Bill C-291

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

The House resumed from November 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse material), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Today, we are here debating Bill C-20, an act that would establish the public complaints and review commission and amend certain acts and statutory instruments.

First, I want to recognize a first-year law student at Thompson Rivers University where I used to teach. I want to thank Najib Rahall, who is about to start contracts class, which I appreciate. He is now in Hansard. I thank him for turning in my wallet this weekend. He is taught by my friends Professor Craig Jones, K.C. and Professor Dr. Ryan Gauthier. I am sure he is also getting a first-class education.

I also want to recognize somebody else who is a constituent. He was also a colleague at the bar and at my work, maybe even taking my position as a Crown prosecutor. I want to recognize my friend, Anthony Varesi, on his new book on Bob Dylan. It is his second book. He wrote the first one in law school. I am not sure how he did that.

On the matter at hand, it seems the Liberals have been discussing this issue well before I arrived at Parliament. From what I can see, this matter has been discussed for about seven years. The bill was first tabled in the 42nd Parliament and died in the Senate. It was then tabled again during the 43rd Parliament. We all know what happened at that point. Despite Canadians clearly signalling they did not want to go to the polls and despite the fact there was a lot of work to be done, the Prime Minister coveted majority government and, with all candour, let that get in the way of the work of the House.

Having been here for a year, I am still learning, but what I can see is that there is a lot of work to be done. The work on this bill in the 43rd Parliament was interrupted by what amounted to a small seat change in hopes that the Prime Minister would get what he wanted. He was ultimately denied that, but there was a seat shuffle, and I am proud to stand here on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as part of that seat shuffle.

Now we have this bill tabled a year into the government's mandate. As I was preparing for this speech, I reflected on why it took the government a year to do this. The election was about 14 months ago. I am wondering whether this was a priority. In fact, I asked my Bloc colleague a question about this. This is an important matter to discuss.

Canada has what amounts to the longest undefended border in the world. I have had countless interactions with the RCMP and with CBSA officials, some of them in my personal capacity and others in my professional capacity. These interactions likely number into the hundreds, and all but one have generally been cordial or favourable professional interactions. That is why we are here, because not all interactions and not all things go as they should both personally and professionally.

I will take a moment to recognize the work of peace officers, civilian members and staff with the CBSA and with the RCMP. In my riding, there are detachments with the RCMP, like Clinton, 100 Mile House, Clearwater and Barriere. There are three detachments also in Kamloops, being Kamloops City, Tk'emlups rural, which is situated on the traditional land of the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc, and Kamloops traffic. All of these detachments cover 38,000 square kilometres of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am grateful for the sacrifices of those who put on the uniform to keep us safe, with their backup officers often being an hour away through staffing or resource difficulties. They are there to keep people safe whenever they are in that area. These members see terrible things.

I was speaking to a bill I authored, Bill C-291, last week. I authored the bill and it was sponsored by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, and I thank him again for doing so. The bill proposes to change the definition of “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material”, because what is occurring is not pornography, it is sexual abuse, and we should be calling it what it is.

One of the things I pointed out was that police doing this job were often at a constable level and they were reviewing horrendous images, images of unspeakable horrors. Usually, in my prior work, I did not have to view this sort of evidence, but police officers did, and they are not paid enough to do so, frankly, given the work they do. I thank them for that.

Let us face it, most peace officers, people and frontline workers doing the job just want to make it home. They do not want to hurt anybody. A lot of police officers I know would love to go through a shift without having to arrest anybody. That is often not something most police officers do. At the end of the day, people in the RCMP and CBSA have a mandate to keep us safe. They are expected to do more with less resources. While this is not always fair, it is the reality of our situation.

When it comes to our frontline officers and workers, we expect leadership. We expect them to engage professionally, to do their jobs, to be equipped and to be professional in all that they do. I wish I could see the same from the RCMP commissioner at this time. It seems to me that the commissioner is not always modelling that professionalism, being vulnerable to inappropriate influence from the former Minister of Public Safety. It is ironic that Bill C-20 talks about the overseeing of frontline officers, mainly constables, but I question whether senior Mounties or, in this case, the senior Mountie is herself immune from the oversight that is required.

