Debates of April 18th, 2002

Privilege

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, the minister unfortunately could not remain but she did speak to me on the subject. Obviously, from the description of the documentation that the hon. member just gave, there is a clear distinction between a notice that is subject to a 15 day review and the actual awarding of the contract.

So that factually the minister's answer was correct. No tender has been awarded at this point.

[The Speaker]

The Chair will take the matter under advisement and get back to the House at an early opportunity. I thank the two hon. members who have made submissions on this matter for their intervention.

The Chair has notice of a point of order from the hon. member for Battlefords--Lloydminster.

Points of Order

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question from my colleague from Macleod, the Minister of National Defence twice stated that he would be happy to table the cost breakdown on the contract for the new Challengers.

Unfortunately, I guess he forgot shortly after question period. I am wondering if the Chair could maybe expedite that for us. Maybe the minister could table it today.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has certain powers but they are not ones that enable me to table documents on behalf of other hon. members. Perhaps the hon. member for Battlefords--Lloydminster, in addition to having raised the matter so capably now as a point of order, could drop a little note to the minister reminding him of his undertaking. I suspect he might find the necessary documentation would be forthcoming. We will hope so and I am sure if not, I will hear from the hon. member again.

Business of the House

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today being Thursday, it is my duty at this time to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what business he has for the remainder of today, tomorrow and the following week.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, for four days this week the House could have had thoughtful and fulsome debate on the report stage of Bill C-5 about species at risk. Unfortunately, the official opposition did not appear particularly interested in that.

Nevertheless, I will continue to consult with opposition House leaders to try to reach agreement on how to complete the debate on that very important legislation and I hope that there will be more interest shown than we have seen so far.

In the meantime, the House will proceed this afternoon with consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-15A, amending the criminal code. Tomorrow we will debate Bill S-34, respecting royal assent, followed by Bill S-40, respecting financial clearing houses.

On Monday we will return to any unfinished business from this week and, if there is time, we will turn to Bill C-15B, which of course is another criminal code amendment.

Later next week, if Bill C-50, the bill dealing with the WTO, and Bill C-49, dealing with excise, are in fact reported back to the House from committee in time, we will deal with their final stages as well as concluding any business left over from Monday.

As the House already knows, Tuesday, April 23 and Thursday, April 25 will be allotted days.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to say I regret that the government House leader missed my thoughtful two hour speech yesterday afternoon.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in Amendments Nos. 1( b ) and 2 amde by the Senate to Bill C15A, and act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts; and that a message be sent to the Senate acquainting Their Honours with the non-concurrence this House with the amendment numbered 1( a ) made by the Senate to Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, because the amendment could exempt offenders from criminal liability even in cases where they knowingly transmit or make available child pornography.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-15A, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts, in short, the criminal law amendment act, 2001.

Hon. members will be aware that Bill C-15A received third reading and was passed by the Senate on March 19. After careful study and reflection, the Senate adopted three amendments to Bill C-15A. The House now has an opportunity to consider and vote on these amendments. I will briefly summarize the amendments in the order that they appear in the bill. They are as follows.

First is an amendment to clause 5 of the bill to add new subsections 163.1(3.1) and subsection 163.1(3.2) to the criminal code, the effect of which would be to exempt Internet service providers, ISPs, from criminal liability for the new offences of “transmitting”, “making available” and “exporting” child pornography, where the ISP “merely provides the means or facilities of telecommunication”. This is referred to as amendment 1(a) in the message from the Senate.

Second is an addition to clause 5 of Bill C-15A to amend subsection 163.1(6) and subsection 163.1(7) of the criminal code in order to ensure that the defences that are currently available in relation to child pornography offences apply equally to the new offence of accessing child pornography. That is referred to as amendment 1(b) in the message from the Senate.

Third is an amendment to clause 71 of the bill, that is, proposed subsection 696.2(3) of the criminal code, dealing with the process for review of allegations of wrongful conviction which would limit the minister's power to delegate the exercise of the new investigative powers to members of the bar of a province, retired judges or any other individual who, in the opinion of the minister, has similar background or experience. This is referred to as amendment 2 in the message from the Senate.

The government recognizes the important role played by the Senate in its consideration of this legislation. The government accepts the second and third amendments and acknowledges that these changes are improvements to the bill. I urge hon. members to vote in favour of these two amendments. However, the first amendment dealing with the Internet service providers is a different matter. I urge hon. members to reject this change to the bill. Let us look more closely at these amendments.

The second amendment to clause 5 of the bill is a consequential amendment that adds a cross-reference to the new offence of accessing child pornography into subsections 163.1(6) and 163.1(7) of the criminal code. As already noted, the sole effect of this amendment would be to ensure that defences that are currently available in relation to all other child pornography offences apply equally to the offence of “accessing” child pornography under subsection (4.1).

This amendment is necessary to avoid creating an unfair situation where a defence that is available to other and possibly more serious child pornography offences would not be available to a charge of “accessing child pornography”. This amendment corrects an oversight and the government supports it.

Turning to the third amendment, hon. members will be aware that the federal Minister of Justice exercises special post-appellate powers in review of criminal convictions. Proposed subsection 696.2(2) provides the minister with the investigative powers of commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act. This will provide the minister with the power to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses to provide information.

These additional powers of investigation are needed to improve the range and extent of the reviews of alleged wrongful conviction. Proposed subsection 696.2(3) as passed by the House would have allowed the minister to delegate the exercise of those investigative powers to “any individual”.

An amendment was made to subsection 696.2(3) in the Senate to specifically state that the minister may only delegate the exercise of those investigative powers to “any member in good standing of the bar of a province, retired judge or any other individual who in the opinion of the minister has similar background or experience”.

The government supports this amendment for the following reasons. It is important that those persons investigating cases on behalf of the minister have the ability to obtain the necessary information in order to thoroughly review and investigate a case so that a full report may be made to the minister as to whether or not a remedy is appropriate in a particular case.

Section 690 currently does not provide any powers to compel witnesses to give information or documents. Therefore there is no way that the information sought can be obtained if it cannot be obtained voluntarily.

For these special post-appellate powers to be exercised in a well balanced and reasonable fashion, the Minister of Justice needs to rely on sound legal advice based on good and reliable information.

The highly complex legal nature of these post-appellate conviction reviews requires that the people investigating these matters and eventually providing advice to the Minister of Justice possess a considerable knowledge of criminal law, the law of evidence, police practices and the workings of the judicial process. Therefore a legal background or substantial experience in law should be a requirement for a person to be designated as an investigator with the power to compel the production of evidence and the attendance of witnesses.

The Senate amendment allows the minister to appoint people the minister will trust and directs the minister's choice to persons having specialized legal experience. Again, the government accepts and supports this amendment.

Returning now to the first amendment to clause 5 of the bill, I ask hon. members to give careful consideration to this amendment as it is very problematic. It was made in an attempt to respond to concerns expressed by the Internet service providers to the effect that they could be convicted of “transmitting” or “making available” child pornography without any knowledge or intention to do so simply by virtue of the fact that they provide the “means” by which child pornography is disseminated.

These concerns are not well founded. New child pornography offences in Bill C-15A as well as the existing offences require both a guilty mind and a guilty act, a fact acknowledged by the Internet service providers. As with other criminal code offences, an offence of transmitting child pornography requires two critical components, the first component being an intention to transmit child pornography and the second component being the physical act of transmitting child pornography. Even without the Senate amendment, ISPs would not commit a child pornography offence when they do not have the knowledge of the content of the material stored on or going through their system.

Apart from being unnecessary, there is a more serious problem with the Senate amendment. The amendment exempts the ISPs from criminal liability in all cases where they merely provide the means or facilities of telecommunication. This exemption would apply even in cases where an ISP is aware that it is being used for the dissemination of child pornography because the ISP would still “merely provide the means or facilities of telecommunication”. As I mentioned earlier, ISPs who are unaware that their facilities are being used for such purpose would be insulated from criminal liability without the need for the amendment because they would not have the mental element, or the guilty mind if you will, that is necessary for committing a child pornography offence.

There is another problem with this amendment. The offences proposed by subclause 5(2) are not limited to the commission by means of the Internet. By exempting only the ISPs, the amendment ignores those who are responsible for other means or facilities that may be used for disseminating child pornography. Whether they be a courier, a taxi driver or even a trucker, they could unknowingly be used as a “conduit” or means of transmitting child pornography. Accepting an amendment to protect only one of the actors involved would cast a doubt on the legal fate of the other actors.

For all of these reasons, this amendment should be rejected by the House.

In conclusion, I strongly urge all hon. members to vote in favour of the second and third Senate amendments, amendments 1(b) and 2 in the message from the Senate, and to vote against the first amendment relating to the Internet service providers. That would be amendment 1(a) in the message from the Senate.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise with respect to the issue.

I remind members in the House that in the fall all opposition parties agreed to pass Bill C-15A as quickly as possible if the justice minister would agree to split the omnibus Bill C-15 into two parts. That did occur. Bill C-15 became Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B so we could move ahead as quickly as possible on Bill C-15A as a whole. However in view not only of the comments raised today but of other issues, events have overtaken the legislation. In particular, the decision of the British Columbia supreme court in the Sharpe case has raised new and troubling concerns hon. members will need to address.

