House of Commons Hansard #174 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pornography.

Topics

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Fournier Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, although Transport Canada has admitted its responsibility in the contamination of the water table in the beaches area, the Minister of Transport has just turned down a request for compensation from the town of Sept-Îles to cover the costs of hooking the airport up to the municipal water system.

Will the Minister of Transport admit that he has decided to slough off his responsibilities to the people of Sept-Îles by refusing to pay the $2.4 million it will cost to hook the airport up to the municipal water system? He was the one responsible for the pollution and he is the one who should pay.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said several times in the House, the hon. member has got it wrong.

International DevelopmentOral Question Period

April 23rd, 2002 / 2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Beth Phinney Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Many less developed countries in the world are strapped with huge debts that they find themselves unable to repay.

Could the minister please comment on what Canada and the G-7 are doing to help eliminate third world debt?

International DevelopmentOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Mountain has long been an advocate of the relief of third world debt. As she knows, Canada has been one of the leading supporters of the absolute need of eradicating the debt of countries where people have less than a dollar a day of income and they are still paying out massive amounts for debt service. It makes absolutely no sense.

Under those circumstances, Canada was most concerned over the weekend to learn of the World Bank report which essentially said that debt sustainability did not take into account the volatility of the world economy and, at the same time, that there vulture funds were buying this debt. This is unacceptable. The minister for international development has said it. Canada has said it. This is our position.

Correctional Service CanadaOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the solicitor general a pointed question regarding the number of convicts receiving pay incentives from CorCan Industries while in prison. My question was not answered.

The solicitor general has now had 24 hours to find the answer to that question. Furthermore, he should be assured that if he does not answer the question today, we will ask it again tomorrow. How many inmates have received incentive pay while in prison and how much? Canadians deserve to know the answer.

Correctional Service CanadaOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated a number of times, this was an inappropriate thing to happen. Correctional Service Canada has indicated to me that it has taken steps to make sure this will not happen again. CSC is looking into the situation.

Highway InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport refuses to respond to the people of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, who are demanding that the government make good on its campaign promises relating to highway 175 in the parc des Laurentides.

I am calling upon the Minister of Transport to take his campaign promises into consideration, as well as the fact that Quebec has fulfilled all its obligations, and to at last announce the financial participation of his government in the construction of highway 175.

Highway InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, my hon. parliamentary secretary is the one in this House who supports the true interests of the people of the Saguenay as far as highways are concerned.

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Tomorrow Armenian communities and people around the world will commemorate the victims of the 1915 Armenian genocide. Today, in the foreign affairs committee, I will be moving a motion to recognize this terrible crime against humanity as genocide, not just as a tragedy but as genocide.

Will the Liberal government now finally honour the memory of the 1.5 million victims of the Armenian holocaust and join with the French national assembly and many others to recognize the Armenian genocide for what it was: Genocide, not just tragedy but genocide. When will they finally--

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Ottawa South Ontario

Liberal

John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the question from the partial critical for foreign affairs of the NDP. I would point out to him that the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a full and complete statement regarding this issue in the House of Commons last week.

National DefenceOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has said that all of the inquiries in Canada and in the United States will be open and transparent. Does that mean that all the evidence and the minutes of the meetings will be published for the public to see?

National DefenceOral Question Period

3 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I have said a number of times in response to the hon. member that there are terms of reference that have been clearly laid down so that the inquiries can get to the bottom of the matter, determine what happened and see what can be done to reduce the risk of it happening again, both in terms of Canada, in terms of the United States and in terms of the sharing of information in full co-operation. I again assure the member that will be done.

National DefenceOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Bertrand Liberal Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Recently, the United States announced the creation of the northern command, or NORCOM. If we were thinking of belonging to it, what basic criteria would we be supporting?

National DefenceOral Question Period

3 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the northern command is an internal United States command reorganization. It has nine other commands that cover every part of the globe in terms of its area of interest. Now it has a northern command that flows out of the concerns of September 11 and the need for more homeland security.