I point to what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said in committee in questioning the minister. I will do my best to paraphrase her, because I cannot be nearly as eloquent as the member. She noted that the commissioner was either influenced by the government or completely bungled the investigation into the mass shootings in Nova Scotia, a terrible incident, She asked why she had not been fired. This is the professionalism, oversight and leadership that Canadians want.

At the end of the day, we are here to talk about who oversees the overseers. This came up when we were debating Bill C-9 at committee in the past week or two. That bill proposes changes to the Judges Act that are long overdue.

Before I came to Parliament, I was unaware that there was no independent oversight for CBSA. Let us not forget that these are frontline peace officers. Oftentimes and typically, they will be people's first human point of contact once they get off the plane or at a land or sea border crossing. The provisions would require the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president to respond to interim reports, reviews and recommendations within legislative timelines. This is quite important because we require, in my view, a consideration of some measure of independent oversight.

Most people here know that I come from a legal background. In my world view, the rule of law is obviously sacrosanct. Sometimes, we can have heated debates in this place, as we should, about how that should manifest itself. We may agree to disagree, but at the end of the day I think we can all agree that the rule of law is important. In fact, it is written into the preamble of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the courts, the rule of law is maintained in two ways, typically through an appellate function but also through ethical guidelines, for instance, the ethical guidelines that are being revised in Bill C-9. The overseers are overseen on legal matters by these two mechanisms.

The one question I do have when it comes to Bill C-20, and this came up in Bill C-9, is the question of consultations. I believe my colleague for the NDP raised this. I am not sure what, if any, consultations were done, but this obviously needs be explored at committee, if the legislation successfully passes on second reading. Let us face it that governments of all stripes often fail on these issues. We have seen it on the extreme intoxication bill. I call on the government to make this a priority.

CBSA has extraordinary powers, detention, arrest and search. These are sweeping powers where charter rights are often diminished. This bill would replace the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP with the complaints and review commission.

Let us examine the backdrop in which peace officers within the RCMP and CBSA are expected to do their job. It is important to evaluate that backdrop as we consider the independent oversight for peace officers doing their job.

My constituents frequently complain to me about what they have termed, and others have termed, catch and release. I hear about this from police officers from across the country. This is why I put forward Bill C-274, because our bail system must be reformed.

I have compassion for police officers doing their job and arresting the same person again and again, only to know that this person will be released shortly.

The government, though it is dealing with the oversight issue in Bill C-20, has not addressed key bail decisions in the last few years, which has led to a catch-and-release system. It is in the interest of all Canadians that the government do so.

There has been a 32% increase in violent crime since 2015. This is not lost on this side of the House. We have Bill C-5 and Bill C-21. The word “victim” is not in either piece of legislation.

It saddens me to say, and I am surprised to be saying this, that drive-by shootings can now result in a community-based sentence. That does not feel right in my heart, but, more important, from a legal perspective, it is not logical.

The Regina v. Nur decision struck down mandatory minimums for section 95 of the Criminal Code, possessing a restricted firearm with readily available ammunition, in this case a handgun. In that instance, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the appropriate sentence, as I recall, would be 40 months in jail.

That is what it said the appropriate sentence would be for a relatively young man. I believe the accused in that case was 19 or 20 years old. We are here debating, not long after Nur was struck down, whether that should actually result in a jail sentence when our highest court, which has frequently struck down these cases, said that this should have been 40 months in jail.

On the one hand, we have Conservatives who have often advocated for mandatory minimums. It was the Harper government that passed many of the mandatory minimums. On the other hand, we have, across the aisle, people who say that there should be no mandatory minimums.

I would advocate for a middle-ground approach, one that has mandatory minimums that operate in a constitutionally compliant manner. I have stated this to the Minister of Justice, that this is the appropriate middle ground. Unfortunately, he did not heed my exhortation to do so.