Bill C-15A would create the offence of luring a child by means of a computer system. Under this offence a child would be defined by the ages already set out in the criminal code. Accordingly, it would be a crime with a maximum punishment of five years to use the Internet to lure a person under the age of 18 for purposes of prostitution, child pornography, sexual assault, incest or, where the accused is in a position of trust, sexual touching. It would prohibit the use of the Internet for luring persons under the age of 16 for abduction from his or her parents and for luring persons under the age of 14 for sexual interference.

Under Bill C-15A transmitting, making available or exporting child pornography through a computer system would be an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years. The bill would prohibit persons from intentionally accessing child pornography on the Internet. The maximum penalty would be five years and the material could be liable to forfeiture.

A motion has been brought forward to ask that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House disagrees with the amendment. I too have concerns about the clause. Generally speaking we support the intent of the Senate to protect innocent third parties from prosecution without an appropriate level of mens rea. I will not get into the legal discussion because the parliamentary secretary has gone into it in some detail. I agree with many of the parliamentary secretary's comments in that respect.

I will address the concern of mens rea. The government's concern that the protection is too broad and may exempt some offenders is valid. There should be an amendment to require criminal intent or state that there must be a clear expression of criminal intent. I noted with interest the government's position with respect to mens rea. It indicated there is some clarity but has not proceeded in the same fashion with respect to Bill C-5, which has been the subject of substantive and fruitful debate with respect to a number of issues.

Lately it has been more about the protection of property rights. The government should not have the ability to take away people's property without fair and reasonable compensation being determined by the courts or some other objective tribunal. Compensation should never be left solely in the hands of the government. Property is far too important an instrument in our society to be left at the free disposal of government.

Not only did we in my party have concerns with respect to property rights in Bill C-5. We were concerned the bill would not accept one of the most important legal principles in a just and democratic society: that where one is charged with a criminal offence there be an appropriate level of mens rea. We must examine this statute closely to ensure it is there. We do not want to see innocent third parties, whether Internet providers, couriers, truck drivers or anyone, prosecuted for a criminal offence where there is no appropriate level of mens rea.

While the Senate amendment was a valid concern, the response the Senate has provided to the House is not satisfactory in ensuring that while innocent people would be safe from prosecution the guilty would be appropriately convicted where an appropriate level of mens rea was demonstrated in the context of the prosecution.

The second issue I will deal with is much more troubling. The amendment would replace subsections 163.1(6) and (7) of the act with:

(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3), (4), or (4.1), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

I emphasize the words artistic merit.

The amendment would apply existing defences for child pornography to child pornography on the Internet to ensure consistency. This must be carefully considered in light of the March 26, 2002 B.C. supreme court decision on the child pornography case involving Mr. Sharpe. It was ruled that he could not be convicted for his violent writings because they had artistic merit despite being sadomasochistic in nature and glorifying these types of acts by adults in relation to children.

Members on this side of the House and we in the Canadian Alliance believe the decision does not properly reflect society's interest in protecting children from sexual predators. In protecting Mr. Sharpe's violent writings which target vulnerable children the court's interpretation of artistic merit has been too broad.

We urge the British Columbia attorney general to review the case carefully. He has the power to do so. In British Columbia if the attorney general instructs an appeal he must set it out in writing. Whatever the mechanism, whether he personally instructs the appeal or whether it is done by crown prosecutors acting on his behalf, I urge the B.C attorney general to appeal the Sharpe case.

There are a number of other concerns. I will take time to examine a proposal and give credit to the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge. Yes, he is on the other side of the House but I commend him for taking a proactive role in bringing together members of the House with members of the police and other communities to deal with the troubling decision of the B.C. supreme court.

On Tuesday, April 16 almost 30 members of parliament met with police officials, psychiatrists and others related to this important issue who work with the police in prosecuting these matters. We had a profitable discussion. The hon. member for Calgary Southeast was there and contributed in a positive way to the discussion. We saw things that absolutely horrified members of parliament. We heard the anxiety of police and other professionals regarding the problematic issue of child pornography.

The police showed us pictures. They were run of the mill pictures in the context of this horrible activity which showed physical and sexual assaults on children. I am not a good estimator of age but they were very young children. The police told us children as young as six months or younger are subjected to this kind of abuse in Canada and pictures and other materials depicting the abuse are circulated on the Internet or through written documentation.

I can only imagine what it must be like to be a police officer on the front lines trying to protect our society against this filth. They have to examine it on a daily basis to present cases to court and achieve convictions. It is a difficult situation. In one case police seized 400,000 pictures. Can we even imagine 400,000 pictures? The police must go through each and every picture and categorize it to present a brief to defence counsel for the purposes of the defence. One case in Toronto has virtually overwhelmed the unit in charge of these investigations.

The police need our assistance. The children of Canada need our assistance. I examined the provisions of the criminal code this morning. I looked at the defences available with respect to advocating genocide and hate literature. I did not see anything in the criminal code that said people were allowed to advocate the killing of another human being and have an exception of artistic merit.

Can members imagine me standing and arguing in the House that butchers who advocate hate and the murder of human beings should have the defence of artistic merit? It is inconceivable. Yet for some reason parliament has said this when talking about the sexual and violent abuse of children as young as six months and even younger.

There were some horrifying things that were taught to us that evening, sexual assault on children where the umbilical cord was still present. I cannot even imagine it.

When I was a prosecutor I prosecuted pornography cases. I was involved on behalf of the government of Manitoba in the Butler case. This involved so-called adult pornography. I was horrified by some of things I saw. The deterioration of the ability of our law not only to protect adult human beings but now children is very troubling.

In the Butler case the supreme court clearly said that the combination of harm and sexual exploitation was not acceptable. It is sufficient for parliament to prohibit that. We have clear direction from the supreme court in the Butler case that says the combination of those two, the exploitation of sex in conjunction with violence, is wrong and parliament has the legal and moral right to pass laws that prohibit that in respect of adults.

What do we say about children? We say that, yes, we can abuse or depict pictures of children as young as six months old being violently abused. Yet we are worried about the defence of artistic merit. How can there possibly be, in a free, just and democratic society, an ability to ever tolerate that kind of abuse of children? How can the weighing of the interests of freedom of expression against that kind of harm ever come out to that conclusion? Then that kind of material must be banned.

I was troubled by a number of supreme court decisions. I took a position on behalf of the government of Manitoba against it, to see the expansion of freedom of expression to include things beyond our traditional British and Canadian understanding of free expression as relating to the exchange of political ideas and other types of ideas. That was certainly the understanding that most had when we enacted the charter.

I appeared before the supreme court on behalf of the government of Manitoba in the reference to subsection 193.1(1)(c) of the criminal code relating to the communication of prostitution or prostitution-related messages. The Supreme Court of Canada said the communication for sexual purposes on a public street corner was protected by free speech.

It upheld the legislation itself, the prohibition against that, on the basis of subsection 1. As a result the prohibition stood in that case. In the Butler case, it said that pornographic materials fell within subsection 2(b) of the charter of freedom of expression. As a result it upheld the prohibition on the basis of subsection 1. Given the result we wanted, we won the case.

If we look at the reasoning of that decision, there is the genesis of the result we see in the Sharpe decision, the breaking down of the abhorrence of this kind of activity.

The issue that is before us today is much more significant than it would have been even a month ago. When the first Sharpe decision came out members on this side said to use the notwithstanding clause. They said to get rid of that decision because it was wrong, it was perverse. We wanted the government to appeal the decision using the notwithstanding clause right away to stem the tide of this filth.

What was said by ministers on the other side, but not all members on the other side I might add, was that they had faith in the British Columbia court of appeal to do the right thing. The British Columbia court of appeal did not do the right thing. It absolutely did the wrong thing.

As politicians we should not be afraid to say that a court has made a mistake. The courts enter the political arena and make decisions on political bases, no less than members of the House do. The only difference is that if I were to stand in the House and say that freedom of expression should include the sexual exploitation of children, I would be expelled from this House, and rightly so.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we do not have the same kind of control over the judiciary because it is independent. Independence does not mean that it cannot be held accountable. Ultimately it is this House that must hold it accountable if it comes out with perverse decisions.

That is the purpose of the notwithstanding clause, to correct the serious mistakes that have been made that damage the fabric of our nation and destroy the broader societal values that hold our country together. The kind of decisions that were made by Justice Duncan Shaw tears apart the moral fabric of our nation.

We not only have the right but the obligation to move in that direction. When the British Columbia court of appeal failed to do the right thing this House should have done the right thing by passing the notwithstanding clause and appealing that court's decision in the Supreme Court of Canada. The notwithstanding clause is a five year term. It is a temporary override but we should have used it and we should not apologize for it.

Our political agenda is different than the political agenda of the courts. The political agenda of the courts is primarily to defend the individual rights of Canadians. Our responsibility is to look at that decision, weigh it and to say that through the use of the notwithstanding clause the individual rights of a child pornographer to glorify the violent sexual exploitation of children should be subject to the wishes of the people of Canada in preventing that type of activity from occurring.

I want to get back to what the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge said. He prepared an important paper for our discussion on child protection issues and options. He just presented this paper to me and I have had occasion to read some it. The ideas are good ones. They come as a result of the committee meeting that he chaired. True to his word he said he would work quickly on this issue to get something before us so we could consider this at our next meeting.

It is important for us to consider this at our next meeting. The member deserves to be commended. However it is not just the meeting of that group of 30 MPs who need to consider the recommendations that flow out of the discussions that all of us had on Tuesday, April 16.

There are numerous decisions and recommendations made in this paper. In view of the Senate motion, the Sharpe decision, and the work that has been done on this paper we need to think very clearly about what we should be doing as a House.

