Mr. Speaker, this bill to a certain extent does make me think of tourism. Not to make light of the issue; the issue is desperately serious. The sex tourism business is an absolute scourge and by all means must be wiped out. But this bill does not do it.
This bill reminds me of being a tourist somewhere in England where I saw a suit of armour which was the real, authentic thing. Obviously if a person had gone into battle with that suit of armour it would have offered some kind of protection. It is rather interesting that about a year later I happened to be going through a wax museum or some such thing in Victoria, British Columbia, where again I saw the same suit of armour. However, the difference was that suit of armour was made out of plastic.
Imagine, if we were to go back to the time of King Arthur, the difference between going into battle with the real suit of armour and going into battle with what appeared to be the real suit of armour but which was only plastic. The very first time the person wearing that suit of armour was engaged in battle he would have been fatally wounded.
And so it is with this bill. The bill appears to be a suit of armour. This clause appears to be something that would be effective and would actually work. However, it is like all the other trappings the government continuously comes forward with.
In another life I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, were and perhaps still are a lawyer. You would know as a lawyer that when evidence is going to be collected in another country, under what terms and conditions is the evidence collected? Who is able to actually clearly state that the evidence is real? What about the difference in jurisdiction? What about the difference in standards of proof between the two justice systems, between the country where the offence is taking place and where the adjudication would actually take place?
This bill is nothing more than a plastic suit of armour and it is so typical of the Liberals that they would be trying to trot this out and actually say that the bill is going to make a move in the direction that is so desperately needed.
Taking a look at the total motion before the House, Bill C-27, and the fact that it includes child prostitution, child sex tourism, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation, clearly this is nothing more that window dressing by the justice minister where he has pulled together all of these bits and pieces so at the end of the day he can say "see, we tried, we made some kind motion in the direction we need to be going".
This bill is a plastic suit of armour that will fall to any lawyer coming in right after being called to the bar. How can there be a case, as has been pointed out by my colleague from Crowfoot, where an individual witnessing the sex tourism business has to go to another individual who in turn has to inform the justice minister? The justice minister would then have to inform the officials. The officials would then have to write letters, and heaven only knows if we have not learned something about the justice department writing letters in the Airbus affair I do not know when we will.
The letters go to the country where the alleged offence took place. People take a look at them and try to make decisions about what they should do. They then turn around and perhaps they go out to get some witnesses. They try to collect evidence. There would not be that much evidence related to this case. After obtaining the evidence it would be transported back to Canada where this lawyer freshly having been called to the bar would squash it right out of sight. This is nothing more than plastic art-