Police and CBSA officials are operating within an environment that has 124,000 more violent crimes than last year. This would make up almost my whole riding. Canadians are tired of this. Also, there were 789 homicides in Canada last year and 611 in 2015, which is a 29% increase.

Police and CBSA are in situations in which gun crime is a concern. I recall reading in the news a couple of years ago about a shooting of a teenager who was innocently driving with his parents. There was a person in my riding, a case of mistaken identity, who was shot down at a hotel. This is the situation our police are operating within. These were sons, brothers and friends.

There has been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015, yet when we come to the House to debate legislation on public safety, the debate is whether or not to relax these types of penalties rather than make them more stringent so that gang-related homicides would ultimately go down rather than up.

If members ask anyone in the system, I anticipate they will tell them that organized crime is so difficult to investigate. That is why they call it “organized”. There is intimidation, often a layer of distancing, money and organization.

If I were a police officer or a CBSA officer, I would be concerned with the proliferation of firearms. I remember one of the first cases I dealt with which involved now staff sergeant Kelly Butler, one of the best police officers I have encountered. She pulled a vehicle over and what was revealed inside the driver's jacket was a loaded sawed-off shotgun. I remember holding that firearm when it was in evidence. The firearm was illegal. The stock and the barrel had been cut off, so it was probably about 10 to 12 inches long. That is the environment our peace officers and CBSA officers are operating within.

Our border is porous, and there is a concern of what to do about it. The public safety minister has earmarked, as I recall, $5 billion to target law-abiding gun owners who are not accounting for crimes. Bill C-5 and Bill C-21 will be targeting that. Where could $5 billion be spent when it comes to our border and enforcement of illegal guns? I ask that question rhetorically because I have some pretty good ideas.

There has been a 61% increase in reporting sexual assaults since 2015. I have two bills on sexual offences. We obviously had the #MeToo movement in that time, which is always important. My wife was telling me that she saw a sign recently that said, “No means no”, but we have to go one step further and say, “Only yes means yes”. Only consent itself is consent.

To conclude, this proposed act would create an obligation for the RCMP commissioner and CBSA president to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety. The report would inform the minister of actions that the RCMP and CBSA have taken within the year to respond to recommendations from the chairperson.

This is great, but one thing I learned in my first year in Parliament, while sitting on the veterans affairs committee is that, just because a recommendation is made, does not mean it will be acted upon. My hope is that, when these recommendations are made, they will actually be acted upon, otherwise they are worth nothing more than the piece of paper they are written upon. It is easy to use words, and we have frequently said that, but I call on the government to act.

Criminal Code

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, pedophilia is standard practice among far too many people in positions of power or even with a drive to feel powerful. In some of his works, the Marquis de Sade described the domination of children as the logical sequel to the domination of women and pleasure as a type of aspiration to despotism.

In the 20th century, Sigmund Freud showed that civilization is built on restrictions. According to Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex, fathers and mothers could not be the sexual partners of children and the love that children have for their parents would ultimately turn into desire in adulthood.

The bill before us today amends the Criminal Code to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse material” and makes consequential amendments to other acts. The bill does not have any direct or immediate legal effect to speak of, other than changing a term. However, that change is an important one.

In Canada, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16. Young people between the ages of 12 and 16 who are in the same age group have the right to engage in sexual activity with each other, but adults are prohibited from engaging in such activity with anyone in that age group. Under the age of 12, consent is not legally possible under any circumstances.

Using children to produce pornographic material is abuse. Child pornography is most definitely child sexual abuse. We support the bill.

Unfortunately, the term “pornography” is not clear. Everyone has their own definition. There is no consensus about the degree of consent in pornography. It was not uncommon for certain libertarian authors in centuries past to explicitly promote pedophilia.

Not everyone agrees that pornography is fundamentally violent. It is not criminal in the legal sense of the term, but there are certain exceptions such as child pornography. The fact that it is impossible to ascertain, understand and conclusively assess the participants' consent makes it difficult to distinguish between material that is erotic and material that is violent and obscene.