There are all kinds of amendments. One of the amendments that must be made which is not set out specifically in the member's paper, but which was raised by the police and other members at that meeting, is the keeping of information by Internet providers. It was stressed at the meeting of April 16 that police, in investigating these serious crimes, were met with the challenge that there was no obligation on the part of Internet providers to store information.

One might think that is a huge challenge but it is not. Other countries have laws where they require the retention and storage of this information for six months, a year or otherwise. It can be done. It is done in other countries and it can be done here. We must bear that in mind.

The recommendations, the issues identified and the options set out in this paper must not be considered by only members on this side of the House, backbench members or frontbench members across the way. The Minister of Justice must read this document. This is good work. It is the expression of the careful thought of the people present at that meeting and the expression of the hard work of the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, and it should not be discarded.

Parliamentarians and ministers stand up, throw their hands up and say what will we do about this? There is a good start here. It is not just because it corresponds with my thoughts on many of the issues. Perhaps it was a happy coincidence but this comes from years of reflection by the member on this issue and by other members on this issue.

There are issues and I want to deal with some of them because they are important. I want the record to show that there are solutions to these problems. It is not sufficient for us to say that the courts have decided and we would like to help the people of Canada but we cannot. To shrug our shoulders is an avoidance of our responsibility.

Parliamentarians, government policy advisers and government lawyers look at the charter as a barrier to social progress and programs that need to be implemented. Instead of looking at what the problem is and setting out a solution that works, often these policy advisers look at the charter, anticipate what the reaction of judges is going to be and then create the policy in that context. The result is a solution that does not work.

We have seen it in the context of the organized crime law. I can tell the House, not because I am a prophet but because I know, that legislation will fail. It will fail because the excuse that was offered consistently in refusing to follow recommendations that would have ensured effective legislation was “our charter does not allow us to do that kind of thing”.

Rather than setting it out in the legislation and addressing the problem, they concerned themselves with what the reaction of the judges would be. We should not do that. We should create solutions that address the problems and then prepare the legal arguments that justify our position. That is the nature of the political debate, or it should be the nature of political debate between the House and the judiciary in the Supreme Court of Canada.

We should not make an apology that we have genuine political differences and genuine differences of interest. We do not think consistently on all occasions. We share general principles to which we want to adhere and see enacted to strengthen our country.

The point I am getting to is the options paper that was written. This paper in a thoughtful way, mindful of constitutional parameters in a general way, suggests solutions that work and presents us with options. There are options that may affect an appropriate result. For example, issue two on page two of the options paper gets right to the Senate amendment and that is why this discussion is relevant. The member has written:

The defence of artistic merit 163.1(6) as currently expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada and interpreted by Justice Shaw exempts child pornography clearly harmful to children as the subject of criminal prosecution.

He brings forward four options, some not necessarily exclusive of each other but options that we should be considering.

The first one is to eliminate the defence of artistic merit to child pornography by repealing section 163.1(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada. People ask how we can repeal the defence of artistic merit when in the judgment of the supreme court there is a reference to artistic merit. Have we constitutionalized the defence of artistic merit in respect of child pornography? We have not done it in respect of hate literature or the advocacy of genocide. Why should children be the subject of abuse, of violent sexual attacks, and allow these sexual predators to rely on artistic merit?

If we amend the legislation to delete artistic merit completely, I want to hear the Supreme Court of Canada say “There is artistic merit in the sexual abuse and the depiction of that sexual abuse of six month old children”. If that is what the court is going to say, then the House has another responsibility and we have alternatives, but let us not anticipate what the court is going to say.

Personally I do not believe that Mr. Justice Shaw got it right. I think he got it wrong. The judiciary should be given a chance. We need to appeal this matter, but in the meantime let us look at the option of eliminating the artistic merit defence. In this respect, I have a serious problem with the motion.

The second option is to amend section 163.1(6) to apply a community standards test similar to the Butler decision. What a wonderful opportunity we have here. If in the context of adult pornography where there is a combination of violence and sex that can be prohibited on the basis of community standards, why would the same defence not be available in the context of child pornography and the abuse of children? Eliminate artistic merit and bring in the community standards test specifically. I am surprised that there is not already implicit in that offence the understanding that somehow the community cannot tolerate this kind of activity.

The third option is directly relevant to some of the comments I have been making. The member has identified the option to include the definition of child pornography as part of the hate crimes section 319, which has a different and more restrictive exemption. Again this is a very different type of exemption. There are exemptions but they are not of the nature that we have seen that allow the child pornographers to do what they do to our children and our grandchildren.

The last option under issue two is to amend section 163.1(6) to exclude material of which a prominent characteristic is not the description of a legal sexual activity involving children or which is not intended for sexual gratification. It is a little more technical but it is an option.

To the minister who might be tempted to throw up his hands and shrug his shoulders, although I have not seen him do that yet and he has not commented on the decision, I would ask him to read this paper before he does that. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to the minister to read the paper and consider our options. Let us not apologize for standing up to protect children from sexual, violent abuse.

In summary, I feel that these are issues which needed to be said. I again thank the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge for the paper. True to his word, he delivered in record time. On behalf of all the members who are in the House or were at the meeting on April 16, I thank the hon. member. This is a good start and we can conclude on a positive note if the minister and the cabinet consider these options and recommendations very seriously.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which deals with child pornography.

I will begin by giving a brief background to Bill C-15. The opposition parties and the Bloc Quebecois asked the government to split this bill, because it addressed a lot of unrelated issues.

We asked the government to split Bill C-15 in two distinct pieces of legislation, Bill C-15A, to deal with child pornography, and Bill C-15B, to address firearms and cruelty to animals.

The government agreed. So, I am very pleased to speak, on behalf of my hon. colleague from Berthier--Montcalm, to the amendments made by the Senate. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague for his remarkable work on the issue of justice.

Last week, I attended an event in his riding which brought together over 300 people. It gave me the chance to realize how much his constituents appreciate his excellent work on justice.

I would like to state the Bloc Quebecois' position with regard to the first amendment proposed by the Senate. We are, as is the government, against this amendment. It was aimed at ensuring that people whose equipment is used for illegal purposes, probably without their knowledge, would not be prosecuted. But it opens a door that is wider than the one it is trying to close. This amendment is totally useless. It is even dangerous.

The concept of mens rea is implicit in the criminal code. Therefore, the custodian of a computer that would be used by a third party for illegal purposes cannot be prosecuted if there was no criminal intent, which is required for any criminal offence.

However, with the amendment proposed by the Senate, the custodian would be protected against prosecution even if he or she was fully aware of the purpose for which the equipment was used. The concept of intent is no longer important. Whether that person was aware or not of what was going on, he or she cannot be prosecuted and can therefore facilitate pedophilia with total impunity.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois is against this amendment to Bill C-15A. It is totally useless and even dangerous.

As for the second amendment proposed by the Senate, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of that amendment. It is simply aimed at correcting what was probably an oversight resulting from the creation of a new offence related to juvenile pornography.

Obviously, if we protect from prosecution any person who produces, distributes, sells or possesses juvenile pornography for educational, scientific or medical purposes or in cases where such material has artistic merit, then we must afford the same protection to those who access it. Through this amendment, the senators have shown a lot of imagination in finally clarifying that clause of the bill.

As for the third amendment, we are in favour of it because it specifies those to whom the powers of the Minister of Justice can be delegated.

The old wording read “any individual”. The new wording specifies that the suitable people will be, and I quote:

—any member in good standing of the bar of a province, retired judge or any other individual who, in the opinion of the Minister, has similar background or experience—

With this amendment proposed by the Senate, the minister's powers to act cannot be delegated to just anyone. This is comforting, because we are talking about child pornography, and those to whom the powers of the minister are delegated must at least be competent people who are able to identify the issues involved.

I would have appreciated it if the government had demonstrated as much openness toward the bill that I introduced last week regarding sexual offences, more specifically pedophilia, as it has demonstrated toward Bill C-15A.

My colleague from the Canadian Alliance said earlier that we have the moral right to pass legislation to protect our young people, the children of this country. We, as legislators, must do so, given that young people are not able to.

The issue that my bill dealt with was no bigger than that of child pornography, in Bill C-15A. However, it was a current issue.

Why are these amendments being proposed to the criminal code regarding child pornography on the Internet? Because the criminal code needed updating, and today, 20 years later, we are in the age of the Internet.

This bill allows us to deal with the age of the Internet. Everything that our friend from the Canadian Alliance described, in referring to the meeting that he attended, is true. We can no longer hide our heads in the sand about what is happening on the Internet. It was time to act.

This same openness should have been demonstrated when it comes to criminal acts committed by pedophiles against youth under the age of 14. This is also a current issue.

Last week, instead of being open-minded and acknowledging the problem, instead of realizing that it was no longer an option to keep one's head in the sand about all the sexual offences being perpetrated against our children these days, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice should have demonstrated the same open-mindedness and given some thought to a problem which all members on both sides of the House have been lobbied about at their riding offices or here in the House of Commons. Increasingly, we are talking about pedophilia.

In my riding, and in Quebec, 40,000 people signed a petition calling on the government to take action with respect to pedophilia against young people under the age of 14. This was not just something I dreamed up.

Over 40,000 people signed a petition, which I tabled in the House, calling on the government to amend the criminal code for this offence.

