Debates of April 23rd, 2002

Supply

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lethbridge.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of our opposition motion. The motion addresses one of the gravest concerns Canadians face today, the sexual exploitation and abuse of children.

One of the points I wish to make is that the motion itself is not a legal document. Some people are overly concerned that the motion has to be interpreted the same way someone would interpret a statute. That is not the intent of a motion at all.

The purpose of a motion is to provide policy direction to the executive, asking them, the cabinet members, the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister, to take action and introduce appropriate legislation. This is a political document. It is not a legal document.

I noted the suggested amendment that was brought forward. I looked at that amendment and I do not see anything inconsistent with what is already stated in the motion. The motion does not deny the amendment brought forward by the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough.

It says that the government immediately introduce legislation to protect children from sexual predators including, and then it talks about two specific issues. One is to raise the legal age of consent and the other is to prohibit the creation and use of sexually explicit material. I am just summarizing. That is not exclusive. It establishes a minimum. The suggestions that are put into the motion that was made previously are already contemplated or within the purview of the contemplation of the government if it wishes to proceed in that direction.

Certainly I agree with many of the comments made by the member who introduced that amendment .

Our motion, if adopted and passed into law, would extend badly needed protections to our children who are at risk of exploitation by child pornographers and pedophiles. We must not be afraid to show leadership in providing the policies and the legislation that our children need.

It is a sad fact that Canada is becoming a safe haven for child pornographers and pedophiles from all over the world. In listening to the police the other night, I believe it was April 16, the police said that back in 1993 Canada's legislation was praised as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in dealing with this issue. Yet subsequent court decisions have whittled away the effectiveness of that legislation.

In Toronto alone there are at least 400 reported cases involving child pornography that need to be investigated. The police simply do not have the resources to do it. A lack of resources and a lack of appropriate legal tools will prevent the bulk of these cases from being investigated.

In one case where the investigation is under way, there are 400,000 pictures involving the depictions of the abuse of thousands of children. It has literally bogged down the Toronto police. The police need our help. Resources are a significant issue. On the other hand, we here should also be providing them with the appropriate legal tools. We are here today to implore the government to take those steps.

As my colleagues have stated, some of the legal changes we are supporting include raising the age of sexual consent from 14 years to at least 16 years. We are saying at least. We are establishing a floor. We are not establishing a ceiling.

The other day the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice was up to some mischief in question period suggesting that this motion in some way advocated the lowering of that age. The Liberals are casting around looking for a technical reason not to do what every Canadian believes they ought to do. They are looking for technical excuses. When we interpret these types of motions as purely legal documents, we can find millions of excuses not to do what we are supposed to do.

I implore the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary to stop looking for legal technicalities. We can hire lawyers to find legal technicalities. We need parliamentarians to stand up and voice clearly the policy direction. The policy direction here is clear. At least the floor should be 16 years. We do not support lowering the age of consent where that consent is already established at 18 years.

Why did the parliamentary secretary come into the House yesterday to play that kind of mischief? Why does he spend his resources and his time in trying to pass off that kind of mischievous argument? Given the gravity of the issue we are dealing with, why would he even suggest that, when he knows that the policy direction given here if the motion is passed by the House is seen as an inclusive and expansive, not a restrictive motion?

Some of the points the member from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough made are good ones. We do not need to turn the motion into a legal document. We need to stand and say that this motion already encompasses that and let the government have the moral fortitude to do what is right.

Even the former Minister of Justice in response to a question I asked her in the justice committee on October 3, 2001 said “I think we will see that a consensus is emerging that with certain safeguards we should probably be moving on the age of consent from 14 to 16”.

Elected officials from all political stripes recognize the importance of implementing these legal tools so that our law enforcement officials can better protect our children. This provision plays a significant role in defining the scope of available offences to try to stop child pornographers.

Finally, I want to comment on the case of John Robin Sharpe. Public outrage over this case indicates that writings depicting violent sexual exploitation of children run far beyond what Canadians are prepared to accept. Canadians clearly believe that the law should never permit such material to be distributed or circulated or even created. This material is used, as the police say, to groom children, to break down inhibitions so that those children can be used as sexual objects.

I implore members of the House to support the motion, to stop thinking like lawyers and to start thinking about the future of this country and about doing the right thing.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given the chance to speak to this motion today. However discussion of things such as child pornography and the age of sexual consent brings no joy to me at all. What I personally bring to the House today is a deep, serious concern about the peril of our children, the peril they are in from sexual predators who would destroy their innocence and in essence their very lives, and the alarming lack of support that the government provides our crime fighters and our courts to deal with sexual exploitation of children.

As far as my constituents are concerned, there is no other issue that gets as much attention as our country's lack of comprehensive child pornography laws and our embarrassingly low age of sexual consent. Petition after petition, letter after letter, the message is clear: things need to change and they need to change now.

Two things are very clear to the vast majority of Canadians. Adults having sex with children, whatever the medium it is documented by or on, has no artistic merit. Fourteen year olds do not have the confidence nor emotional maturity to consent to having sex with people possibly twice or three times their age. Those two things are so self-evident that many are flabbergasted by the lax laws our country has on these issues. If we as a nation of compassionate, intelligent people cannot protect the most vulnerable members of our society, then what are we doing? We need to protect our children or we have indeed failed in the creation and maintenance of a just and safe society.

The message the government sends to Canadians about our children is they have no rights as people, they are property to be used and abused as any adult sees fit and it hopes they make it through life, but as a government, it does not bother ensuring their safety. That is wrong and that needs to be changed.

This is not about the morality of the right or the liberalism of the left. This is vital and intrinsic to a functioning healthy society and crosses over every party line. Children cannot be allowed to be sexually abused and used and be expected to grow up into balanced and well-adjusted adults. It is foolish and irresponsible to assume otherwise and do nothing.

A couple of years ago the member from Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge brought together some crime fighters on Parliament Hill. He did the same thing a week ago. However, two years ago when we got together, Detective Matthews from the OPP pornography unit brought an issue to my attention that needed addressing in the criminal code. I brought forward a private member's bill to amend the criminal code to allow for the forfeiture of equipment used in the production and distribution of child pornography. I am proud to say that it is in Bill C-15A and is part of the bill that will hopefully be law soon.