In the case of children, the acts are clearly defined by the Criminal Code. It is obvious that to fully heal, the victim must shed the guilt associated with the events. The burden must be borne by the abuser. We must use the term “child sexual abuse” rather than “child pornography” to make the gravity of the offence clear, so the victim can fully come to terms with it.

A person charged with possession of child pornography will not be charged with sexual assault even though they are indirectly participating in it by not reporting it and by taking advantage of the situation to satisfy their own urges. Most of the time, we do not talk about the victim in cases of child pornography, except to say that the child was indeed a child.

By calling it “child sexual abuse material”, we do two things: We name the abuse that the child suffered, and we also describe the accused as a sexual abuser of children. This term is much weightier, even though it means the same thing. It puts things into perspective: There is a victim of abuse in a crime involving child pornography, and there is a person sexually abusing children.

In many types of crime, there are often grey areas, extenuating circumstances, possible questions about the victim's level of culpability, participation and consent. In the case of child abuse, it is very clear. In the case of child abuse, we have to call a spade a spade and denounce this act without any nuance. There is no possible justification.

The term “child sexual abuse” is already being used by certain victim services organizations, including the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and Canada's national tip line for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children.

In Quebec, the majority of victims of sexual assault are adults, but the number of victims under the age of 18 continues to rise. It is rising more than the number of adult victims. The victims of other sexual offences are almost exclusively minors, specifically 90%.

Sexual assault is not the only such offence. Other sexual offences include sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, luring and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

The change in terminology proposed in the bill, which, once again, I welcome, would undoubtedly bolster judges' awareness because, let us face it, not all judges have all the knowledge required to deal with this type of case.

Let us not forget that in 2019, only three years ago, a judge said out loud during a trial that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the assault, had a pretty face and should therefore feel flattered to have attracted the attention of a mature man.

Furthermore, a judge in Alberta was removed after making comments deemed sexist and racist about indigenous people, abused women and victims of sexual assault.

Lastly, an acquittal was overturned because the judge, who found a man charged with sexual abuse of children not guilty, had made comments suggesting a stereotypical attitude. The judge said that, because nobody saw anything, the girl, who was between six and 12 years of age when the assaults happened, was not credible. According to the judge, the child's testimony was, and I quote, “not transparent, not reliable, not sincere and not credible”.

These examples speak volumes. They remind us of the importance of forcing judges to get training on sexual assault and the social context surrounding it. Bill C‑291 does not go that far, but a terminology change like the one proposed here is sure to be beneficial.

Masquerading as a libertarian utopia, child pornography is actually a system in which humans exploit other humans. We need to tackle it head-on.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join the second reading debate on Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, child sexual abuse material, introduced by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap on June 17, 2022.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.

I want to thank my colleague for introducing this bill. It has a very important objective, which is to ensure that the terminology used to refer to child pornography names what this abhorrent material actually is. It is the abuse of children.

The Government of Canada is committed to preventing and protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind, in Canada and abroad. Canada works closely with international partners to combat online child sexual exploitation. This includes international co-operation regarding new and emerging threats, as well as sharing of best practices and lessons learned in combatting this crime.

Here at home, our government continues to fight child sexual exploitation through our national strategy for the protection of children from sexual exploitation. Four pillars underpin this important initiative: raising awareness, reducing the stigma associated with reporting, increasing Canada's ability to pursue and prosecute offenders, and working with tech leaders to find new ways to combat online sexual exploitation of children.

Under this strategy, we are working to build a safer Canada. We are protecting Canadian children by intensifying our engagement with digital industry leaders to encourage new online tools to prevent online abuse; increasing prevention activities, such as research and public engagement; and enhancing the capacity of Internet child exploitation units in provincial and municipal police forces, to name a few projects.

We are grateful to the many organizations that work tirelessly to halt the sexual exploitation of children, as well as Canadian parents, educators and civilians who remain vigilant for signs of potential abuse and work to educate others on how to recognize and report this despicable behaviour. However, there is still more work to be done. The incidences of making or distributing child sexual abuse and exploitation material increased by 26% from 2019 to 2021, contributing to a 58% increase over a five-year period from 2017 to 2021.

