Do they not care about the fact that hepatitis C victims are not being compensated, even though those people over there had a voice in that and voted yes to having it done? Does it not bother those members a little bit that people living in their ridings who have hepatitis C are not being compensated? Are they not bothered that the House is being ignored by whatever little group of individuals who do not care about decisions made here and that they will do it anyway?

Does it not bother those members that two bills designed to split a department were defeated and yet the government went ahead and created the two departments? Does it not bother those members the slightest little bit that these undemocratic, dictatorial decisions are going on right under their noses? Does it not make them squirm in their seats just a wee bit? If it does not, then it ought to make it really hot to sit in those seats. It is absolutely shameful.

And to hear the answer to my question today, that the government realizes there is an imbalance in our law and order and fighting of crime. That was the government's own admission in the answer. Why are we not doing something about it? We have an opportunity to get tough on crime. When we have a chance to get tough on street racing as Mr. Cadman wished, on the stealing of automobiles and the removing of VINs, why do we not do it?

When the Liberals make a statement that there is an imbalance, why does more favour always go toward the predators rather than the victims? This is constantly happening. When they make those statements, why do they allow it? Why do they want to amend those bills to make that happen again?

Why do the Liberals not fess up and look to the people in their ridings? How many people in their ridings are happy that we have a law in the land which says that adult men can have sex with 14-year-old girls? How many people in their ridings are happy about that? About 99% of the people in my riding are not happy about that at all, but that is the law and there is not the courage to change it because somebody over there does not want it to happen. Some soft, mushy idealist over there says that it would be too harsh, that we could not do it because it would make it difficult for those adult men who like to prey on young women who are kids. Like it or not, 14 year olds and 15 year olds are still kids. They are young girls just coming to the point of life where they can enjoy things, yet we dare allow the possibility of endangering them.

I know that questions are going to come up after this speech but boy, I would like some answers to come out of the mouths of those people over there before they ask the questions. I would like them to explain to me why they do not honour democracy, that when a decision is made in the House it is done. If they doubt it, I will give them a copy of the 14 things I know about that have been decided on but which have not been accomplished. They could take it up in the Liberal caucus if they wanted to, but it would not make any difference because they are puppets of a regime that refuses to honour the decisions of the House. That is what has to stop.

Then above all things, the most absolutely ridiculous, the most undemocratic decision I have ever heard of was to stifle the opposition by coming back in the fall and saying that there will be no opposition days. What a shameful, undemocratic disgrace the government brings to the House of Commons.

The Liberals ought to be apologizing to their constituents on a daily basis for their inaction on decisions made here and for their unwillingness to come down hard on criminals and help victims to a larger degree than they ever imagined. That is what a Conservative government would do and I would love to be part of that.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-65 on behalf of my constituents of Fundy Royal.

Unfortunately the bill is held out to be an adoption of Mr. Chuck Cadman's previous private member's bills, Bill C-338 and Bill C-230, which he had been trying for years to get through the House. They were common sense legislation that would protect Canadians and innocent bystanders and make our streets safer for everyone.

However, in typical Liberal fashion, the government dragged its heels for too long, and now, insultingly, once again it is offering too little too late.

From the outset, I would like to state that this bill is flawed and inadequate. Countless people have suffered from street racing while the government did nothing. Now the government is responding, but it is responding with a typical Liberal half-baked measure.

It reminds me of a couple of other issues related to the administration of justice, which I will touch on very quickly. One is the sex offender registry. As my colleagues know, victims' groups, the police and the provinces have been calling for a national sex offender registry for years. Unfortunately, the party opposite was ideologically opposed to such a move.

When public pressure became overwhelming in regard to the fact that the protection of children outweighed any privacy rights that sex offenders might have, the government did come up with proposed legislation for a sex offender registry. It was unfortunate and ironic what the bill did in regard to the registry. People were shocked to find out that the registry was not retroactive, which meant that all of the convicted sex offenders and people who had victimized children in the past would not be included in the registry.

It left countless Canadians wondering what was the point of having a registry if it was empty, if it was a blank sheet of paper, if we had to start from scratch when we already had all this information and could protect Canadians. There was a model in Ontario that we could have followed. Ontario had a retroactive registry.

Once again, in a wishy-washy method that was designed to pander to their own ideological bent, the Liberals could not stomach having an effective registry, but because of public pressure they had to come up with something.

The other example is Bill C-2, the child protection legislation. We see this same pattern. They call something “child protection legislation” so that it sounds like a bread and butter issue. It sounds good. We are all interested in protecting children, but what we are left with in Bill C-2 is a hollow shell. We are left with loopholes that people who victimize children could drive a truck through, loopholes that the defence and the bar associations across the country will have a field day with. It is not effective. It is not precise. It does not protect children. It does not go beyond where we are today with our current legislation.

The party opposite suggests that just by throwing a name out there and saying that something is a sex offender registry or child protection legislation or, in this case, a street racing bill, somehow Canadians will be fooled into thinking the government is taking some substantive actions.

Originally Mr. Cadman's bills were tabled to address the rise in street racing. The police tell us that the practice of street racing is becoming increasingly dangerous across the country. It begs the question, then, why now? Why is the government finally wanting to take on the appearance of action? Why was something not done in the past when Mr. Cadman was introducing private member's bills that would have addressed this very issue?