When the member brought these same people back together last week, I was able to attend. What we heard and saw was truly distressing. We heard from the woefully understaffed police agencies on child pornography, from police officers to lawyers to intelligence officers, and the message was loud and clear: Canada provides very little protection for its most helpless citizens.

The Toronto sex crimes police unit showed the round table about 40 seconds the 400,000 images it seized from one arrest in the city. Some of the children were as young as six months old. They were real children. They were being raped, tied up and tortured. It was the most revolting 40 seconds of my life and it is something I never want to have to see again. However it would have been selfish not to have witnessed, to know exactly what was going on and to try to help. It is my duty as an adult, as a father, as a grandfather and as an elected representative to help change things for the better and to ensure that this filth is not permitted to be produced, traded or possessed within our borders.

The John Robin Sharpe case will forever be linked to child pornography. I suppose that is understandable. What we cannot allow is for him to be lauded as a freedom fighter. He is for organizations, such as NAMBLA, that aggressively advocate sex with children claiming to truly understand that children are sexual creatures. Sharpe's writings are not the documents we should be waving around as examples of freedom of thought and expression.

Last month Sharpe was found guilty of possessing boxes of child pornography. However he was found not guilty for the stories he had written and obtained from other pedophiles. Justice Duncan Shaw's reasoning was that however vile they were they had artistic merit.

The guidelines for granting this exception are foggy at best and the laws concerning this area must be specifically and carefully rewritten so as to allow for things like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet to be studied in schools but to allow the banning of the diatribes filled with the rape and torture of children and luring stories read to children by pedophiles to normalize sex. One thing pointed out to us by these crime fighters was that these writings and pictures were used to brainwash children so they would eventually think it was a normal action. To say that there is any artistic merit in this type of filth is simply unjustified. In a tactic to recruit and groom, as was mentioned earlier, there is one lever that we must take away from child pornographers and pedophiles.

Since Sharpe's textual child pornography had an introduction, a body and a conclusion, while being somewhat grammatically correct, it was considered to have artistic merit. We have to make amendments to ensure that this does not happen again. One psychiatrist who testified at the trial said it was one of the most violent things he had ever read. Yet someone says there is artistic merit.

People promoting hatred through writings are not permitted to use artistic merit as a defence but child pornographers are. If writings and comics that depict children being stalked, kidnapped, tortured, raped, sodomized, murdered and cannibalized are not hate literature, then what is? If a 14 year old is permitted to consent to being videotaped while having sex with a 40 year old man, how can we as a nation say with a straight face that we care about our youth?

There have been a number of meetings on the Hill with people who fight this vile stuff everyday. They have told us that there needs to be a national task force specifically dedicated to fighting child pornography and the spread of this stuff. They do not have the resources. As was pointed out earlier, there is one case in Toronto that has a whole unit tied up. They have to catalogue every one of the 400,000 images seized in this one case and present them in court. This ties up their entire force. Another 400 cases have been reported but they cannot get to them.

In the cases of drug seizures, a sample is good enough as proof in court. They do not have to bring in the two tonnes of marijuana or whatever. A sample is sufficient. I think simple changes in the law such as that would take a tool away from these people when they came to court to fight these things.

If we want to get into the debate about the technicalities of some laws existing and some not, let us forget about this. This is about parliamentarians, parents and grandparents doing something to protect our children. If we cannot put aside some of these party specific issues and come together as a parliament to do something, then something is drastically wrong.

I want to read some quotes by witnesses that the committee heard a week ago today.

Detective Sergeant Gary Ellis in Toronto stated “Police exist to protect the weak from the strong and right now we cannot do that properly”. I thought that was a little misleading but after thinking about it for awhile, I decided he was right. We have the weak when we speak of our children and they are the most vulnerable people in our society. There is an aspect of that quote and I understand what he was getting at.

Detective Bob Matthews spoke about studies and all of this posturing with no concrete action. He stated “We've educated ourselves stupid on this issue”. I agree with him. We have talked and talked and this issue is still in front of us. Let us bloody well do something to change it.

The Toronto chief of police stated “If we can't protect our children, then we should, as a society, fly the white flag or surrender because all is lost”. I agree with that entirely. If we as parliamentarians cannot do what is right for our children, then we have no business being part of this parliament.

A corporal in Interpol stated “It's an explosion. And these are horrible images. There are kids that have been abused to produce those”. In one instance children were as young as six months old. One person who saw some stuff provided by Interpol said that a baby who still had the umbilical cord attached was being sexually abused. When we think about the degree of heinousness this takes to perpetuate, then we have to do everything in our power to provide protection.

Detective Matthews stated “Canadians produce as much or more child pornography, per capita, as any other developed country”. Our lawmakers are saying this to us and it is up to us to do something to help them.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and then ask my hon. colleague a question. From time to time today in the debate, some of our hon. members across the floor have I think deliberately tried to cloud the main issue of which we are speaking by inserting extraneous materials into the debate.

The hon. member of while I am speaking there are crosses burning in St. George fame said that she had concerns about the ramifications of passing legislation pertaining to the subject because it might prohibit doctors from graphically sharing with children the kinds of things that must take place as they develop sexually, precautions they should take in terms of sexual intercourse and that sort of thing. She also made the observation that if we went down this road, perhaps it would even mitigate against a teenager writing about her sexual fantasies in a diary or talking about her sexual encounters with her boyfriend.

These kinds of things are being raised in the House which deliberately obscure the very serious problem we have in this country when it comes to the exploitation of our children by sexual predators.

Let us cut to the chase. What does my hon. colleague see as the real issue here and what is his reaction to some of these comments?

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it can be any better addressed than it was in an editorial by Stephen Harper, the leader of the Canadian Alliance, along with the member for Provencher and the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre who brought the motion forward.

They stated:

The purpose of the Canadian Alliance motion is not to criminalize sexual activities between young people close in age or those that are legally married. Rather, the intention is to provide protection to children and young people in situations where they find it difficult to protect themselves. The current age of consent leaves children and teenagers open to becoming targets of pornographers, Internet sex scams, pedophiles and sexual abuse.

