Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I would like to express my very sincere thanks to all of you for being here today. This is one of the Committee meetings I have found most valuable. We are talking about what it is to be human. And that is an opportunity for us to think about what we want as a society.
Our society is made up of adults and children. Until what age are children considered to be children? Let me give you an example. Under international law, a child cannot be stigmatized for being forced to enroll in the army or engage in combat. We have the example of a young Omar Khadr who, at the age of 13, was forced into training and then arrested at 15. This government tolerated both his being in prison and being tortured. We also need to talk about that. Are we at a point where we can pass laws that do not discriminate, when dealing with children who have been victimized under similar circumstances? That is what we are talking about here. It is a societal choice; a question of values. It is with that in mind that I'm asking my colleague, Mr. Vellacott, to give this some thought. That is the wrong track.
Otherwise we will be calling into question the age at which one is still considered a child. Is it five years of age or is it six? Or is it until the age of 16, as is the case under our current laws? It would seem that those laws don't mean anything anymore and that the age can now be set at 13 or 15. That is what we are discussing here.
Mr. Vellacott mentioned bills, including some which we supported. They penalize the individual that committed the crime, but they contain nothing—or practically nothing—for the victim. Since I have been a member of Parliament, this is the first time I have seen a bill come before us that aims to help victims' families. Why is it not treated as such?
I'm asking all parliamentarians to recall the bill the Liberals brought forward in 2005 relating to people suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome or war wounds. What was done in that case? Well, a bill was drafted, dealt with on a priority basis and then passed. We agreed, when the session adjourned, that it wasn't perfect, and we can see that today. The parties are now agreeing to make changes so that, rather than a single payment, money will be paid out gradually. And our experience is what allowed us to do that.
I very much appreciate the fact that people who have lived through these kinds of ordeals are appearing before us today. One experienced a terrible tragedy when her child went missing. Two other individuals have outstanding expertise in the legal field. That is exceptional. Two weeks from now, we will be hearing from Mr. Bolduc, whose child was a victim of crime.
There are two important questions. Do we consider a child to be a child, with all the protections that this implies? It is a societal choice. The other question, which is also a societal choice—and in that respect, I want to thank you, Ms. Gaudreault—is whether we want to create new law in this area. Canada has often set an example in that regard. It's not a matter of wondering whether we have the audacity or the courage to do it, but rather, whether this is our duty.