At the same time we are concerned about the terrorist attacks. We want to work in a co-operative effort with the United States. That is what we are talking about, looking to see if there are practical ways we can be of more co-operation for the safety and security of our own people. It does not mean subjugating our forces to its, or subjugating our sovereignty at all.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Monday, April 15, 2002 by the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton concerning the expert advisers hired by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the course of its study on Canadian broadcasting.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton for drawing this matter to the attention of the Chair, as well as the hon. member for Kootenay--Columbia and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis for their contributions on the question.

In raising this issue, the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton identified two points that he felt indicated that his privileges as a member had been breached. First, the expert advisers hired by the Canadian heritage committee are being paid with funds provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage rather than by the House of Commons. In his view, this violates the proper separation that should exist between the House and the executive. The hon. member further suggested that under these circumstances, it was not possible to regard the advice of these experts as neutral and objective. This impeded his ability to carry out his work as a member of the Canadian heritage committee and hence constituted a breach of his privileges.

The second point made by the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton involved comments made to the media by one of the expert advisors, Mr. David Taras. The hon. member pointed out that the contract signed by the committee’s advisors contained a provision restricting their ability to comment publicly on the work of the committee.

He also alleged that public comments made by Mr. Taras violated the contract with the committee and, by their political nature, cast further doubt on the neutrality and objectivity of the advice being provided to the committee. The hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton regarded this as further evidence that his privileges had been breached, a claim which was supported by the hon. member for Kootenay--Columbia.

I think that the situation as set out in members' interventions is quite clear. As the minutes of proceedings of the committee indicate, the committee as a whole agreed to retain the professional services of these two advisers, first on December 6, 2001 and again later, in its decision to renew the contract for the new fiscal year at its meeting of March 21, 2002. The committee was fully aware on both these occasions that funds from the Department of Canadian Heritage were to be used to pay the advisers. Since the committee on Canadian heritage agreed to the hiring and since the committee is empowered by Standing Order 120 to retain the services of expert staff, the Chair has no role to play in this situation.

Our practice, as described in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 804 and as set out in many previous rulings is quite clear: the Chair does not interfere in committee affairs. While members of the Canadian heritage committee may have some concerns about the committee's actions, those concerns ought more appropriately to be raised in the committee itself.

In the second part of his argument, the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton raised the issue of recent comments made in the media by one of the two special advisers. He quoted from the contract made with the adviser in question, which states:

The Contractor shall not comment in public on the Committee's deliberations relating to the broadcasting study.... However, the foregoing does not prohibit the experts from writing or speaking on broadcasting issues generally, such as would be the case in the normal conduct of their professional duties.

He concluded that the special adviser to the committee “cannot offer opinion on the political fate of certain members of this Chamber”.

Having reviewed the documentation made available to me, I cannot find that there has been any breach of parliamentary privilege in relation to the comments made to the media. These comments did not contain language that was unparliamentary and could not be construed as interference in the ability of any member to carry out his or her parliamentary duties.

However, it is true that these comments were of a political nature and did relate to certain members of this House and to political events. As the hon. member for Kootenay--Columbia has stated, commentary of that nature would not be tolerated if it came from any of the staff of the House of Commons or the Library of Parliament. Should members of the committee believe, as the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton says he does, that the comments portray a bias that could impede the contractor's ability to provide impartial advice to the committee, then the matter should be raised in committee where the members may resolve the matter.

I thank all hon. members who contributed to this discussion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island North.

I rise to debate an issue which should not have to be raised in the House. It reflects the sad state of affairs in which the country finds itself. Leadership begins at the top. If the government fails to give strong direction in areas such as we are discussing today, it will lead us more and more into the grey area of moral fog. I will now turn to the motion before the House.

Most of us in this Chamber are parents. Many, including myself, are grandparents and I think there may even be a handful of us who are privileged to be called great-grandparents. Speaking as a parent of eight children, let me state categorically that I can see nothing any more important than the protection of our children. Simply put, we need to protect innocent children from predatory adults.

It is well recognized that children are physically maturing at an earlier age, but they are still children. Young persons may look like they are older than they actually are. They may dress older than they actually are. For good or for bad, they may have more worldly knowledge than generations of the past, but above all, they are still children.