When we did the research a couple of years ago on the first private member's bill that I brought forward, which eventually ended up as an amendment to the criminal code, we talked to an awful lot of people across Canada who had been involved in the issue of fighting for the protection of our children. All these issues came forward at that time and we were able to discuss them. However we must keep bringing it back to the fact that we have to do something to protect the people who cannot protect themselves and the young people who are becoming targets.

The Internet has become an absolute haven for these predators, these pedophiles, who use the information, pictures and writings to keep bombarding children until the children think that is the normal way to act. That is why the possession of it, the distribution of it and anything that depicts children in any kind of a situation that would lead to their exploitation is something that we have to work hard to expose and eliminate.

That is what this motion is about today. All this other technical, fuzzy things around the edge should be dealt away, and let us talk about this.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge. Unfortunately I only have 10 minutes so I will not be able to deal with all the aspects I would like to.

For the benefit of my constituents and others who may be listening I will begin by quoting the motion that has been moved. It states:

That the government immediately introduce legislation to protect children from sexual predators including measures that raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, and measures that prohibit the creation or use of sexually explicit materials exploiting children or materials that appear to depict or describe children engaged in sexual activity.

This is a motion. It is not an amendment to a specific clause of a bill. It is simply an expression of what the mover hopes is the view of parliament. I have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in supporting the motion. However I qualify my support by rejecting as categorically idiotic any suggestion that the government is dragging its feet, has not protected or is not protecting children, or that anyone on this side of the House is not interested in protecting and looking after children. That is simply not the case. It is a matter of the approach we take to do that.

There are few people currently sitting in the House of Commons who sat on the Horner justice committee in 1993 when it considered the child pornography legislation that is currently in the criminal code. I am one of the few members of parliament who sat on the committee in my capacity as official opposition critic for the solicitor general.

For those who were not here and do not remember the history, the legislation was brought forward by the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It was not the first time he had tried to bring in legislation to protect children and had been attacked by numerous forces saying it was too draconian.

If members think the current legislation is not draconian enough they should put themselves in the context of 1993 when people criticized the Conservative government for making it too strict. There was a great deal of opposition even to the inclusion of written material. The proposal was that the legislation should deal strictly with photographic visual evidence and that written material was not a harm to children and should therefore not be prohibited.

I fought against that. We were in support of including written material. Memory has a way of fading and making one seem smarter than one was, but it is fair to say that if I went back to look at the transcripts I would see I had a problem with putting two things into the legislation: advocating or counselling; and the defence of artistic merit. I will get to both those things in a moment.

In any event, members on this side of the House and I hope on the other side will talk about some of the things the government has done since 1993 to continue to protect children. In the meantime the Sharpe decisions of both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of British Columbia have come down. That means we must revisit the issue and decide what we need to do to plug loopholes.

Let us make no mistake. Loopholes have been imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada which were not contemplated by the legislators who passed the legislation in 1993. I say that as a bald fact because I am one of them.

I support raising the legal age for consensual sexual activity between adults. I want to make that clear. I am talking about consensual sexual activity between adults. The motion says at least 16. I am prepared to consider 18 as the age because it is a matter of empowerment and lack of equal bargaining power. Someone who is not an adult does not have the same mental capacity to make rational decisions as an adult. The adult may therefore be able to take advantage of the child.

We can always come up with examples. Someone may have just had his 18th birthday and had sex with his girlfriend who is two days shy of her 18th birthday. We are not trying to come up with the ridiculous. We are trying to protect children. We must therefore come up with broad strokes that are reasonable to protect those who cannot protect themselves: the children of our country.

I have no difficulty in at least considering the pros and cons of increasing the age of consent not just to 16 as the motion calls for but to 18. We cannot drink in the province of Ontario until we are 19. We cannot vote until we are 18. Why should we be able to have sex at the age of 17 with someone who is 47? It makes no sense to me so I am prepared to consider that. That is one of the things the motion calls for: to consider ideas.

A real problem has arisen with respect to subsection 163.1(1)(b). Subsection 163.1(1)(a) deals with visual depictions of pornography. I am not talking about that. All these horrendous examples we have heard of visual depictions are against the law. Some judges in the country are not giving the kinds of sentences I would give if I were a judge, but that is a different issue. The maximum penalties are there. If we give someone a conditional sentence for the possession or making of child pornography we ought to have our heads examined.

However that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about any written or visual representation of children engaged in sex that advocates or counsels sexual activity. Then there are the defences: First, material does not constitute child pornography if it has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose. I will not talk about educational, scientific or medical purposes. However I will talk about artistic merit because that is what Mr. Justice Shaw talked about in the British Columbia case when he handed down the second Sharpe decision.

We must be technical because we are passing laws that would restrict freedom in the broadest sense of the word. We must therefore look at things from a legal point of view.

I will quote Mr. Justice Shaw on the issue of advocating or counselling. He was referring to two things Sharpe had allegedly written. I say allegedly because I do not believe he necessarily wrote them. Pedophiles are notorious for trading things. One of the simplest ways of getting around something like this is for people to take someone else's filth, say they wrote it and claim it has artistic merit.

In any event, this is what Justice Shaw said:

[33] While Boyabuse and Stand By America, 1953 arguably glorify the acts described therein, in my opinion they do not go so far as to actively promote their commission. The descriptions may well be designed to titillate or excite the reader (if the reader is so inclined) but these descriptions do not actively advocate or counsel the reader to engage in the acts described.

[34] Nor, in my view, do Boyabuse and Stand By America, 1953 send “the message” that sex with children can and should be pursued. If that were the case, then literature describing murder, robbery, theft, rape, drug use and other crimes in such a way as to make them appear enjoyable would likewise be said to advocate or counsel the commission of those crimes. In my opinion, such literature is not what the “advocates or counsels” requirement is intended to capture.

In my opinion the judge is wrong. He has his opinion. I have mine. How do we deal with the difference of opinion? In my opinion, to use his words, we should change the clause. It should be changed along the lines of what the police officers told us last Tuesday. To the section I have quoted they would add “or a prominent characteristic of which is the description of sexual activity between a person under the age of 18 and an adult, the primary purpose of which is for the sexual gratification of an adult or which poses a risk of harm to a child”.

My 10 minutes is up. That is unfortunate because I wanted to address artistic merit. I hope someone will ask me a question.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, how do we know it happens?