I welcome the opportunity that this bill provides to address a problem that has emerged in recent years, both domestically and internationally.

More specifically, there has been a shift away from the term “child pornography” to terms that are more descriptive of the harm caused by the production of such material. Some people feel that the term “child pornography” is too close to ordinary pornography, which is of course generally legal when produced by consenting adults and does not contain obscene material.

This bill, on its face, appears simple. It proposes to replace the term “child pornography” with the term “child sexual abuse material” in the Criminal Code and in four other federal statutes that use that term: An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; the Criminal Records Act; and the National Defence Act.

It is important to acknowledge that the definition of the term “child pornography” in Canadian criminal law has been part of the Criminal Code for almost 30 years, having been enacted in 1993, and expanded in 2002 and 2005. Our existing definition is very broad and includes a wide range of material involving the depiction of abuse of a child, both real and fictional, as well as materials that advocate engaging in sexual activity with a child.

This definition has been interpreted and applied by the courts for almost 30 years, including by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001 in R. v. Sharpe. In this case, the Supreme Court made clear that the prohibitions against child pornography, including the broad scope of the definition, seeks to prevent the exploitation of children, both actual or real and imaginary or fictional, through material that sexualizes them and fuels the demand for such material. This decision also ruled that a person includes both actual and imaginary children.

I think it is important to be clear that the intent is not to change the definition. Rather, it is to more accurately reflect the definition in the name. Courts should not change their interpretation of the law based on the change in title.

I also want to be satisfied that the proposed new term of “child sexual abuse material” accurately reflects the full scope of material that is captured by the existing definition. For example, I think it is important to ensure that the new term cannot be interpreted more narrowly than the current definition. While I do not think this is intended by the bill, I think it would be important to consider it more fully and consider whether the proposed term should be clarified.

While there is no one term that has been universally adopted, terms like “child sexual abuse material”, which is the one proposed in this bill, or “child sexual exploitation and abuse material”, and other variations, are gaining favour on the international stage. The Luxembourg Guidelines, otherwise known as the Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, suggest using “child sexual exploitation material” as a more general term to encompass material that “sexualises and is exploitative to the child although it is not explicitly depicting the sexual abuse of a child.” As such, I have had discussions with my colleague about potentially expanding his bill to include the term “exploitation”, and I look forward to continuing those discussions at committee.

Lastly, I think it would be important to consider whether there are other implications of changing the term. For example, although Bill C-291 proposes consequential amendments to four other federal statutes, which are the ones I mentioned at the outset, it would not amend the federal regulations made pursuant to An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, also known as the Internet child pornography reporting regulations. Of course, the making of regulations falls generally to the executive branch of government and is not normally done by Parliament. When this legislation passes, the government will likely have to also update the regulations to match.

Most provinces have legislation that refers to the Criminal Code's child pornography prohibitions and definition. It is estimated that there are at least 50 such provincial and territorial statutes and regulations that refer to it. In some cases, the reference is made to the term “child pornography” as well as to section 163.1 of the Criminal Code. However, there are some instances where a reference is made only to the term “child pornography, as defined by the Criminal Code”. Should this bill pass, we will work with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure the legislation is updated accordingly.

I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap and his colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for providing us with an opportunity to review the Criminal Code's definition of “child pornography” and the way that provision is incorporated into not only federal but provincial and territorial legislation.

The government will be supporting the bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues opposite at committee to ensure that this legislation is as strong as it can be.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from North Okanagan—Shuswap for introducing Bill C-291.

I want to ask him about what kinds of consultations he has had with victims and survivors, as well as those in the policing and justice communities. Could he maybe comment on who he has consulted and how that has informed the bill presented today?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

moved that Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse material), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the House of Commons to speak to my private member’s bill, Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

At the outset, I would like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who was central to the conception and drafting of this bill. The hon. member's years of experience as a Crown prosecutor have afforded him insights into how Canada’s laws and legislation in some instances are not necessarily as succinct as they should be and where changes could be made to improve them. Not all MPs have a chance to introduce and debate their private member's bill, so I was certainly happy to work with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo to achieve this. The hon member's experience also afforded him insight into how the House and our colleagues in the upper chamber can strengthen our federal statutes. I thank the member for his work on this bill and other proposals that seek to enhance the protection of Canadians, especially children.