Unfortunately just because a 13 year old boy or girl looks older does not mean they are emotionally mature enough to engage in sexual activity. They are not able to make sexual decisions with full knowledge along with the emotional and mental maturity that must be a part of this decision making process.

So we come to the intent of today's motion. I believe strongly that we have to protect our children with an even higher age of consent. There are predatory adults in the world who would like to have sex with anyone at any age.

Nothing can be more important to us than our children. Not only are they the future of our country, they are also a present reality, a reflection of our current society and where our society is today. They are a mirror held up to our own faces. Perhaps if we do not like what we see, we need to take a long, careful look at ourselves as a society.

Yesterday some Liberals attempted to clarify what the age of consent was. They were correct when they stated that historically it always has been 14 years of age, but that there was a provision in section 153 of the criminal code to protect children under the age of 18 from sexual exploitation. A member opposite then stated “so we fear that tomorrow's motion by the opposition would have the effect of lowering the age of consent”. This is a complete fabrication and a lowly attempt to justify the government's complete inaction and lack of protection for our youth in this area.

The truth is that the lowest age of consent is clearly set out in section 150.1 of the criminal code and it is the age of 14. Under the age of 14 it is no defence for the accused to say that the complainant consented to the act. Over the age of 14 the accused can claim that the complainant consented to the act.

Simply put, the official opposition wants to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. Any offences involving 16 to 18 year old children would remain offences, as there would be no changes to those parts of the criminal code.

The section to which the dazed and confused Liberal member was referring was section 153. That section clearly defines a young person as someone between the ages of 14 and 18.

Let me be perfectly clear. The opposition motion does not want to lower the age range. We want to raise the lower end of that range from 14 to 16.

Only when we as parliamentarians have taken every reasonable step to protect our children can we rest. However as technology changes, we unfortunately see some people taking advantage and abusing that technology. When that happens we as parliamentarians must remain vigilant. We must do all we can to protect our greatest resource, our children.

We know that predators will attempt to lure children through direct contact on the Internet involving chat rooms and instant message programs. Predators are typically pedophiles who attempt to lure children off line to harm or molest them.

There is wide support for the actions that the official opposition has brought forward for debate. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix reported that Bernie Eiswirth of the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers stated recently that we need a crackdown on pedophiles who lure children online. He is quoted as stating that there are statistics that show one in four youths have been sent pornography over the Internet by a stranger. Twenty-five per cent of our children are being exposed to the smut and abominable depiction of the vile acts that come out of some of these depraved minds. Surely this cannot be acceptable to the members of the House.

Mr. Eiswirth continued on to state that one of the suggestions the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers recommended was to raise the age of sexual consent from the current 14 to 16 years of age.

This important distinction is also backed by the provincial justice ministers. It has been reported by the media that a resolution was passed to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to at least 16 at their latest annual meeting on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately their decision was lost in the media frenzy surrounding the terrorist attacks of that very same day.

The age of consent in the United States ranges from 14 to 18 depending upon the state. In Australia and New Zealand it is 16. It has been said that with Canada's age of consent currently at 14 years of age, this is nothing less than a gift for sexual predators.

Is this the reputation that we want? Is this how Canada wants to be seen by the world, as a haven for child sexual predators? Heaven help us if that is the case.

I have deeply held convictions with regard to this matter. The Christian scriptures are very important to me. In the book of Mark, chapter 9, verse 42, Jesus said:

And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe in Me to fall, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea.

Unless we do something to restrict the actions of sexual predators and the spread of child pornography, the millstone which they place around the neck of our society will surely strangle us, choking the very life out of our children, forcing them into the shadows of darkness where truth and beauty can no longer exist.

We as the parliamentarians of Canada have an opportunity today. We can correct and add strength to the laws of the country. What are the laws of the land for except to protect its citizens? We in the House of Commons are the lawmakers of Canada. One of the things we need to do is to fill loopholes in the law when they become apparent to us.

We know that we have one of the lowest age of consent laws in the world. We can change that. We know that the pain and suffering of children from adult sexual predators is incalculable and lasts a lifetime. We know that provincial attorneys general and the Canadian Police Association are supportive of raising the age of consent to at least age 16. Finally, we know that the Department of Justice and the previous minister of justice are also supportive of this move.