I have a problem with Mr. Justice Shaw's reasoning on artistic merit. If I understand the decision correctly it was not intended for distribution. That was one aspect of his decision. If I look at the Mona Lisa or read Mark Twain there is a consumer or critic at the other end who makes the judgment. I have a lot of problems with the judge's reasoning in the decision.

The way the section of the criminal code is worded it seems if one can find anything of artistic merit it becomes an absolute right and defence. However I remind the House of what Oliver Wendell Holmes said about freedom of expression. He said if one stands in a crowded theatre and yells fire there is no such thing as absolute right to free expression. If the legislation is worded as an absolute right it is incumbent on parliament to fix the problem.

If there is a conflict between the protection of children and artistic merit we should weigh in favour of the child and not the artistic merit argument. Could my hon. colleague comment on the balancing act that must take place in this area? I would hate to see children lose out to the argument of artistic merit every time.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with anything the hon. member said. I agree that the rights of children must supersede other rights. Children have no way of protecting themselves. It is up to us to protect them.

Here is what the section says as far as defences are concerned.

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

The problem is that the chief justice of Canada in her decision in R. v. Sharpe said:

I conclude that “artistic merit” should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art. Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence.

That is plain nonsense. It is a loophole we never intended when we passed the section. It lowers the bar so low an ant could jump over it. We must fix it in the House of Commons, and the sooner the better.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. There is heated debate on both sides of the House.

I remind the hon. member that on April 16 we had a meeting on this important issue. It was attended by 38 members of parliament from all parties except the Bloc Quebecois. It was agreed that the issue was to be headed by my hon. colleague from Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge. The Alliance Party did agree to follow the procedure. It would not make this a political issue.

What happened between April 16 and now? The Alliance Party has decided to bring back the issue and bypass the agreement it had with all the members of parliament. Could my hon. colleague answer that question?

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I looked so carefully at the wording of the motion. I would not have drafted the motion using the same words. I might have used other words and have thought my wording was better. However I do not view the motion's wording as partisan. I do not see an attack in the motion on any government notwithstanding the speeches taking place now. We are voting on a motion, not on the speeches of individual members. I do not see anything in the motion that makes this a partisan issue.

We must look at the issue in broad strokes. We need to protect our children. We cannot get into parsing the issue. We must look after those who cannot look after themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his opening comments the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest said there seems to be an idea among opposition members that the government is dragging its feet on making changes to the legislation.

That is a reality. The Liberals have been in government for over nine years in which time the Internet has become a household appliance. This has exacerbated the problem. We are no longer talking about pictures in books. We are talking about things on the world wide web.

The government should have made changes years ago when the Internet became a reality in homes from coast to coast, but it has not done that. When we talk about dragging feet we are saying the government could have done that. It come have used the notwithstanding clause on the Sharpe decision. It was not done. When we say the government is dragging its feet it is grounded in reality.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we passed legislation on October 18, 2001 creating a new offence of luring, which targets criminals. We make it an offence to transmit, make available, export, or intentionally access child pornography on the Internet. What is the hon. member talking about?

We allow judges to order the deletion of child pornography posted on computer systems in Canada. We allow judges to order the forfeiture of any instrument or equipment used in the commission of child pornography offences. The trouble is the judges are not doing it.

A child pornographer was working for the Department of National Defence. What happened? The judge let him have his computer so he would have something to do. What kind of a judge is that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion today.

I feel a little like an expectant father in the sense that much of this debate today, which is certainly long overdue, hopefully will ultimately create an environment whereby members do not fall on a partisan basis on what is being proposed.

The motion itself deals with the more interesting question of consent which is reflected in the actual decision itself. However most Canadians understand this issue from the perspective of the decision by Shaw in Sharpe number two, the most recent one last month, in which the decision was made based on the judge not finding an advocacy or counselling of child pornography or molestation. The second one, which received wider media attention, was on the more limited subject of artistic merit as a defence.

The motion which comes from the Canadian Alliance does not deal contextually with the concerns that have been expressed readily. We have had some debate over Bill C-15. The member for Scarborough Southwest has made some pretty good comments with respect to Internet service providers and the requirements we are making. The government should be lauded for moving in the right direction.

On April 16, a week ago this evening, as is reported in some of the papers today, a meeting did take place. I note that some of the facts and figures that came out of a meeting with experts on the subject of child pornography have found their way into the speeches of hon. colleagues. It is interesting that those speeches were taken to heart because subsequently there was a commitment made by most of those members to deal with the issues as they were raised and there were some 11, and options.

The first option deals with the age of consent being raised from 14 to 16 while maintaining the close in age exemption. The suggestion was that there be an amendment to section 151 to substitute 16 for 14 but with the qualifier to retain the age of 18 as a consent for trust relationships.

A number of other issues were raised, such as eliminate the defence of artistic merit; determine that child pornography, written or otherwise, is a form of hate crime; and require that written child pornography be found to advocate in sin and counsel sexual activity. There would be appropriate changes for that.

Another issue was that private recordings of lawful sexual activity privately held for personal use would be subjected to a constraint. There would be an option to restrict such exceptions to recordings between persons under 18 not engaged in explicit sexual activity, clearly indicating both knowledge and consent that the activity is being recorded, not kept in a manner where it is capable of distribution to others, and possession is for the exclusive personal use or the person's possession.

There was concern about expressive material in issue number five, which was a clarification or writing of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Concern was raised on another issue and an option that was given about the necessity for police to provide copies of every image seized. It is a little like a drug bust, where one would have to haul in the entire containership as opposed to bringing in a sample. This makes the jobs or resources for police unnecessary and depletes the resources in combating child pornography.

There were other sections that dealt with DNA and other sections that dealt with the issue of a primary designated offence. We were also talking about minimum mandatory penalties for those who commit these kinds of activities.

There was the idea of a national child protection strategy and the concern about, as we saw in the Bernardo case, the re-victimization of certain individuals as a result of permitting the defence an opportunity to see the tapes and having to go through legal gymnastics in order to get the tapes destroyed.

There was also a concern about the retention of information by Internet service providers which I alluded to in my debate last week.