The Criminal Code of Canada contains many elements, including essential elements that define, prohibit, deter and penalize criminal activities. Bill C-291 does not propose amendments to definitions, prohibitions or penalties. It clearly and succinctly proposes to change the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material”.

Some members in the House or Canadians watching this debate may wonder what the motive or value of Bill C-291’s proposals are. This is a question that I believe all legislative proposals should be subject to, and I will endeavour to answer this question.

Let us start with my motive in presenting this bill. I believe it is essential that the Criminal Code of Canada contain terms that accurately describe prohibited activities. I also believe that the code’s use of the term “child pornography” is a misnomer that fails to accurately describe the gravity and reality of such material. “Pornography” is a term typically used to describe material involving consenting adults, but there is no legal basis for children to consent to participating in such material. This factor of consent is central to the motivation behind this bill, and if hon. members agree that pornography describes material involving consenting adults, I hope they will also recognize that children cannot legally consent to being depicted in pornography.

What the Criminal Code currently calls “child pornography” is more severe than mere pornography because it involves children and cannot be consensual. It is exploitive and abusive, and the Criminal Code should clearly reflect these realities. So-called child pornographers are producers of child sexual abuse material. Those who distribute it are distributors of child sexual abuse material. Those who possess it are owners of child sexual abuse material. Those who view it are consumers of child sexual abuse material. These are the realities that compelled me to table this bill.

I hope all hon. members understand and support my motivation in proposing this bill. Together, we can collectively make a difference by ensuring that Canada’s Criminal Code contains clear terms for what is prohibited by the code. Words matter, especially the words and terms Parliament chooses to apply to federal statutes and especially the Criminal Code. The term “child pornography” is a misnomer, and I hope all members can recognize the necessity for our statutes to do away with this term. We cannot miss this opportunity to update and strengthen the Criminal Code so that it reflects reality. We must call child sexual abuse material exactly what it is: child sexual abuse material.

As I mentioned earlier, it is important for us to understand the motive and the value of all legislative proposals and I hope that I have provided the House a clear account of my motive in pursuing the proposals of this bill.

As for the value of the bill's proposals, I believe that changing the term “child pornography” to ”child sexual abuse material” will not only provide our statutes with a greater degree of accuracy, but will also provide a more accurate and true recognition of those victimized by such material. The terms “abuse”, “sexual abuse” and “exploitation” currently exist in the Criminal Code. I believe that the House must acknowledge that these terms afford a truer recognition of the victimization of children and potential future victimization of children caused by child sexual abuse material.

We must support those who, as children, have been victims of sexual abuse and exploitation. I believe this bill is a valuable opportunity for the House to acknowledge the true and severe nature of the crimes inflicted on victims of child sexual abuse material.

It is time that Parliament addresses the seriousness of what is occurring by providing clear terms to ensure that the words used in our laws reflect the severity of offences and the gravity of what is inflicted on victims.

I also see the value of the necessity of this bill's proposals, considering the latest crime data from Statistics Canada, which clearly states that child exploitation and abuse are on the increase here in Canada.

In a report released in August 2022, Statistics Canada reported that from 2019 to 2021, the rate of police-reported child sexual abuse material increased by a staggering 31% to a rate of 31 incidents per 100,000 of population. For a Canadian city of one million people, less than half the size of Vancouver, that translates to 310 cases per year. Those are just the cases reported to police. We all must understand that many more cases go unreported to police, but they do exist.

This increase from 2019 to 2021 follows a 47% increase in 2019. These increases have likely been contributed to by criminals using the Internet to abuse and exploit children.