What are we waiting for? Do we like what we see around our children and the kind of environment in which they are growing up? Mr. Speaker, if you are anything like me or the people I have talked with, you have grave concerns. We can do something about those concerns. Let us take action today.

Let us protect our children through whatever means we can. Our children are our future. We cannot allow our children to fall into harm's way. For the sake of the children, let us protect our children from predatory adults.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks. I have been studying this motion very carefully. I would like to get his response to one aspect of it.

I certainly am in agreement with the age of consent. I think that is something we should look at. I am in agreement with much that is in the motion.

However when we take out the age of consent part and the part about sexual predators and reduce it to a simple statement, minus those elements of it, we get “that the government immediately introduce measures that prohibit materials that appear to describe children engaged in sexual activity”.

Reduced to that, what the motion says is that we should be banning materials that appear to describe children, appear to describe. Does the member agree in principle with that statement?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my hon. colleague across the way. I know the hon. member would like us to separate the two issues but I do not see how we can do that.

The Robin Sharpe case brings this whole issue into focus for us. It was that judgment of the supreme court which brought us to this juncture in the road as we look down it into the future. The two issues are inseparably linked in my mind and in our motion because of that.

The issue of describing something is an issue that was left very much hanging by the Supreme Court of Canada. If we can do anything at all through this motion to further discussion and as a parliament help the government to craft legislation that would bring into sharp focus the law concerning the description of sexual acts perpetrated upon children by sexual predators and help our law enforcement people, our courts, our social workers and all those people who are involved in the outfall of what happens when children are the victims of sexual predators, then that would be good and it would further the cause. I really do not think we can separate the two.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. All of us in the House again need to focus on the intent of this motion and maybe not on the actual wording or the amendments that are being talked about across the aisle.

How anyone could determine that we are trying to lower the age of consent is beyond me. We want to raise the age of consent, and not for the age of consensual sexual relations, for this predatory practice of people who are much older than these young people who are vulnerable or of people who are in a position of power or seniority who prey upon younger people.

Could the member tell me really how simple and clear this is? We are trying to raise the age of consent for perpetrators of criminal activities who seem to be abounding so unfortunately in this day and age.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, one concern we see raised all the time by people is their perception that government, particularly of the federal government, is reactive rather than proactive. The government fails to discern the trends of our society and the way things are going. It does not bring in laws or create programs or whatever that are proactive and that build for the future. Instead it waits for crises to develop, whether it is an economic crisis that finally brings us to the point where we need a balanced budget, or a military crisis where finally we need the proper kind of equipment for soldiers or a moral crisis where finally the government is forced to take action to bring legislation in line with something that is seriously affecting the moral fabric of our society.

As an opposition party, we are attempting to focus the issue, which is the sexual predators who prey upon our children. That is why we brought the motion to the House. We want the government to do something about it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, if we asked any adult Canadian if a 14 year old can make an informed decision involving sexual consent with an adult, they would overwhelmingly reject this premise.

It is no accident that the average age of recruitment for prostitution is age 14. Society feels the need to limit or protect 14 year old children by denying them access to movies with acts of violence and explicit sex. That is why the Canadian public is shocked when they discover the age of consent for sexual activity is 14. It offends the common sense of ordinary Canadians that vulnerable children as young as 14 can be targeted by adult sexual predators and as long as the act is considered consensual, it is perfectly legal. As a father of an 11 year old daughter, I find it unbelievable that in a short two and a half years she will be considered to be of an age where she can give consent to sexual activity with an adult. She has no peer group that would put the right kind of pressure on her not to do that.

Despite any argument on the contrary coming from government, the bottom line is that an age of consent as young as 14 can and does create a vulnerable target population of children for adults with predatory motives.

The Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association is a non-denominational, non-partisan grassroots association with a large and growing membership whose principle purposes are: to redress social injustice; to advocate, foster, safeguard and protect constitutional charter and social rights, traditional family values and parental rights; and to promote the establishment of traditional schools, social, educational institutions and charitable activities. This group, based in Vancouver, is 80% Canadian-Chinese and has worked tirelessly on important family and social issues in British Columbia and nationally. It is recognized as interveners at the supreme court on two ongoing court cases.