It is pretty hard to argue against a motion in which, as poorly worded as it may or may not be, the intent is correct, that there must be action by this parliament. I said so in a letter to the Prime Minister 45 minutes after the final decision of Justice Shaw.

I was involved with the contemplation of the use of the notwithstanding clause back in 1999-2000 at the first round. I have made a number of interventions on this in a number of different forums. There is a way for parliament to work out the entire issue of child protection in an environment where we can ensure that the maximum degree of protection is afforded our children and yes, not be afraid of using the criminal code to do that.

Before we get to the notwithstanding clause and before we put awkwardly worded questions into law, we must first understand the importance of the issue that the public expects us to address. Very clearly, the artistic merit defence as qualified by the Supreme Court of Canada, as qualified by saying artistic merit however small, should never be used as a sop to ignore the real purposeful risk that exists to children as a result of written information.

Why is that critical? It is critical for one simple reason. The people who look at, purvey and create these images do it so they can suppress the cognitive distortions or use as a distortion but suppress what would otherwise be an affront to most people. It normalizes the degradation, the torture, the raping of children. It allows them an opportunity to fulfill the belief that what they are doing can be vindicated and can be acceptable.

Of course, normal people in society cannot deal with this because the question of the community harm standard was removed. We also know on this issue that short of the community not having a role to play, we were also told that any simple, tiny, minute form of artistic merit would be enough to outdistance and outclass the importance of protecting children.

It is clear to me, and I say so respectfully to the judges, that the Supreme Court of Canada got it wrong. Justice Shaw went even further in a couple of areas alluded to by me and the justice critic for the Bloc Quebecois, as to how there were a number of errors committed in law.

Ultimately, an action plan could contemplate the direction to the B.C. supreme court to at least review and appeal the issue as we did in the case of Marshall and in the case of Askov. We said that the supreme court made a decision and the lower courts got it wrong so we are going to refer it back to the supreme court to give a decision. We could look at that as an option. However, for this parliament not to delve into it and deliberately set itself upon the notion of having to tackle this issue head on, in my view is an abdication of our responsibility regardless of what party or what corner of a province or part of the country we come from.

It is for this reason I have often felt it was important. It was good enough for the premier of Manitoba 24 hours after the decision to ask the federal government to consider protecting the interests of children and not perverts. It was good enough for the province of Alberta and for other others to make the comments. It was good enough for 85% of Canadians to say on the question of written information, they do not believe that the question of expression and the freedom to express it should be boundless.

There is a line that has been crossed here not just on who calls the shots in terms of the laws of this country, but also a determination of the rights of individuals. If we are so willing to give the benefit of the doubt in the most minute form to people to express themselves while completely ignoring the life, liberty and security of the person which are also guaranteed in the charter, then who will speak for the children?

I cannot be more forceful on that point. I do not think there is any relevance in this parliament going forward with other ideas, debates and issues if in the first instance we cannot protect the next generation.

What is some 750,000 images of 10,000 different children, some as young as six months of age in my community in Toronto? That is significant. There are things we cannot correct because they deal with social mores but we can at least take the time to consider options here and now that restore not only the integrity and the confidence the public has in this place and the other place, but also the confidence in the next generation.

It would be helpful if opposition members who proposed the motion would at the very least consider the annoying part that has caused some difficulty over the question of consent. If they could qualify that, as we did in issue number one which was referred to a little earlier, it would be extremely helpful. I think we would find that a lot more members would support the resolution.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that very shortly after Sharpe decision number two, the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge was instrumental in pulling together a group of police officers on Parliament Hill. In fact it occurred last Tuesday. They were from all across the country, from as far away as Vancouver and as close by as Toronto. They brought a lot of information to us.

I want to pay particular tribute to the hon. member for his initiative in pulling that meeting together so very quickly. His initiative was rewarded by seeing a great number of members of parliament from different parties attend the session that he organized. I want to give the hon. member that praise.

Does the member have any particular amendments or suggestions which he did not have an opportunity to give us in his short 10 minute speech which he would like to give in response to my question?

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

Mr. Speaker, I had a suggested amendment which I think was covered by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. This would come in the form of a friendly amendment, subject to those who have presented the motion. It reads that the government immediately introduce legislation to eliminate the legal loophole of artistic merit and other measures to enhance the protection of children from pedophiles and child pornographers in light of recent court decisions.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while we are talking about partisan issues, I appreciate the member who said that the actual wording of the motion was very non-partisan and then stood up and said way to go on the meeting. That is just great, but let us not blow horns here. Let us blow whistles on the people who are perpetrating these acts. These are criminal acts.

It is one thing to get into this whole idea of the definition of artistic merit. Forgive me for not being into modern art, but there is no way anyone will ever convince me that this kind of stuff would ever qualify as having artistic merit. I think all of us share that frustration.

The question here is regarding the friendly amendment. This is a motion that should speak on behalf of all of us in terms of intent and what it is we are trying to accomplish. It is non-partisan. People are equally frustrated on both sides of the House.

These are the kinds of things we can put into that friendly amendment. If we in the House of Commons propose the intent of a motion, there are well-paid people around here who can draft those things legally, technically and properly to make sure it is charter proof. Let us do that.

What we need is the intent to say let us get at this and without blowing horns be able to blow the whistle. Could the member comment on that? Let us give the intent to the drafters. Surely there is a way they could come up with something to get us through this.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has certainly exhibited a very personal commitment. It speaks to the significance of this issue.

It does not create a dilemma for most members of parliament. I do not think there is a single one of us here who would agree with the decision that was rendered in terms of what we have seen as a result of what is now a loophole in law. We also recognize and respect the fact that a motion as written is not etched in stone. It is not in itself a legal parlance subject tomorrow morning to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, albeit that is somewhat ironic since it would appear that it got it wrong the last time.

A team of members of parliament dedicated themselves at the first initiative to look at this very objectively to find 15 different areas in which we should attack the issue of child pornography. In light of the missteps by the courts and perhaps originally by the poor drafting of the legislation, the last thing we should do is divide ourselves on wording that may or may not serve the ultimate effect of increasing the age of those who consent while at the same time potentially decreasing the age of those in positions of trust. I can only think of people like Mr. Kennedy, a young hockey player who was in that situation.