After I spoke last week, I received many calls in my riding, as did other colleagues. People did not understand the government's refusal to take action on this problem, which is just as serious as child pornography.

I am still very moved. I remember all the young people who came to talk to me about this issue in my riding office. They told me “The government must give us some means, it must help us. We cannot act. We are the victims. We do not have the means to overcome this psychological, physical and mental ordeal”.

The purpose of my bill was to open the door a little bit to allow these young people to come and express themselves, to see a ray of light. Indeed, when one opens the door and there is a bright sunshine, a little ray of light brightens up the house. I wanted to help them have that.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice only talked about big money. He said that it would cost too much, that it did not make sense, that the answer was no. He only talked about big money. He did not put himself in the place of the young people who are the victims of these criminal acts. He did not want to do that. He did not even recognize that the problem existed.

I only asked him to allow these young people and their parents to come and tell their story. They could have come to a committee sitting and explained to parliamentarians what they and their parents are going through. We could have finally opened the door a crack and taken a close look at this issue, as we are doing with child pornography on the Internet. My request was rejected. Both times I asked for the unanimous consent of the House, two female government members refused to give that consent. This hurt even more. Us women are confronted with this issue.

It is the same thing with this bill. Yes, the Bloc Quebecois supports amendments Nos. 2 and 3 from the Senate, but it is opposed to amendment No. 1. We had to take action, and this government allowed us to do so. As the Canadian Alliance member said, it designed tools to deal with abnormal things that can be seen on Internet sites involved in child pornography.

Let us face it: there is a growing number of perverts. We are not immune to everything that relates to perversity. We cannot think about all the things that these people can imagine. But today, with these amendments, we can give some powers to people in positions of authority, so that, at last, child pornography on the Internet can be monitored more closely.

There are other problems affecting our young people. The Canadian Alliance member was telling us about assaults on children younger than six, about dreadful photos on the Internet. Everything connected with pedophilia is dreadful. It affects the child's soul as well as his body. His inner being is violated. The member spoke to us of photos on the Net. These young people have been violated to their very core.

I trust that this government, which has shown open-mindedness concerning this problem, will note that in future I will not give up.

I will continue my crusade against pedophilia and will introduce a new bill that will focus even more clearly on sexual acts relating to pedophilia.

We can keep our heads in the sand no longer. As the Canadian Alliance member has said, and I would like to repeat his words, parliament has the moral right to pass legislation to help and protect our children. Our children are our future and they are the ones who will be responsible for the development of this country. If we act, our young people will be able to have a healthy future, psychologically, physically and mentally.

I congratulate the senators for their open-mindedness; their two amendments clarify the issues. We can finally say that they have been able to be of use as far as this bill is concerned.

Child pornography is a major problem. I beg this government not to stop any of its efforts relating to the sexual abuse of children.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to a bill referred to the House of Commons by the Senate, Bill C-15A.

At the risk of being extemporaneous, I may have to basically confine my comments to my rudimentary knowledge of the bill, but it is important for us to understand that the context of the bill is a very laudable attempt by the House of Commons to modernize its thinking on the fundamentals of child pornography as it is transmitted and disseminated through the Internet.

It is also equally a bill that has come as a result of a compromise, as has been mentioned earlier by previous members. It is a question of dealing with matters more specifically in a way that would divide this omnibus bill into two areas so that parliament could deal with this very weighty and laudable issue.

I had no idea that the bill was coming up. During the intervention of the member for Provencher, he mentioned a document which I circulated. It is basically an agreement among the 37 members of parliament who attended a meeting which I scheduled in light of the decision, the second round of Sharpe, by Justice Shaw of the B.C. supreme court some three weeks ago. The decision of course, in light of the supreme court decision of the previous year, upheld the validity of the more questionable sections dealing with possession of written material.

This clearly sounded alarm bells for all members of parliament. I want to assure members that the issue of child pornography, and by implication the issue of child pornography for all Canadians, is one that we in our totality do not accept. There is no doubt in the minds of 85% to 90% of Canadians that no amount of the benefit of the doubt should be given to anything other than the protection of children.

It is for this reason that the decision taken by the supreme court, and more recently by Justice Shaw, triggered the need for parliament to act in a way that it was not prepared to do some two and a half years ago. The genesis on this is very clear. Yes, indeed, the hon. member for Provencher mentioned that his side of the House had proposed a motion dealing with the notwithstanding clause. I think there are a panoply of options available to this parliament to address what is for most Canadians a very serious wrong, and I say so respectfully to the supreme court and to the justices with respect to the recent decision.

One of them of course is the notwithstanding issue and the ability of the House to consider in instances where it believes, as it should in this case, that the fundamental right of the protection of children must be paramount.

There is obviously a question that deals with whether or not the Supreme Court of Canada made a correct decision. I will go to section 163 of the SCC decision in January 2001 in which the issue is the defence of artistic merit, which incidentally is contained in the bill but is not amended in the bill proposed through the Senate. It says that where a court finds artistic merit, that it will adjudge that to be a sufficient defence against the prosecutorial powers and the weight of the criminal code as it deals with child pornography.

In essence, the qualification was of such a low threshold that justices in the majority said that artistic merit, however small, would be a sufficient defence to allow somebody who was in possession of written material to provide an excuse or not to be prosecuted. This of course was part and parcel of the decision made just some weeks ago in British Columbia by the same supreme court that earlier referred the issue and referred the child pornography section 163, inter alia, to the Supreme Court of Canada by striking them down.

This has clearly left a vacuum. One can talk of a moral vacuum. One can also speak of a legal vacuum. The reality however is that there is more than just the question of artistic merit. There is also the question of advocacy and counselling, which is really the basis on which the decision was made to allow, in this case, Mr. Sharpe to get off free or receive a get out of jail free card as it relates to written material.

Bill C-15A is an excellent attempt at modernizing parliament's view of child pornography as it is disseminated around the world, but I see two problems.

First, law enforcement agencies across the world and in Canada have readily identified the need for Internet service providers not just to bear some responsibility, but more important, to ensure that the images which they are storing and providing on behalf of clients are also kept for a period of time. The 37 members of parliament who attended the round table function two nights ago know exactly how it is done. There is a technical and serious problem if we do not hold ISP Internet service providers accountable for the undertakings of their accounts. If there is a dissemination of this harmful, deleterious information, then it may be lost forever. That would be the destruction of evidence even if the police and peace officers were able to obtain by warrant or other means the necessary information to provide a conviction.

Bill C-15A also speaks to the shortcomings of resources that can be handled at the House of Commons. This is not a provincial matter, but rather a federal matter that can be dealt with right now in a very timely fashion.

The second concern, which I hope will also be subject to more debate by members of parliament, is the consideration of the much wider impact of artistic merit, which I suspect will create an inordinate amount of controversy over the next few weeks. Parliament has the unique opportunity to begin tackling that. This could be done perhaps with the wisdom of our justice department, the Minister of Justice and his very capable parliamentary secretary who is just a few ridings over from me and a very able member of parliament for the Port Hope and Cobourg area. I am speaking about the member for Northumberland.

I want to talk more broadly about the issue of child pornography because it has been raised in this case.

The hon. member for Provencher talked about my region of Toronto. Many of us were astounded, shocked and probably are still recovering from the idea that there may be as many as 400 pedophiles using the Internet to disseminate material that is directed against children. Our law enforcement agencies are unable to detect these individuals. There is a problem of enforcement. The problem of enforcement is further complicated by the needs, as I was told recently, since January 1.

I pointed out to many colleagues in a letter sent to them some weeks ago that some 750,000 images of over 10,000 different children, some as young as three days old, have been portrayed in pictures seized by police. That is a very small number the police and enforcement agencies have been able to impact. We have a very serious problem that knows no bounds, but for which there must be the blunt instrument and determination of parliament to understand and apply appropriate language.

Most members of parliament should expect to receive within the next 24 hours a copy of proposals and options as well as the issues surrounding child pornography. This material will not just assist this side of the House but will assist all parties to come together on an issue that must not be divided on party lines. I was heartened to hear members of the opposition say that they were not looking to score political points on this. I think they too, as we on this side, recognize the value and importance of getting the wording in the legislation right.

I want to be very careful here. I do not think we should use the notwithstanding clause to protect children until such times as we have exhausted the wording that we think is necessary to protect children. I do not want this House of Commons or parliament to fall or be divided on the basis of semantics, words and language. The irony about words being such an important consideration for the protection of children is that it is simply trivialized by those who say the written word means nothing.

There is an obvious dichotomy that the words have to be written legislatively to protect children against pedophiles. At the same time, the words mean absolutely nothing, particularly when it comes to being in the hands of those who create or possess this information or worse, disseminate it. There is an obvious contradiction there. The House of Commons will have to try to resolve that. It will have to resolve that as quickly as it humanly and possibly can.

I have been challenged by the belief that somehow those who have written information which leads in many cases to the rape, torture and masochism of young children might in some way have some artistic merit and that the merit is somehow subjective.

A child molester and a pedophile are people who have a sickness. These people can never be cured of that sickness. It is a disease. It requires therapy, not obtuse legal reasoning. I cannot give a much better display of where we have surrendered our obligation to posterity than in the case where parliament does not act to fill the void.

I am convinced that the Minister of Justice and parliament are of one mind, that all issues must be put aside until we can deliberate on this issue to ensure the maximum penalties and force of law and to ensure that the charter of rights and freedoms brought forth by the hon. prime minister of many generations ago, Pierre Trudeau, is not intended in any way, shape or form to undermine the rights of children. I point out that while there are those who talk about fundamental freedoms, particularly section 2(b), freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, they certainly would not have precluded the life, the liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The constituency which we are speaking of is a constituency that pervades our society and thankfully so. For if it were not for children we probably would not have a future generation.