It is important to note the government's earlier response to Mr. Cadman. What was it saying in the past? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said:

Unless there is some compelling reason to specify that certain circumstances are aggravating it is better not to multiply the instances where the Criminal Code spells out that a particular way of committing the offence will be an aggravating factor. In my view, we are not seeing any such reason emerging from decisions of the trial courts and the appeal courts with regard to the four offences when street racing is a part of the circumstances of these offences.

There was a reluctance to adopt Mr. Cadman's bill. There was an effort to downplay it, to make it sound like it was not going to be effective. The Minister of Justice said, “Your proposed bill would result in a mandatory driving prohibition”.

That is what the bill called for: a mandatory driving prohibition.

The minister went on to say:

As you are aware, the Canadian criminal justice system is premised on the notion that sentences should be individualized for each offender...Research indicates that mandatory minimum penalties do not work from the point of general deterrence and recidivism.

This is the same line that we hear from the current Minister of Justice. We heard it as recently as yesterday in a response to a question. The Minister of Justice stated that mandatory minimum sentences do not work, yet we see that in other jurisdictions they are effective for serious offences. The Minister of Justice and the government are for some reason ideologically opposed to providing concrete protections for law-abiding citizens and to protecting the innocent in society.

It has been three years since Mr. Cadman first tabled his bills. All along, the government refused to support the legislation because it called for mandatory minimum driving prohibitions and increased the punishment for repeat offenders.

We could ask any Canadian if it makes sense that if someone is a repeat offender there should be an increase in the punishment. If someone is showing signs of recidivism, of being a repeat offender, should there be an increase in the punishment? The average thinking Canadian would say, “Absolutely. That makes sense”. When someone is a more serious offender, there should be a more serious consequence to the offence, yet in the past the government refused to support this legislation. I am pleased to say that the Conservatives have consistently supported these measures.

Bill C-65 proposes to amend the Criminal Code by defining street racing and by specifically identifying involvement in street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing. That makes sense. The following offences are listed: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death; criminal negligence causing bodily harm; and criminal negligence causing death.

Bill C-65 also provides for mandatory driving prohibition orders if street racing is found to be involved in one of those offences.

There we go. On the one hand, yesterday the minister stated that mandatory sentences do not work, yet in an effort to appease Canadians when there is public pressure for something, the party on the other side will do whatever it takes to appease people. So what do we see included in this bill? We see a measure that I support. There is the mandatory driving prohibition, but again it is a half measure because there is no increase for repeat offenders.

There is an irony in debating this bill today, which has the mandatory provision, when we remember that the Minister of Justice stood up yesterday and said in a blustery way that he was opposed to mandatory minimum sentences because they do not work. It just does not make sense.

Despite the positives, and there are some positives in this proposed bill, it is important to note, as I mentioned, that without serious penalties for serious crimes those crimes are going to continue. There will be no effect.

It is important to remind Canadians that in this legislation the severity of the punishment does not increase for repeat offenders. That was an essential aspect of the proposals in Mr. Cadman's original private member's bills. His bills proposed that for subsequent serious offenders there would be more serious consequences.

Bill C-65 is a half measure. After years of the government dragging its feet and speaking out against Mr. Cadman's private member's bills, it has introduced a half measure. It is a half measure that I cannot support.

We should honour the original intent of these bills, which would have been effective and would have provided serious consequences for those people who are serious offenders. We need to have some common sense amendments to this bill.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can sense the frustration of the member for Wild Rose. I know that he has worked very hard on the justice committee and on many issues, especially on issues affecting children. He was a school principal in his prior life, so to speak, and has a burning desire to help children; I think that is why the member for Wild Rose is here today.

The issue he brings forward about the fact that the government has not declared Bill C-2 just goes to prove my point exactly. The reason the government has not put this into effect, at least not that I have heard unless it has been done very recently, is that the government opposes mandatory minimum sentences.

In that law, Bill C-2, the Conservative Party was instrumental in getting bare bones minimum prison sentences in place. The prison sentences were very short, but the reason the Conservative Party agreed to it is that when there is a mandatory minimum prison sentence, even if it is one day, the possibility of house arrest is excluded. We did not think that sex offenders should have house arrest for their offences, especially those offenders who abuse our children.

Therefore, I suggest, the reason that the government has not yet enacted the bill is that it is fundamentally opposed to the idea of mandatory prison sentences, and that goes right back to this particular bill, Bill C-65. The government is opposed to it and is simply putting up this smokescreen, clothing it in legalese that makes it look familiar but has nothing to do with what Mr. Cadman wanted done.

I would say that if this government is concerned about Bill C-2 and mandatory minimum prison sentences, why did it not do something about it? In fact, the government supported us because it had to do; it was put in a corner. That goes to show that the government will do it when it is politically expedient to do it.

That is why the government is coming up with this bill. It has nothing to do with the principles that Mr. Cadman advocated, because those principles simply are not there. At best, they are watered down. The government will do it in legislation. It will move ahead when it has to or when it is politically expedient. Otherwise, it remains philosophically opposed to these important justice principles.