And from a somewhat different perspective, there is the sensitive issue of defence for possession of child pornography. The interpretation of the notion of artistic merit given by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sharpe case angered many. In fact, the court interpreted this notion in a very broad manner, and I quote:
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. Simply put, artists, so long as they are producing art, should not fear prosecution under s. 163.1(4).
The Minister of Justice, in introducing Bill C-20, has replaced this defence with another one, based on the public good this time. It specifies, and I quote, that:
No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence serve the public good and if the acts alleged do not extend beyond what serves the public good.
Let us again use a fictitious example to illustrate cases in which this new defence could be used.
Normally, the possession of pornographic videos involving children would be considered a sexual offence. We all agree, this is very clear. However, a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of pedophiles could justify having such tapes in his possession for treatment purposes because his possessing such tapes serves the public good. In this case, the possession of videos is more helpful than harmful. Prima facie, this new defence seems reasonable.
Bill C-20 also proposes harsher sentencing for offenders. The proposal of the Minister of Justice would see the maximum sentence for sexual exploitation double from five to ten years. The maximum sentence for abandoning a child or failing to provide the necessaries of life to a child would more than double from two to five years in prison.
The courts would also consider child abuse during the commission of an offence under the Criminal Code an aggravating factor that could lead to harsher sentencing. In our opinion, these changes seem quite relevant and we support them.
Before closing, I would like to stress the overall objective of facilitating the testimony of children. This legislation would reform the current criminal justice system so that contributing to and participating in the system is less traumatic for victims and witnesses.
The current provisions of the Criminal Code would be expanded to make testimonial assistance available for all witnesses under 18, not only those who are affected by sexual offences and other specific offences, in all criminal proceedings.
This assistance includes allowing witnesses to give their evidence from behind a screen or by closed-circuit television, or having a young witness accompanied by someone they trust.
The current provisions generally require that the Crown establish the need for testimonial assistance. Given the possible trauma to young witnesses of the courtroom experience—and I know whereof I speak, having watched the proceedings, and my wife, who is a Crown attorney, and I have spoken about this at length—the proposed reforms recognize the need for this particular assistance. We strongly support it.
We should note in passing that it is at the judge's discretion, however, to deny assistance or protection if it obstructs the administration of justice.
In our view, these elements of the bill represent a step in the right direction and we will support them throughout the entire legislative process. However, this new process must not infringe on the right of an accused person to a full and complete defence, which remains a fundamental right under current Canadian law.
This bill that we are talking about is very broad and the different angles that we intend to work on are those that I have just mentioned. We intend to support the bill at this stage. As I have already said a few times, we will take the opportunity at committee stage to improve it in order to protect our children. They are society's most important resource.