Let us understand something about child pornography. When minors are involved in a situation where their names or identities are reproduced around the world and are reproduced permanently, that puts those children in a position of victimization.

The House was in an uproar a few years ago about Martin Cruz, an individual who had been molested by pedophiles. We know what happened to poor Martin after his plea and his passionate coming out to talk to people about this issue. He took his own life because he was tormented by what had happened to him over generations. No human being should suffer that kind of indignity. Whether we talk about the issue of consent, human beings should be put in the position where a person in a position of trust can take advantage of them and forever inflict a wound which can never ever be healed.

I share the frustrations of members of parliament, but I also know that many members of the House have worked diligently and have a pretty good idea of those things that need to be done. We need one important element. This parliament must decide the laws of this land. This parliament must be the vanguard of the rights, the liberties and aspirations of human beings and of Canadian citizens who enjoy benefits and rights thereof.

We need to ensure that the role of the supreme court and the courts are there to interpret the limits of law, not to write in the law. I respectfully submit that in the case of the Supreme Court of Canada on Sharpe, they got it wrong. Parliament must now get it right.

To that end, it is fortuitous that the minister has brought forth through the Senate Bill C-15A.

Its timeliness is not to be gainsaid but it also means that there are opportunities here for us to use this as a model of what we plan to do in the not too distant future.

I know the appeal period for the decision in British Columbia is about to expire. It may be as soon as April 25. On behalf of members of parliament I would like to encourage the attorney general of the province of British Columbia, and by saying encourage I do not to tell him what to do but simply to urge to encourage him to seek the appeal.

Like the hon. member for Provencher, I think there were a number of errors in law. They are too weighty and would probably take me over 10 or 15 minutes to deliberate. I understand, in the interest of time, that what we can do here as a House of Commons is to work diligently, ensure that the amendments reflect the expectations of the public and that we do not get caught in dilatory or nonsensical defences or excuses that somehow obfuscate and derogate our understanding of the importance of protection of people within society who must have the life, liberty and security of person to be able to benefit from the things that make us unique as Canadians.

Parliament had to rush in 1993 to use certain wording. The intent may have been right, the wording may have been wrong but the intent to protect children must always be paramount whether that be a decision of the House of Commons or that supreme court.

We cannot allow people to undertake fishing expeditions at the expense of people who happen to be the most vulnerable in society but who happen to be the most precious constituency that we have in this country.

I boldly commend the Minister of Justice for having the courage to bring this forward. I look forward to working with members of parliament, to look at the number of options that they and experts have raised and to make this parliament not just relevant in our time but relevant for future generations to come.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to speak today to Bill C-15A regarding the Senate amendments and to the larger picture with which we have to deal, child pornography.

This is an issue that is very close to my heart. I have a daughter whose career is counselling people who have gone through severe sexual abuse from quite early ages. I have heard some of the horrific stories from her of the results of that abuse and the life changing experience that causes. As my hon. colleagues have pointed out, there is no healing from that.

I certainly appreciate the comments that were made about the need to write the laws in parliament and to see our judiciary back them and enforce them rather than write them. We need to address these issues because of the tremendous, traumatic experience it is for those who are allowed to slip through the cracks.

I thank my hon. colleagues for their presentations and their willingness to stand up and speak to these things.

The bill does do some good. There is new legislation that creates the offence of luring a child by means of a computer system and it uses the same ages that the criminal code already sets out for determining the ages that make using the Internet to lure a child a crime. Accordingly, it is a crime with a maximum punishment of five years to use the Internet in these cases. The age is 18 for prostitution, child pornography, sexual assault, sexual touching or incest where the accused is in a position of trust. It is 16 for abducting an unmarried child from his or her parents and 14 for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and some other things.

I am not a lawyer but I know enough to know that the term luring is open to interpretation. I know what luring is when I am at the trout stream and I am tossing out the lure to draw the fish to my hook but I am not so sure that we can clearly define luring when it comes to sexual predators.

I recently heard about an incident that happened here in Ottawa a number of months ago where a person from another jurisdiction, where the age of consent was higher than in Canada, became acquainted with a 14 year old. He developed a relationship with the 14 year old and invited her to meet him. He came to Ottawa, set up in a hotel and the 14 year old met him. I am sure it could be argued that was the cultivation of a relationship. The distraught mother, having found out something of what was going on, sent the police. Although they found numerous sex toys in the room, they could do nothing because the 14 year old had gone to the hotel to meet this man of her own free will.

Luring was a crime then and it is now but how do we define luring? There are weaknesses here in some of the things we do. We get into the habit of saying things in legalese and it sometimes is more confusese than legalese. We should be able to use common sense and understand that the girl was lured for sexual purposes. It was a tremendous travesty of justice and of the law breaking down and not really protecting her like she should have been protected.

The amendment coming from the Senate adds the following to the legislation:

A custodian of a computer system who merely provides the means or facilities of telecommunication used by another person to commit an offence under subsection 163.1(3) does not commit an offence.

We certainly agree with the protection of those who are innocent third party people who become involved in an offence in an innocent way. In fact, this is the one thing we can commend. We wish that this kind of principle was followed in some other bills like the species at risk act and even in the cruelty to animals act. We believe there needs to be a certain level of knowledge and a certain level of intent before a criminal act is actually performed. Therefore we have no problem with that and we are glad it is there.

Then we move on to this great mysterious line which includes some other words. It goes like this:

Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3), (4), or (4.1), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

What do some of those words mean? First, perhaps the most innocent of those words it would seem would be “educational”. However, in a meeting on the Hill this week where the material was presented to us by some of the members of the Ontario police and the porno unit from Toronto, we were shown copies of the drawings that were done by Mr. John Robin Sharpe. The judge referred to those drawings as having some merit because by watching the sequence of drawings in sort of cartoon form he said that one could notice there was a tremendous ability for the victims to survive and therefore there was some kind of artistic merit. Perhaps he could have said that there was some kind of educational merit to those drawings because they in fact demonstrated that the victims could survive.

I believe that is stretching it way too far. I believe that is stretching the term educational too far. I believe it is stretching artistic merit too far. I would ask the judge, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there would be, for instance, any artistic merit in a sign being carried by a demonstrator on the front lawn of parliament that promoted hate toward, let us say, Muslims, Jews, parliamentarians? If the sign being carried promoted the aspect of killing, hating, wounding or abusing other members of society would the judge say that it was such a beautiful sign, done in such magnificent colours, that it was the most beautiful, colourful sign he or she had ever seen, and that it had such artistic merit that he or she would allow the protestor to carry it? I do not think so. I do not think that would happen.

Yet in that court, looking at those repulsive drawings, a panel of judges of this land could actually say that there was artistic merit. Why would the Senate want to send an amendment sticking those undefined, undetermined words and qualifications back into this legislation? Why would we do that?

I would suggest when it comes to artistic merit, when it comes to educational, scientific or medical purposes, perhaps there are some higher standards on which we should judge whether or not it is right to allow it.

For instance, the supreme court decision in the John Robin Sharpe case, when it defined or allowed for artistic merit, did not take into account the true and accurate reflection of community standards. Yes, I understand that the judge even wrote in his decision that there was no moral standard or community standard that could be applied. Again it is part of the abominable process that allows us to ignore the decency of common people.

Why can we have such laws and judgments that in themselves degrade, depress, demoralize and destroy our own country? Why is that? Why would we again write them in Bill C-15A? What is wrong with applying some community standards?

I would suggest that the court's application of artistic merit did not put a priority on the protection and the rights of children. How can we do that? How can we allow some artist, and I do not care if he is Michelangelo, to come up with material whose sole purpose is to promote the abuse of children?

Let us face it. That kind of pornographic material, especially kiddy porn, is designed to desensitize not only the predator but it is used to slowly expose the children who are targets and victims to the pictures and to the idea of being involved with adults in sexual activity until the children's minds are desensitized to that activity, so that they will be receptive and can be brought in to participate.

These children do not have the ability to weigh out and think the way an adult is supposed to think, although some question of that ability is being pointed out at some levels of our government. We must protect the children. They have no way of knowing where they are going once they start down that path. Those drawings are designed to draw them aside. The Internet is filled with that kind of stuff and if I have time, I will mention more on that.

The supreme court decision did not reflect the spirit of intent of even the term artistic merit. I can understand allowing room for the artists to do things. I do a little artwork myself. I have paintings hanging in my own house that I have painted, but there is nothing like that hanging on my wall. Perhaps I might have a hard time getting someone to judge my paintings as worthy of artistic merit. I am not a great artist but I am kind of proud of what I do. May I say that even my wife likes it, so that makes it pretty good.

There is an understanding here that some room needs to be given for artistic merit. There are some cases where examples need to be depicted for medical or educational purposes. I understand that wholeheartedly. However, to push it out and over the precipice to such an extent that we have done with artistic merit is absolutely absurd. Why would we stick that back into the legislation we are writing to try to protect children over the Internet?

A moment ago my hon. colleague across the way referred to the statistic that was given to us this week by the Toronto child pornography unit. My ears heard its statement this way, that it was so bound up with one case in the courts that it was frozen from examining the 400 others just in Toronto that the unit needed to examine. In the case the unit is working on now, it has confiscated 400,000 images.