The reason I have described the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association is because it has arranged with my office to present 8,681 letters to the Minister of Justice, which I have right here with me. I will quote at length from its media release of last Friday. It says:

The John Robin Sharpe case exposed the weakness of the laws on child pornography, the liberality and permissiveness on the part of the judiciary and the resulting inability of our society collectively to protect the most vulnerable group--the children.

Currently in Canada, the age of consent to sex is 14. In 1987, the Mulroney government reduced the age of consent from 18 to 14. The federal Liberal government has made no genuine attempt to change this despite the united voice of the provinces for raising the age to 16. Parents, police and social service agencies are hindered in protecting children as young as 14 who are coerced into sex with adults. Children as young as 14 can be exposed to the risks associated with sexual activity such as emotional distress, unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS. Recent years have seen a significant increase in crimes of a sexual nature against children. Child prostitution, child pornography etc. are increasing at an alarming rate. The low age of consent encourages societal acceptance of early sexual behaviour and appetite for pedophiles. Problems associated with low age of consent to sex are deep emotional and mental health problems, STDS, cervical cancer, teen pregnancies, school-drop-outs and criminal behaviour.

Our Association's stand is that if youth are not able to consume alcohol, vote, volunteer for combat or make other major decisions until they reach 18, an activity and the resulting consequences as complicated as sexual activity should not be legal for children...

As it has been scheduled for the current session of Parliament to discuss the age of consent next Tuesday, we have collected 8,681 individual petitions from concerned citizens including parents and people from all walks of life urging Parliament to raise the age of consent for sex from 14 to 18.

That ends the media release of last Friday from the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values.

In 1997 the justice minister answered a question from my then caucus colleague Sharon Hayes asking for the age of consent to be raised to at least 16. The minister at that time refused to commit to raising the age of consent saying that the issue was only one of the issues involved in protecting children. It is now five years later and the government still has not dealt with this one issue involved in protecting children.

The Canada Family Action Coalition says the following on its website, and I give credit to Peter Stock for authorship since I am quoting liberally. It states:

When learning that the age of consent for sex is only 14 Canadians react with shock and disbelief...“We're dealing with a lot of calls from people expressing their anger at learning that such law exists in Canada. Some need to see the actual law in writing before they will believe that it is the case. The most common question I hear from people, after they express how appalled they are, is who is responsible for this?”...

“Parents ask me, “how could they do this to children? Aren't they parents too and weren't they supposed to be a conservative party?”

This is goes back to the change in the law under the Mulroney government. It continues:

They are astounded that this could happen... “Unfortunately, even though there was some solid pro-family MPs in that party, the liberal-types in the PC Party and in Parliament won the day”...

Police officers who have to deal with the fall-out from changes in the law in a front-line capacity have seen the tragic effects of a lowered age of consent. As they encounter situations of young teen girls and older men, they have been faced with the reality there is nothing they can do to protect these vulnerable young citizens. As a result of countless such incidents, in the last few years the provincial attorneys-general of every province in Canada have demanded that the Justice Minister raise the age of consent. In addition, the Canadian Police Association has also endorsed a motion asking for the age to be raised.

Yesterday in the House the Liberals tried to insinuate that our opposition motion would have the effect of lowering the age of consent. How can members of parliament say such a contrivance and sleep at night when what is important is protecting children not protecting the government from its inaction since 1993?

Our motion calls for raising the age of consent set out in section 150.1 of the criminal code. The Liberal member was talking about section 153 of the code which deals with sexual exploitation of young persons. We would not change section 153, the Liberals know it and they are only trying to confuse others on a technicality that does not hold water.

I have spoken at length about the 8,681 petitions from the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values asking for the age of consent to be raised. I will take a moment to say that the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values existed before the Canadian Alliance as a political party. Just to make it clear, there is no relationship there. However we do share some of our beliefs, obviously.

At this point in time I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent to table the 8,681 letters that I have with me today. This is just a sampling from individual members of the community in Vancouver, self-described as 80% of the membership is Canadian-Chinese.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to table the letters?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.