I do not think for many people in trust or authority, given the controversies that are there, we can allow ourselves to provide flimsy language on a motion. There is an opportunity here and I will propose another one shortly with Mr. Speaker's indulgence.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam.

I am proud to support the motion of my hon. colleague from Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre. I congratulate him for all the work he has done on this urgent and important issue before us. I also congratulate the hon. member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar for the efforts she has put into the motion and her long term work on this project.

The motion deserves the support of all members and all parties in this place. I am pleading today with members opposite to put petty partisan considerations aside in the interests of our nation's children.

The motion is not about what happens or has happened in the back seat of daddy's Chevrolet. It is not about paradise by the dashboard light. This is not, going a long way back, about Wake up little Susie . This is about what is happening right now on the streets of our cities, large and small, and on the Internet. It is about what could be happening right now somewhere in Canada or being planned right now somewhere else in Canada.

Let me make it very clear to members opposite who have at times been told to oppose anything that comes from any other party in the House no matter how much our country will benefit from its adoption. Let me explain and plead with them for their support. This is about protecting our children. This is about protecting innocent children who should be running around the playgrounds and the playing fields of the country and not being dragged into back alleys or forced to walk the grimy streets favoured and prowled by sexual predators. I am pleading with those opposite, indeed with all members of the House, to stand shoulder to shoulder with us on this issue.

I would say, especially to the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge and his colleagues who have publicly supported initiatives like this previously, that we welcome their support on the motion. I talked to him this morning and he proposed an amendment that is not quite the one we want yet but I would suggest to him that after question period today we could meet in the lobby behind the seats. We will work with members of that side of the House if there is an amendment that could please everyone because the job here is to work to protect children not to play party politics.

I ask those member to help us send the message that states clearly to those who exploit our children that there is no dark corner, no dirty back alley, no dingy room anywhere in the country where they can hide. We want them to know there is no place in Canada where they will be able to conceal their behaviour. No person in the country will tolerate their presence in our society.

The motion is all about and only about children and protecting them from the dregs of society, keeping them safe from the small but dangerous plague we call sexual predation.

This is a non-partisan issue and a motion that carries the support of politicians in all parties. The attorneys general of the provinces are on record as supporting efforts to combat sexual exploitation of children and the House should be making every effort possible to lead the battle.

We know the police are hindered in their efforts to protect children as young as and younger than 14 who are being coerced into sex with adults. I stress adults here, not two teenagers experimenting but adults who are exploiting. Members might want to remember that we are not talking about experimentation, we are talking about exploitation.

As for the Internet, police estimates are that one in four children have received pornography sent to him or her by an adult. The Internet has become the net that some predators use to entrap children. Police everywhere have said that the Internet is being used to exploit children and people are calling for rules to regulate Internet use.

What we need are laws not rules. We need laws that will protect the children and punish the predators. The first law we need is one that says that a child 16 and under is a child not a sexual play toy for sick and evil adults.

The motion before us is about protecting our children. While many people think the age of sexual consent should be set at 18, the motion calls for it to be at least 16. Support for the motion from all parties and all members will send a clear and unmistakable message to the dregs of society. It will tell them that they are criminals and will be treated as criminals if they exploit children in our country.

I wonder if Canadians or parents fully understand that it is possible for a 50 year old to convince a 14 year old to move into a conjugal relationship and there is nothing at all a parent can legally do to put an end to such an exploitive relationship.

How old is the law that says a 14 year old cannot agree to sex? It is at least a century old. It goes back to when children were treated by society as something their families owned as well as loved.

This is 2002 and it is time we updated the old law. We need to tell the world that Canada regards all the years of childhood as precious, all 16 of those years. Right now, under this century old law, predators have the upper hand. It is not right, not just and cannot be justified.

As one advocate said, “It is illegal to pay for sex with a child but legal if there is no money involved”. Advocacy groups say that they are also willing to support a peer exemption where the age difference is very small. That seems to be all the compromise that is needed.

We have other laws to protect those under and over the proposed age of consent for sexual assault. The motion deserves the support of any hon. member who does not believe that 13 and 14 year olds are mature enough to consent to sex with partners who are years, perhaps decades, older. It deserves the support of any hon. member who believes that no childhood should be ruined by sick and dirty old predators.

I remind all members in all parties that parents across the nation are watching to see what happens as a result of this very well-intentioned motion. If they believe all politicians are corrupt, as we read in the papers yesterday, the motion is a good place to start to persuade them otherwise. Let us work together and vote together to protect our children.

Again I say to members opposite that we will work with them over the next few hours before this comes to a vote. If there is a friendly amendment we can move that will help them along and save children, that is the most important thing. I commit, as Leader of the Opposition, to make that happen this afternoon so children and parents, tonight when they go to bed, will know that Canada is a better place to live in.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to what has been described by almost all members as a very difficult and troubling subject, the sexual exploitation of Canada's kids.

As the youngest member of the House at 25 years of age, I am proud to be supporting today's Canadian Alliance motion which reads:

That the government immediately introduce legislation to protect children from sexual predators including measures that raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, and measures that prohibit the creation or use of sexually explicit materials exploiting children or materials that appear to depict or describe children engaged in sexual activity.

One of the worst things we do in this society is destroy the innocence of the young before their time. We do it through television, through language, through movies and through our social and moral complacency. Now, sadly, we are doing it through our laws by not using every and all known measures possible to prevent the exploitation of kids.

In 1987 the Progressive Conservative government of the day reduced Canada's age of consent for sexual activity from 18 to 14 years of age. The stated reason for the change was that government did not want to criminalize teens who were sexually active with other teens, not that many if any such charges were ever laid. However, since no restriction on the second person's age was mentioned, the law gave legal permission for fully grown adults to engage in sexual activities with 14, 15, 16 and 17 year olds.

Both the provincial attorneys general in Canada and the Canadian Police Association are in favour of raising the age of consent to at least 16 years of age in accordance with the Canadian Alliance motion. In November 1999, after a decade of seeing the terrible results of having lowered the age of sexual consent, a federal justice department paper recommended raising the age of consent from 14 years old back up to 18 years old.

The report states:

There will always be some people who seek out vulnerable children to satisfy their own dangerous impulses, frustrations or need to dominate, in spite of the law and the disapproval of the vast majority of Canadian society.