Do members know what has to happen in order to prosecute the case? Do members realize that every one of those 400,000 images has to be viewed by the prosecutor's staff, classified, categorized and listed? Then in court, the 400,000 pictures have to be shown to the defence and the defence has to go through them.

We were told that the department was absolutely paralyzed for five to six months because it was using its entire staff simply to categorize these pictures. We are talking about something voluminous, something huge. We are not talking about if, maybe and perhaps these things might happen. The Toronto unit alone has confiscated 750,000 pictures since January 1.

There is a terrible problem out there. We certainly do not need to reinforce the opportunity for this to happen by allowing artistic merit or a lack of the definition of “luring”, little things like that, to give an opening to those who would traffic in child pornography. We do not need to do that.

Mr. David Griffin of the Canadian Police Association said these words, to the best of my being able to write them down, “If you hear the kind of sentences given out by judges to people guilty of these crimes, it would make you sicker than the pictures”. That is where I am coming from. I am sick of the lack of proper treatment of those who are ruining and destroying the lives of our young people by involving them in the production of pornography by feeding them pornography in order to use them in other ways.

We have to tighten this up. This is not yet enough. We need to go much further than this legislation goes. We owe it to the children, to the parents, to the future of this nation to put out legislation that would demonstrate some sort of backbone in parliament.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with all parties within the House and if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent that we see the clock at 5.44 p.m. so that we might begin private members' business.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to see the clock as being 5.44 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before proceeding to private members' business, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West, Fisheries.

It being 5.44 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the necessary measures for Canada to ratify the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

Mr. Speaker, I am most happy to speak today to Motion No. 432, sponsored by myself.

This motion would have parliament debate the very broad issue of torture, more specifically in the Americas. After three hours of what I hope will be a most civilized debate, we will be able to vote on the motion. Therefore, not only will we have a debate on the issue, but following the three hours of debate, we will proceed to a vote.

As you know, every motion and every bill that is deemed votable is important, because they often represent an important symbol.

In the 20 minutes I am allocated, I will broach a number of elements, approximately 10, in my efforts to convince the House that parliament should support the motion I have moved.

First, I shall deal with the motion, then I will discuss the issue of torture in general, including the different definitions that exist regarding the concept of torture, both in the inter-American convention, but also in the UN convention on torture.

I will also deal with the following questions: Where are specific types of torture being practiced in the Americas? Which countries are the most likely to fall prey to this practice, which is completely unacceptable? Who are the victims of torture? And finally, is torture practiced in the Americas?

We must hold this debate to determine if torture is present in the Americas in order to decide whether or not to adopt the motion.

Then I will deal with the convention as such. I will cite a number of articles clarifying the scope of what parliament is perhaps preparing to adopt in a few weeks.

I will also look at the UN convention. Although there is now an inter-American convention on torture, under the aegis of the Organization of American States, which represents 34 countries in the Americas, the United Nations has also adopted a convention on torture, which Canada has signed.

I will, of course, speak about the paradox which exists because, although Canada has decided to sign the UN convention on torture, it has so far refused to sign the one included in the inter-American convention.

I will also look at the issue of support because, naturally, the reason I am introducing a motion such as this today is because it represents an important symbol for the Canadians and Quebecers, as well as for a number of organizations, who are working daily to defend human rights in the Americas and throughout the world.

Finally, I will speak about specific cases. Because we have seen important cases, such as in Somalia where Canadian commanders or soldiers were accused of torturing Somalis. There are therefore specific cases which exist and have been documented and which we must examine.

Finally, I will speak about a number of paradoxes, but also about the importance of human rights, at a time when we are entering the era of globalization and economic activity and trade are becoming increasingly important. I will be making the point that there should also be a significant emphasis on the defence and protection of human rights, with particular consideration given to torture, as part of our current negotiations for a free trade area of the Americas.

What does Motion No. 432 say? It says this:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the necessary measures for Canada to ratify the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

Torture is a reality that we cannot deny. I would even say it is very much on the increase. Torture has become an increasingly complex reality, but also a more and more present reality. It can take a number of forms. Generally there is no problem reaching agreement on torture with electrodes or rape, but this is not the case with certain tough interrogation methods, such as sensory deprivation and police brutality.

The definition in use in the Americas is a broader one. The definition included in the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture is broader as well, and states that “Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish”.

Torture is not therefore just any form of violence or human rights violation. It is, in a way, their most serious form, because it involves what I will term a deliberate decision. That decision is often made in the name of the state, or at least tolerated by it, a decision to deny and to break down a person, to kill the most important aspect of that person, namely his humanity.

The reality of torture also takes the form of cruel, inhumane or degrading conditions of detention. The reality of torture is that those who resort to it are seeking to obtain confessions or information, to break the individual, to punish, to terrorize entire populations or social groups. No matter what the motive, it always involves power and domination, aimed at crushing the victim, humiliation, dehumanization.

It is the most important form of violation of human rights, often used against individuals, journalists, labour unions, specific social groups, sometimes even those involved in protecting basic human rights in the world.

Where is torture practiced? Just about everywhere in the world. It is generalized, and still used in more than 70 of the world's 190 countries. In over 80 of them, there have been deaths by torture in the past three years. According to a study of the period from 1997 to 2000, there were reports of torture or abuse in more than 150 countries.

This practice is present in more than 70 of the 190 countries in the world as a means of dehumanizing people, getting confessions out of them using methods that are often cruel, degrading and totally unacceptable as far as human rights are concerned.

Who is the victim of torture? In examining what is called the geography of torture, one can see that there is a clear correlation between torture and prejudice against certain groups.

Jawad Squalli, the Quebec spokesperson for Amnesty International's worldwide campaign for a world without torture, notes that in the United States, for example, black people are more likely to be brutalized or tortured.

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals who are forced to flee their country of origin for fear of persecution often have to suffer abuse or torture also. In Latin America, native people are increasingly at risk.

Torture is being inflicted upon individuals and groups that do not fit the stereotype in each country. What is not accepted in some countries is accepted in other countries.

That is why international conventions are important, including the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to protect the right of people to freedom of expression, their right to be who they are, and to prevent them from being placed in degrading or humiliating situations.

Torture exists in the Americas. We must talk about the Americas because that is what the inter-American convention deals with. Cases of torture have been identified in South America: police brutality, corruption, acts of torture in police stations and beatings in prisons are just a few examples.

For instance, the conditions in which prisoners are detained in some South American countries constitute flagrant violations of human rights. While the legislation and constitution of most countries on our continent stipulate that prisoners must be treated humanely, conditions in most South American prisons are usually cruel, inhuman and degrading. Reporters detained for their political beliefs are another example.

José is a prime example. José, of course, is an alias. This 15 year old boy was arrested in June of 1999 in Xinguara, in the state of Para, in Brazil. He was so brutally beaten that he now must get psychological support and health care. He was so severely beaten that witnesses thought he would not survive. He was forced to confess to previous arrests that never took place.

In Brazil, Ecuador, the United States, Nicaragua, Salvador and Venezuela, the number of police brutality cases for which an investigation was carried out and sentences were handed out is much lower than what is deemed acceptable. The same thing can be said about torture and abuse cases in Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Peru and Salvador, and about cases involving human rights activists in Bolivia, Chili, Colombia and Mexico.

For example, in Colombia, while the people are victims of atrocities at the hands of armed forces, paramilitary groups supported by the army and armed opposition groups, the perpetrators of these horrors are still walking free.

In Latin America, close to 100,000 people are still being arbitrarily detained or are missing. On the pretence of fighting rebels, countries like Columbia and Mexico are condoning serious human rights violations, arbitrary arrests and detentions, extra-legal executions, and forced relocations of communities.

There are, of course, certain instruments that do exist. One of these is the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment.

The international community adopted this convention on December 10, 1984. It came into effect in June 1987. It provides the following definition of torture, and I quote:

—any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity—

Internationally, this UN convention exists to fight torture.

What we are focusing on today is the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and I hope that Canada will ratify it very soon.

This convention, which is under the aegis of the Organization of American States, the OAS, was signed in Cartagena on December 9, 1985, and came into effect in February 1997.

Only nine of the 34 member states of the OAS have not yet ratified the inter-American convention, including Canada and the United States.

The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture defines torture as the following:

—any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.

Today, we are calling on parliament to adopt this Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. We fundamentally believe that economic activity is a means to meet certain human needs. It should therefore be subordinate to fundamental human rights and the values of the societies where it takes place.

For us, economic activity and human rights, including torture, cannot be separated. The free trade area of the Americas cannot become a reality if there is no respect for human rights.

The United States have not ratified any agreement within the inter-American human rights system. Canada must not follow that example. It must be consistent. It must ratify the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, because it has already signed and ratified the United Nations convention against torture.

In closing, I will say that not only is this position shared by members of the Bloc Quebecois, but also, already, Amnesty International wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on March 12, 2002, to support my private member's motion.

The letter is signed by Michel Frenette, director general of Amnesty International. He says, and I quote:

This is to ask for your support for this initiative. You are no doubt aware that Amnesty International has collected 75,000 signatures on a petition addressed to the Prime Minister on this subject.

By ratifying this convention, Canada would reinforce the commitment it made through the United Nations to prevent and combat torture; it would also provide greater focus for its action within the Americas, where this practice is still widespread.

Therefore, I urge all members to vote in favour of this motion, because human rights are fundamental rights.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite--Patrie proposing that the government take the necessary measures for Canada to ratify the inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture.