The Statistics Canada report from this August states:

For many child sexual exploitation and abuse violations, the incidents that occur are committed online as cybercrimes. For instance, 61% of incidents of child pornography and 20% of sexual violations against children were recorded as cybercrimes. The pandemic has potentially exacerbated issues related to cybercrimes for these offences as children have been more likely to be staying at home and individuals are more likely to use the internet to engage with others.

It is also shocking to see that in 2021, there was a 14% increase in sexual violations against children. A Statistics Canada 2021 report on the 2020 data detailed how child sexual abuse material is a growing problem across our nation, especially in my home province of British Columbia. The 2021 report showed that among Canada's census metropolitan areas, or CMAs, Vancouver, Montreal, Winnipeg and Victoria reported the largest increases in the number of child pornography violations. Together, these four CMAs represented 75% of the increase in incidents of child pornography among CMAs from 2019 to 2020.

The same 2021 report further demonstrated how from 2019 to 2020, incidents of child sexual abuse material significantly increased across Canada. The majority of the national increase was due to more incidents in British Columbia and Quebec, but the data showed troubling increases in other provinces as well. This includes 81% more incidents in New Brunswick and 55% more incidents in Nova Scotia.

The data is truly shocking, but it is not enough for us as parliamentarians to be just shocked. These realities demand a response, especially our response as parliamentarians. By passing this bill, we can strengthen our Criminal Code. We can acknowledge the true severity and often long-lasting effects of child sexual abuse material inflicted on victims. We can also demonstrate the responsiveness that Canadians expect and deserve from us as parliamentarians.

At this juncture, the first hour of second reading debate, I will welcome input from all parties represented here in this chamber for this important debate. Child sexual abuse material is a growing problem across our nation, as I pointed out in the report from Statistics Canada, and Canadians look to us, their elected representatives, to take the steps, big and small, that are required to deal with problems like child sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

I believe this bill is a step in the right direction. It is a small but important part of the response that must be issued by Parliament, and I hope that this debate will lead us to an outcome that benefits Canadians, especially Canada's children and the communities that look to us to deliver results.

In closing, I would again like to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for his work in drafting Bill C-291 and his passion for improving our federal statutes of law.

I commit to answering members’ questions today on this bill to the best of my ability. I commit to listening to members’ input, their suggestions and the interventions of other members as we participate in debate today and in the future. I commit to the dialogue we need for moving this bill diligently and expeditiously through the debate and committee stages so that it can continue through the legislative process to receive royal assent. I feel it is so important for Canadians, especially our children.

I commit to working with all to deliver results for Canada.

Bill C-291

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hearken back to my maiden speech today to discuss something I am passionate about. It is time we stop using the phrase “child pornography”. Words matter, and the term child pornography sanitizes the extreme harm caused to children. Pornography describes media between consenting adults. Children can never consent to sexual activity with adults.

This is why any sexual depiction of a child must be called what it is: sexual abuse. Last week, my hon. colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap tabled Bill C-291 to change all references of “child pornography” in the criminal code to “child sexual abuse material”.

I am deeply grateful to him for tabling this bill, which I authored, and using his slot in the order of precedence so the bill can be passed without delay. This is a change that victims and advocates have been seeking for far too long. The time to make this simple yet meaningful change is now, and I exhort the House to do so as quickly as possible.

Criminal Code

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse material).

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

First, I want to thank the bill's author and seconder, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. The private members' draw resulted in my name being drawn much earlier than that of the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, so we agreed to use my earlier draw to get this bill tabled, and hopefully passed, in Parliament.

My hon. colleague's experience as a prosecutor brought to light the issue of how the Criminal Code uses the term “child pornography”. The term “child pornography” sanitizes what children go through, having never given consent. Child victims will have their victimization live on in perpetuity, and the words used in the Criminal Code must reflect the seriousness of this so that it is correctly understood within and throughout the judicial system.

This is a simple but necessary bill. It would simply change the name of “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material”. That is all.

Words matter. “Pornography” is used to describe media depicting or describing consenting adults. Children can never consent to sexual activity with adults. That is why any sexualized depiction of children must be called what it is: abuse.

I call on all members of the House to support the prompt passage of this bill.

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