Immature, inexperienced youngsters are unlikely to have adequate knowledge of the implications and consequences of sexual activity. The relatively low age [of consent] may allow pimps, for instance, to seduce young girls without fear of prosecution, with the intention of luring them into prostitution.

Unfortunately, like so many of the countless reports, papers, recommendations and issue discussion papers that are financed by taxpayers and brought to the government for consideration and attention, this paper was also dismissed.

However a new urgency in dealing with the subject of the exploitation of children was created when on March 26 of this year John Robin Sharpe was found guilty of possessing about 400 photographs of boys engaging in sexually explicit activity but was acquitted on the charges of making and distributing child pornography in the form of his own written work. Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw said that the written works describing sadomasochistic violence and sex with men and young kids is “morally repugnant” but still has “some artistic merit”.

What this means in application is that these writings are now legal and can be published. John Robin Sharpe and others of his perverted sort can now posture as artists and write and publish their most demented thoughts and desires about any sexual act with kids.

In order to successfully prosecute, the police and prosecutors now have to prove that the child pornography in question lacks John Robin Sharpe artistic merit. In other words, the best efforts of our law enforcement community to stop child pornography will be like cobwebs trying to lasso a locomotive; futile.

What a cruel turn of affairs. The decision surprised and disturbed me and countless of my constituents and Canadians. I want to take this opportunity to mention one particular constituent, a gentleman by the name of Doug Stead. I first met Doug by being active in the Canadian Alliance and through a tragedy that happened in his family. He has spent countless hours of his time and countless dollars out of his pocket to crusade and actively get involved. As members of parliament we all get lobbied on countless issues but Doug Stead, on the issue of the protection of Canada's kids, has been so persistent and amazing in providing me information that he really has shown what citizenship in a free country should be all about, when citizens rise up to challenges and frustrations at our system of law. Frankly, it is in large part due to his efforts that the Canadian Alliance is actively pushing this issue here today in the House.

The broad interpretation of artistic merit that was in the John Robin Sharpe case suggests that Canada's legislation has weaknesses that may not allow us to protect Canadian children to the best of our ability. Possessing child pornography is not a victimless crime. It degrades, dehumanizes and sexually exploits kids.

The demand for child pornography leads to its continued production and distribution. To suggest otherwise is naive and absurd.

The idea that possession of one's own pornographic writings is harmless, especially in this electronic age of easy transmission where publication of material on the Internet is difficult if not impossible to control, simply ignores modern realities, as the Leader of the Opposition just said.

Some say we must be careful not to restrict freedom of expression. I say if there is any place that cries out for society to say no, it is in the area of child pornography. I do not accept the concept that people should be free to defile children either physically or in writing. I do not accept the concept that there can be artistic merit in the victimization of children. I also do not accept the concept that the intention of exciting or arousing a passion that is perverted, illegal, immoral and in all fashion and form reprehensible to a civil society is acceptable in any form even if it is based on the rather farfetched notion that the creators of such offensive material will not share with others and will keep it only for themselves.

The protection of society's most vulnerable members is our most important duty and responsibility. Ensuring that our children have the opportunity to be the best that they can be is our primary function. It is only through the protection of our children and the promotion of their successes that we can defend against and defeat so many of the ills that exist in our society, be it poverty, domestic violence or criminal activity, which cost our society enormously both in human and economic terms and serve to clog our courts and prisons.

Unfortunately we are failing at this task. The Progress of Canada's Children in the Millennium report of January 2000 stated that the child sex trade exists everywhere in Canada, from large to small communities. It was estimated there were 100 child sex trade offences every single day in the city of Vancouver. RCMP Sergeant John Ward commenting on the report in the Toronto Star said information about Vancouver's Kiddie Stroll where kids were picked up by adults was now on the Internet, complete with prices, making Canada a tourist destination for the child sex trade.

In November 2000, an international report on child abuse by an organization called End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, ECPAT, singled out Canada as a haven for sexual predators of children. The report stated that Canada has one of the youngest ages of consent for sexual activity at 14 whereas other countries were raising their age of consent to 18 years.

At one point Canada was considered a global leader in combating the sexual exploitation of children. Regressive age of consent laws, flawed legislation and an overall lack of planning by the federal government are now turning Canada into a venue for the sexual exploitation of kids according to this report.

The motion we are debating today states:

That the government immediately introduce legislation to protect children from sexual predators including measures that raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, and measures that prohibit the creation or use of sexually explicit materials exploiting children or materials that appear to depict or describe children engaged in sexual activity.

This is a step in the right direction to re-establish Canada as one of the leaders in protecting kids. One of the worst things we can do in a society is to destroy the innocence of the young before their time. This is our opportunity to rally together across party lines and move Canada forward.

Abraham Maslow has a theory called Maslow's hierarchy of needs. At the bottom of it, the first need of any living, breathing citizen is the freedom from fear, the freedom from exploitation and the freedom from abuse of other citizens. We have a responsibility and it is the first responsibility of the state. Outside of balanced budgets, an efficient economy, national infrastructure, court or parliamentary system that is functional, the number one responsibility of the state is to protect those who play by the rules from those who do not. It is article one of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

This place has failed kids, the most vulnerable of our society. We have failed children. If we were to pass the motion, it would be a step in the right direction. We would walk forward together and say this would not happen any more. We would be united. We would change our laws and progressively move this country forward in a way that would protect our most prized possession, our kids.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's comments. Earlier I listened to the comments of the hon. House leader for the Alliance Party who indicated that he would be open to an amendment. I want to ask the hon. member a question in relation to that.

I know there is great interest in the subject today. There is an interest on both sides in seeing that children are properly protected. There is an acknowledgement on that side that this is not so much about the exact wording of the legislation. That is the intent that we are hearing from the Alliance.

I saw an article today in the National Post , written by the leader of the Alliance, Stephen Harper, as well as two other members of the Alliance. It states:

What Canada really needs is to immediately embark on a well thought-out, consultative approach to dealing with these issues. Canadians deserve to have their elected government--not their appointed courts--set policy on issues as important as these.

Does the hon. member think that his party would, and would he personally, accept an amendment that reflected those words?