It cannot be disputed that the aims of this convention are laudatory. Canada has repeatedly and unequivocally denounced the heinous crime of torture. Its use is condemned in numerous international instruments. Recognition for the need of a comprehensive global instrument led to the adoption of the United Nations convention on torture.

The scope of this instrument is impressive as it pulls together the references to torture in various other instruments, provides a definition of torture, establishes a complaint mechanism and prescribes measures for education, prevention and international co-operation.

Canada's opposition to torture long predates the adoption of the United Nations convention on torture. As a party to that convention Canada has taken and continues to take significant measures to prevent and punish any acts of torture.

Torture is prohibited by law in Canada and no exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification for its use. Torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment occurs in Canada only in aberrational situations and never as a matter of policy. When it does occur victims are entitled to various remedies, including compensation.

Although allegations of torture in Canada are extremely rare Canadian police officers found guilty of any form of misconduct, including abuse of power or excessive use of force, are subject to the same laws that apply to all other residents of Canada.

Complaint mechanisms which exist for federal and provincial police forces ensure that a citizen may exercise the right to complain about any officer's conduct to an independent public body. Canada has also recognized the confidence of the United Nations committee against torture to receive and process individual complaints.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada facilities have been visited by organizations such as the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants and the Canadian Council for Refugees. At the request of the Government of Canada the inter-American commission on human rights visited Canada in the fall of 1997. The commission met privately with detainees in facilities in Toronto and Montreal and also observed detention review hearings. The commission concluded that the immigration detention centres complied with standards for detention.

I will turn specifically to the Organization of American States convention on torture. There is one historical reality that must be appreciated in any consideration of Canada's position on the inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture, namely that Canada did not belong to the OAS 17 years ago when the convention was negotiated.

This in itself would not normally prevent Canada from becoming a party to the instrument, but it does have an impact upon the content of the instrument that is negotiated. In fact it did not prevent Canada from becoming a party to two OAS 1948 conventions regarding civil and political rights for women. As a non-participant in the process of elaborating this convention we were not afforded the opportunity to communicate our concerns and have them taken into consideration as part of the normal give and take of such negotiations. It is a simple fact but one which has a direct impact upon our current concerns with respect to elements of the convention.

It cannot be said that Canada is averse to commitment when it comes to human rights instruments as we are a party to many other such instruments, including all of the major human rights instruments of the United Nations.

Canada was actively involved in the negotiation of the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at the time that the OAS torture convention was being negotiated. Negotiations on the UN convention commenced well before negotiations on the OAS treaty and continued concurrently with the OAS negotiations.

The UN convention entered into force in June 1987 with 20 state parties. In contrast the OAS convention entered into force in February 1987 with two state parties. Some 15 years later the UN convention has 126 parties, including 21 OAS members while the OAS convention only has 16 parties.

It is generally accepted that the United Nations convention on torture provides higher standards and stronger protections than the OAS convention. Canada's approach is to invest our efforts in the effective implementation of the stronger human rights instruments rather than in the ratification of a weaker convention that may ultimately compete with and thereby dilute the strength of the existing UN convention against torture.

In addition, concerns reside around the OAS convention being so broadly framed and the language so imprecise that it makes it difficult to ascertain what would be the exact nature of Canada's obligations should a decision be taken to proceed toward accession. The Government of Canada could not ratify or accede to an international instrument without first determining the exact nature of the resulting obligations, and that these obligations would be capable of implementation in all jurisdictions.

At the international level, Canada is strongly supporting the special reporter on torture and other initiatives looking into violence against women, extra-legal executions, torture, as well as cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment going on in some countries. We think there should be a mechanism ensuring regular visits to detention centers, especially when there are allegations of torture. To this end, we strongly support an optional protocol to the UN convention against torture.

It is also important to ensure that, wherever it happens, torture does not go unpunished. This is why Canada has taken a leadership role in the negotiation and ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The international criminal court, which will be established on July 1, 2002, is only one way to ensure that torture, even when carried out by people in a position of power, does not go unpunished.

I must emphasize that Canada's non-adherence to the inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture does not detract in any way from our solid commitment to the highest human rights standards both in the Americas and globally.

Indeed Canada has shown itself to be a strong and constant supporter of the inter-American human rights system and will continue to be so regardless of whether we are party to this particular instrument. Similarly Canada is committed to the prevention and punishment of all acts of torture and will continue its efforts toward a consistent, effective global response to these crimes.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie for the presentation he gave today. As I am about to oppose the position he has taken, I want to make it clear that I am not against his ideas or his intention. It is just that I believe that Canadian citizens already enjoy all the legislation and protection needed against torture. Let me explain what I mean.

I am pleased to reflect and acknowledge that the position as presented by the member for Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford reflects a similar position.

It is important to know first of all that Canada is a signatory to the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. The UN convention takes a fairly clear and somewhat narrower definition of torture. If Canada were to ratify any convention on torture, there should be one guiding definition to avoid conflicts as complications could arise.

Acts that would constitute true torture are already illegal in Canada. Those protections are clearly in place. To use a broader or another definition contained in the other convention referred to by the member would add difficulties and could open up a whole new set of challenges to enforcing the very laws we have in place now. A complication could ironically be used in favour of the person possibly committing an act of torture.

If we were to ratify this other convention that is being talked about rather than sticking with the UN convention which has been signed by our government, the implications on Canada's police and correctional services alone could be significantly negatively impacted. There is a proper balance that must be maintained.

We do not in this country condone excessive acts by police or correctional personnel and there are ways in which that can mitigated, stopped and prosecuted. In fact in our history we have done that on different occasions.

Using the definition as brought forward by the mover of the motion one could imagine a situation where a female corrections officer in imminent danger of being overpowered by a deranged attacker would not have the ability to protect herself from that attack without the possible use of some kind of restraint, maybe a spray of some type. In that situation, looking at the definition here, the method of subduing the person temporarily could fall within the definition of being a means of torture because the person would be incapacitated physically while the police officer went about her duties of gaining control of the situation. That is one example where broadening the definition could create difficulties in terms of a person's own protection.

It is interesting to note, as we look at other problems that could arise, that when we have legislation that is less than clear, which we deal with almost every day anyway, an expanded scope and broadened definition of the legislation could be interpreted in ways never intended by the legislators themselves. There are many examples of that.

That could unfortunately result in the perpetrators of crimes of torture being able, in the courts, to avoid proper prosecution because of the broadness of the definition and therefore the ability of their actions to be interpreted in ways other than legislators had originally intended. Perpetrators and those wanting to perpetrate torturous acts on people could take advantage of a broader definition. The victims would then be even more exposed to possible torture or inhuman acts than ever was intended.

For these reasons alone and for reasons clearly articulated by the hon. member for Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford I appreciate the intent of the particular motion. It is well founded but not as well grounded as it could be. Therefore I have brought forward the Canadian Alliance point of view on why we would have concerns related to this particular motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to enter into the debate on Motion No. 432. I will begin, as have my colleagues, by complimenting the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie for bringing the issue forward.

This is an issue that needs to be talked about in a global context but is often buried just beneath the surface. It is an issue many of us would like to believe is not a prominent problem in the world today, but much of what we have heard today would tell us otherwise. Much of what we have heard today would tell us it is a widespread problem in many parts of the world. As a country of wealth and privilege with an international reputation for fairness we in Canada have an obligation to use our influence to do all we can beyond our borders to reign in this terrible social ill.

The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture was introduced in 1985. It has been ratified by a number of member countries of the Organization of American States. The interesting thing is that it was introduced in Cartagena, Colombia and is often referred to as the Cartagena convention.

To demonstrate how necessary this international instrument is I will point out that since 1985 in Colombia over 3,500 trade unionists have been tortured, murdered, kidnapped or have disappeared. Last year alone over 160 trade unionists were assassinated. When their bodies are recovered there is almost invariably evidence of terrible torture. Many of them are women.

Much of the abuse stems not from any strike, job action or inconvenience to the employer. These people are kidnapped, tortured and murdered for the simple reason that they hold a political point of view, call themselves trade unionists and seek to elevate the standard of living of the people they represent. It is a cruel irony that the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture was introduced and tabled in Cartagena, Colombia, a graphic example of how widespread the problem is in many parts of the world.

If for no other reason than the fact that we recently became a member of the Organization of American States, it is incumbent on Canada to lead by example. By ratifying the convention we would be announcing our support for the people being abused in Colombia and places like Guatemala and Haiti where trade unionists also are being attacked. Some 209 trade unionists were killed or went missing in October, 2001 in Guatemala and Haiti. It is open season to try to eradicate the trade union movement in that part of the world. This is orchestrated by the state on behalf of companies that want to establish themselves in those countries but do not want the inconvenience of free collective bargaining or a trade union movement.

I will speak more to the convention but I will first pay tribute to one individual and outline one tragic example. Francisco Eladio Sierra Vasquez, president of the public service union in Antioquia, Andes branch, was assassinated when he attended a trade union meeting which was called by the paramilitaries at gunpoint. The paramilitaries ordered the meeting to take place, ordered Vasquez to speak to the meeting and shot him right there.

These acts are common. This was last year. This is not some history book story. We have examples. These people have names. The practice is widespread. It warrants debate in the House and the attention of the Government of Canada.