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the deputy House leader for the government were to table an amendment, we would certainly consider it. However what Mr. Harper and two of my colleagues were referring to was the responsibility of the House in the first John Robin Sharpe decision. It should have invoked the notwithstanding clause.

We have a responsibility above all to protect kids. One thing that is often forgotten about the invocation of section 33 of the charter is that the invocation of the notwithstanding clause is a temporary measure. The current child pornography laws were hastily written prior to a federal election campaign. When laws are hastily written and enacted there are flaws in the legislation which are exploited by people like John Robin Sharpe and upheld by the courts. It sends a signal to us that we must change the law because the intent of the law is not being enforced in practice.

The invocation of the notwithstanding clause is an attempt to say that we understand that there is a flaw in the legislation. While we repair this legislation so that it is fully constitutional and applies to the full spirit not only of the letter of the law of the charter but that the intent of protecting kids is enacted into law, and notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of the law, we will continue to protect kids.

We argued for that. That is what Stephen Harper argued for and will continue to argue when he comes into this House. Unfortunately the Liberals did not agree with it.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on some of the hon. member's comments and ask him what his understanding of the motion is.

The motion, as I understand it, is not an exclusive document. It simply gives the government a policy direction to take a look at this issue. The House believes that the age of consent should be raised from 14 to 16 and that the exploitation of children, as demonstrated in cases like Sharpe and others, should simply not be tolerated.

The motion does not exclude further discussion. In fact it gives an imperative to government to act in this respect. I do not know of anyone on this side of the House who opposes that continuing discussion.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Provencher for his tireless work on this subject not only here in the federal arena but when he was the attorney general of the province of Manitoba.

He is exactly right. A supply day motion is simply a signal from the House to the government that yes, it better do something about this because the laws are not working. We tried to do that by convincing the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause during the first round of the John Robin Sharpe decision.

However, my colleague from Provencher is also right, that it does not preclude discussions beyond the age of consent and some of the things that are in Bill C-15A. However if the House were to pass it and if enough Liberals, like the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge who talks a lot about being in favour of protecting kids but we are still looking to see some action, were to support the motion either tonight or tomorrow evening, then the government would have to listen.

The House passed a supply day motion to create a national sex offender registry. All Liberals said they voted for it but they did not do anything about it.

We are putting forward this motion because so many of our constituents and so many Liberals tell us in the cloakrooms, the cafeterias and as we walk around Parliament Hill, that they care about this issue. This is their opportunity to put that into action. Once the House has given its mandate to the government to table some actual legislation that will move the ball forward, we want it to actually do that.

CPIC is not a national sex offender registry. The government failed on that count. This is its opportunity to whittle away that 69% of Canadians who think government is corrupt, and stand up for kids, for the respect of the House and respect the idea that when the House expresses its intent to protect kids the government should listen.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal government came to power it has taken this issue seriously. The children agenda has been the main focus in most of the budgets that have been introduced in the House. We recognize that children are our most valuable resource and at the same time the most vulnerable members of our society. We have taken action in order to protect them and continue to do so. I would like to put on record some of the initiatives that the government has taken and some of the actions that have been put in place.

On October 18, 2001, parliament passed amendments to the criminal code. A number of those amendments dealt with provisions to protect children from criminals who seek to sexually exploit them using the Internet. The legislation has done a number of things. It has created a new offence of luring which targets criminals who use the Internet to lure and exploit children for sexual purposes. Those amendments ensure that it is an offence for anyone to transmit or make available, export or intentionally access child pornography on the Internet.

As a result of these amendments judges are able to order the abolition of child pornography posted on computer systems in Canada. Judges are able to order the forfeiture of any instruments or equipment used in the commission of child pornography offences.

Judges are also able to keep sexual offenders away from children by making prohibition orders, long term offender designations and peace bonds available for luring in child pornography offences. It also amended the criminal code respecting child sex tourism that was enacted in 1997 to simplify the process for prosecuting Canadians in Canada who commit sexual offences against children in other countries.

The amendments to the criminal code were passed in October 2001. I will sum up for the House some of the initiatives the government has taken in order to protect children since coming to power in 1993. The government has taken this issue seriously and has made it a priority.

For example, amendments were introduced to the criminal code dealing more effectively with high risk offenders. The amendments have strengthened the dangerous offender provisions in the criminal code by introducing a long term offender designation that allows judges to impose a period of supervision of up to 10 years following release from prison and creating a new judicial restraint provision to permit controls to be applied to those at high risk of committing serious personal injury offences, including attacks on children.

The government also established a national flagging system to help prosecutors deal more effectively with high risk offenders. These are some of the initiatives the government has taken on behalf of our children.

Book Day

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today Canadians across the country are celebrating Canada Book Day. To mark this event I had the pleasure to host my own annual Canada Book Day event on April 19 at the Parkdale Public Library. Some of the highest profile creative writers in Toronto were there to speak about their favourite books.

My constituents had the pleasure to meet the following renowned Canadian authors: Rosemary Aubert, Reza Baraheni, Judy Fong Bates, Catherine Bush, Bill Cameron, Natalee Caple, Eliza Clark, Joe Fiorito, Greg Gatenby, Larry Gaudet, David Macfarlane, Pamela Mordecai, and Shyam Selvadurai.

I also wish to thank Antonio D'Alfonso for his donation of literary books that he publishes at his internationally known press called Guernica Editions.

Founded in 1976 the Writers' Trust of Canada has endeavoured to advance and nurture Canadian writers and literature. This day provides us with the opportunity to celebrate the important role of literature in Canada's past, present and future.

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

Mr. Speaker, today marks World Book Day and Canada Book Day. World Book Day was designated by UNESCO as a worldwide celebration of books and reading and was observed in over 30 countries worldwide last year.

April 23 holds particular significance as it marks the birth and death of one of the greatest writers, William Shakespeare. This symbolic date was chosen by the General Conference of UNESCO to pay tribute to books and authors. This focus on world literature will help encourage everyone, especially young people, to discover the pleasure of reading. It also recognizes the important contribution the creative mind makes to social and cultural progress.

As an avid reader and one who holds a great appreciation of the literary arts, I take this opportunity to encourage all Canadians to pick up a book and promote Canada's many great authors.