The argument made by the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance was a spurious one. He either did not read his notes or did not read the preamble to the convention. There is a paragraph in the convention that specifically deals with prison guards or police who in the ordinary course of their duties may have to use violence in a legal manner. The concept of torture does not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is solely the consequence of lawful measures. These protections are built into the convention and would be demanded by any of the nation states that have ratified it.

The convention has been ratified by Argentina Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador and, ironically, Colombia. Canada should be among the nation states that willingly indicate to the world they will no longer tolerate the practice of torture.

The argument of the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance regarding the definition of torture was weak. The definition of torture does not contradict that of the United Nations convention on torture. One complements the other. We found no reason not to ratify the UN convention on torture when we became a member of the United Nations. Some conventions we ratify and some we do not. There are many conventions we have not ratified in the United Nations, but we did ratify this one. We recently joined the OAS. Canada is now a member of the Organization of American States. It is fitting and appropriate that we follow suit and ratify this convention as we did with the United Nations convention.

Some points have been raised that we do not have time to go into in great detail. However the convention outlines the definition of torture in easy to understand terms. It talks about who could be arrested, charged or found guilty of torture. Guilt would go beyond the public servants who undertake state sanctioned torture to the people who order it.

There is a third element of the Canadian Alliance argument I find fault with. The hon. member was worried about the cost factor the convention would have in Canada. The hon. member does not get it. This is not about Canada. Torture is illegal in Canada. We have laws to protect Canada. We are talking about an international declaration to stamp out the practice of state sanctioned torture. It would not be a cost factor to our country at all.

Conventions are statements of principle. They are an opportunity to tell the world about our values. We recently ratified a convention to eliminate the worst forms of child labour at a United Nations ILO convention. If we follow the Alliance member's argument, this would have been a big cost factor as well. He would say we could not afford the police and courts it would take to implement and enforce such a convention.

We are not talking about Canada. We do not ratify these conventions to elevate standards here so much as in the rest of the world. We want to send a message to the world that these are the things we stand for. We can use our place of privilege and international reputation to demonstrate some of our values to other countries.

I will close by again complimenting the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie for giving us an opportunity to debate a point of true international interest and value. I support the idea. I hope the government has taken note of the points we have been making. I strongly encourage the government to ratify the convention at its earliest convenience.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, urging the government to take the necessary measures for Canada to ratify the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

There are three crucial points all members should agree on in this debate. First, it must be made crystal clear that Canada unequivocally condemns torture and other cruel and degrading treatment carried out anywhere around the world, at any time. Nothing can ever justify torture.

Second, the decision by Canada not to join the inter-American convention should not be interpreted as an sign of weakness toward torture. Promoting and protecting human rights is an integral part of Canada's foreign policy. Canada is strongly committed to eliminating torture, examining the issue, prosecuting the guilty parties and supporting the victims.

After the deposit of its ratification instrument in 1987, Canada was one of the first state parties to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As of today, 126 states have ratified the convention. The United States having yet to sign the convention, Canada urges it to do so.

In the various bodies of the United Nations, including the general assembly, Canada is working closely with like-minded delegations to negotiate and support resolutions against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and treatment. Last week, Canada co-sponsored a resolution at the UN commission on human rights, which starts by reaffirming the world's repugnance to torture, and I think it would be worthwhile to quote the beginning of the resolution in this debate:

Reaffirming that no one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, that such actions constitute a criminal attempt to destroy a fellow human being physically and mentally, which can never be justified under any circumstances, by any ideology or by any overriding interest, and convinced that a society that tolerates torture can never claim to respect human rights--

The resolution of the UN commission on human rights also notes with appreciation the work of the special rapporteur on torture. We closely follow his work and that of the UN committee against torture chaired by Mr. Peter Burns, a Canadian independent expert.

Canada is a strong proponent of measures to prevent and prohibit torture and it attaches great importance to effective action by the United Nations against torture. Canada supports mechanisms that examine extrajudicial executions or torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in specific countries. We believe that there should be a strong and effective international mechanism with the capacity to make on site visits to places of detentions, particularly when there have been allegations of torture. To this end, we have been actively participating in the working group to elaborate an optional protocol to the convention against torture.

We have also provided financial assistance to the cause against torture. Canada contributes $60,000 Canadian annually to the United Nations fund for victims of torture. The aim of the fund, which was established in 1981, is to support medical and psychological treatment and services for torture victims, through rehabilitation centres and programs worldwide. In fact, more than 115 humanitarian organizations in 53 countries have been assisted by the fund. In Canada the fund has supported centres in Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.

A key foreign policy priority is to ensure that there can be no impunity for acts of torture, wherever they occur. Canada took a leadership role in the negotiation and adoption of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. As hon. members will recall, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced in the House on April 11 the welcome news of the deposit of the 60th ratification for the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. With the Rome statute's entry into force on July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court will be a reality. The court will have jurisdiction to try those accused of the most serious crimes known to humankind, including acts of torture that amount to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

As these initiatives attest, Canada has been an active supporter of international efforts to eliminate torture. Given Canada's level of engagement internationally, some may opine that it is hypocritical for Canada not to accede to the inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture. However, that assertion must be rejected and it must be rejected outright. Our commitment to the goal of the elimination of torture should not be measured by the number of international treaties to which we are a party, but rather by how effectively we implement our international obligations. As noted in the Ottawa Citizen in a recent editorial entitled “Wronging Rights”, progress on protecting rights should not be confused with negotiating new international human rights agreements. Our approach should be to ensure that governments actually respect human rights in practice.

No one questions the laudable aims of the inter-American convention. Similarly it is generally accepted that the UN convention against torture provides higher standards and stronger protections than the organization of the American states convention. Canadian practice has been to focus our efforts in the effective implementation of the stronger human rights instruments rather than in the ratification of a weaker convention that may ultimately compete with, and thereby dilute, the strength of the existing UN convention against torture.

The third essential point in this debate is that Canada remains active within our hemisphere and within the Organization of American States. Since it became a member of the OAS in 1990, Canada has been co-operating with the other 33 active members in order to define and implement an action plan for the benefit of all citizens of the Americas.

The OAS is the hub of our policy for the hemisphere and provides an excellent forum for promoting our policies on good governance, human rights and democracy. Therefore, it is not because we do not support regional instruments that we will not adhere to the inter-American convention. In fact, regional initiatives can play a crucial role in movements for international standards.

During the campaign for the anti-personnel mine ban, members of the OAS paved the way by adopting regional bans which were an important stepping stone on the way to the Ottawa convention. However, such is not the case here; there is already a very strong and effective international mechanism with broad support. We must simply seek further international support in order for that mechanism to become universally accepted.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie for his motion. It has given the House the opportunity to review Canada's policy on the elimination of torture. We must be practical and concentrate our efforts where they will be most useful, and that means promoting the ratification and the effective implementation of the UN convention against torture by stressing the significant protection it provides.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand and support the motion put forth by the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie.

I am extremely confused. I listened to the parliamentary secretary and I thought she made a tremendous argument for Canada's signing of the convention. It is amazing to hear both speakers from the other side talk very strongly about the importance of recognizing the fact that we must oppose torture and that Canada is extremely supportive of the convention, but yet we refuse to sign.

The convention itself was created at the 15th regular session of the general assembly of the Organization of American States. The spirit of the OAS convention to prevent and punish torture reinforces the charter of the United Nations and the universal declaration of human rights. The convention reaffirms that all acts of torture or any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment constitute an offence against human dignity and a denial of the principles set forth in the charter of the OAS and the charter of the UN. Members opposite state that they are very supportive of all of these declarations.

As I get to see more of Canada's involvement in different conventions and international organizations, I wonder if we do not have a bunch of bureaucrats who travel the world, sit in on all these conventions and then come back and spend their time trying to tell us why we cannot be active participants within the different regimes. We heard this from foreign affairs and international trade officials in relation to our involvement in taking jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Now we hear about this wonderful convention that we support so heavily, but if we believe in it, why can we not sign on the dotted line?

I know what answer we will hear. We will hear that current Canadian criminal law accounts for the American convention to prevent and punish torture and therefore ratification may be considered redundant. Certainly, yes, if we agree with everything and protection is already in our laws, why should we sign on? The question is, why should we not? What difference does it make? If we are supportive of an international agreement, surely by being a signatory and showing some leadership within the organization and having some control and a say in events, we could have a lot more impact in handling this extremely important issue throughout the world.

Just last year in a country across the ocean a young lady was sentenced to be caned. This became an international issue. In fact, of all the issues I have faced since my involvement in politics at either level, I have never had as much correspondence as I had on this one. It created such an awareness among people. People realized that in this world of ours, where most of us live in peace and harmony, people are tortured and are punished cruelly and inhumanly. All of us in the House objected to that caning.

However, we have to put our money where our mouths are. Here we agree with the convention, but yet we are coming up with all kinds of excuses not to be a signatory. In this day and age, dealing with torture is extremely important. We are living in a changing world. The world today is not the world that you and I grew up in, Mr. Speaker. It is not even the world that the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie grew up in. The world is changing.

We see and hear daily reports of torture, of inhumane punishment and of bullying, which certainly is a form of mental torture. How do we deal with that? We deal with that by, as the old saying goes, taking the bull by the tail, and, in a case like this, by showing some leadership, by standing up--

[An hon. member]

Taking the bull by the horns.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

The member from Prince Edward Island knows all about bull but I will not get into that right now.

We must show leadership. We have to show leadership. How can we do it? In this case, if we believe in something then let us not be afraid to show it.