Lloyd St. Amand

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-313, an act to amend the Criminal Code, dealing with prohibited sexual acts.

I am pleased to join the debate on the bill because it truly addresses an important issue and also because it is an issue on which misinformation seems to abound.

I appreciate the apparent intent of the bill, namely to better protect our youth against sexual abuse and exploitation. However, I do not support it because the bill will bring greater harm than good to those whom it seeks to protect and because the approach of the bill is ad hoc and somewhat incomplete.

Bill C-313 proposes a number of reforms which would raise the age of consent to non-exploitative sexual activity from 14 to 16 years for some, but not all, sexual offences against children.

The age of consent refers to the age below which the criminal law does not recognize the legal capacity of a young person to consent to sexual activity, and below this age of consent, any and all sexual activity, ranging from sexual touching, such as kissing, to sexual intercourse, is prohibited.

The age of consent to sexual activity is, in fact, 18 years where the relationship is exploitative, such as where it involves prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. Where none of these exploitative circumstances exist, the age of consent is 14 years and, despite some incorrect beliefs by some, the age of consent for non-exploitative sexual activity has always been 14 and was not lowered in the 1980s.

The only exception to this age is where the young person is 12 or 13 years old and the other person is less than two years older, but under 16 years of age and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency. It is important to be perfectly clear that any non-consensual sexual activity, regardless of age, is a sexual assault.

Bill C-313, as I read it, proposes to raise the age of consent for non-exploitative sexual activity by amending only some of the relevant offences, but not all, by raising the age from 14 to 16 years. It would expand the existing clause, close in age exception, for 12 and 13 year olds to include 14 and 15 year olds, but with the same conditions. The other person must be less than two years older and under 16 years of age and there be no relationship of trust, authority or dependency.

Under this exception, for example, although a 15 year old boy could engage in sexual activity with his 15 and a half year old girlfriend, this sexual activity would become illegal on the day of the girl's 16th birthday. In other words, Bill C-313 would criminalize the 16 year old for engaging in consensual activity that was legal literally only the day before.

I do not believe that Canadians want to criminalize such activity. I also do not believe that the 15 year old boy would wish to be depicted as a sexual assault victim. This is not an unreasonable or even exceptional hypothetical situation. In fact, according to the May 3, 2005 Statistics Canada edition of, The Daily, we should consider this to be a very likely and common scenario.

It reported that by age 14 or 15 about 13% of Canadian adolescents have had sexual intercourse. The figure for boys and girls was quite similar, 12% and 13% respectively. From such estimates, it is reasonable to believe that youth begin to engage in other or lesser forms of sexual activity at an even younger age.

For instance, in the 2003 Canadian youth, sexual health and HIV-AIDS study released by the council of ministers of education, this survey of Canadian adolescents in grades 7, 9 and 11 found that 35% of boys and 49% of girls in grade 7, that is kids 12 years of age, had engaged in deep or open mouth kissing, sexual activity as described by our criminal laws.

The reality is that whether one condones or approves such activity or not, the fact of the matter is that Canadian youth are sexually active from at least as young as 12 years of age. It is clear that Bill C-313 would criminalize youth for engaging in normal adolescent sexual activity even when that activity is engaged in with a peer. As I said, while one may not agree with youth engaging in such activity, there are other far more effective ways than using the state's strongest power, the criminal law power, to educate our children about sexuality.

I do not see how this bill provides better protection to young persons against sexual exploitation when it would in effect turn them into young offenders. Another reason why I cannot support the bill is because of its ad hoc approach to raising the age of consent for sexual activity. It does not ensure uniform and consistent protection because it does not include all offences that relate to the age of consent.

Specifically, it does not amend the following offences: section 172.1, luring a child over the Internet for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against a child; section 273.3, removal of a child from Canada for the purpose of committing one of the enumerated child sexual offences; section 810.1, reconnaissance orders or peace bonds to prevent suspected child sex offenders from frequenting places where children can be expected to congregate or from engaging in activity that involves contact with young persons, including communicating with young persons through the use of a computer system such as the Internet; or section 159, anal intercourse.

I will not guess as to why these provisions are not amended by Bill C-313, but the net effect of these omissions is to confirm my concerns about the ad hoc approach of this bill. The protection of our youth against sexual exploitation is far too important for us as lawmakers to address it in an ad hoc fashion. For all of these reasons, I do not support Bill C-313 in its present form.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Northern Development.

On April 19, 2004 aboriginal leaders met with federal ministers and parliamentarians, including the Prime Minister, to discuss how we could work together to improve the lives of aboriginal people.

The government said it was committed to changing the way we deal with aboriginal people. What action has the government taken since the round table toward meaningful change for aboriginal Canadians?

[Doug Wilson, May 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a member of my riding of Brant who recently passed away.

Mr. Doug Wilson died on May 5 shortly after being diagnosed with lung cancer.

Mr. Wilson was the city solicitor for the City of Brantford for many years and guided city council and staff in Brantford through many political and bureaucratic projects.

He has been described as a man who had incredible integrity, was soft spoken and his word was worth gold. He was an avid sportsman and played many sports with a high degree of proficiency. He was a modern day renaissance man and the theatre was a large part of his life with his wife, Colette. He was also fond of jazz and avidly read works of literature.

Doug Wilson was a conscientious professional, a very fine husband and a devoted father. Many individuals had the privilege of calling him a friend. He will be greatly missed.

[VE Day, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Canada's veterans.

I had an opportunity this past weekend to participate in the Brant Liberation of the Netherlands parade. The parade, which took place in Brantford on Sunday, May 8, was an event which marked the liberation of the Netherlands and the end of the second world war.

It was an honour to welcome the Vice Consul of the Netherlands, Mr. Loek Felten, to Brantford to take part in such a significant event.

I would like to personally thank the organizers of this tremendous event and pay special tribute to the many veterans who gave so much of themselves for our rights and our freedoms. Our debt to them is beyond calculation.

I also wish to pay tribute to the Brant Naval Veterans Association for its weekend events marking the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic.

[Alzheimer's Disease, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's Motion No. 170. I am sure I speak for all of my hon. colleagues when I say that occasionally forget things. We forget the names of former college friends or where we put our glasses or our car keys. This is a normal occurrence that we can honestly say has happened to all of us. However, a person with Alzheimer's disease may forget things that have happened yesterday or an hour ago and soon forget what day, month or year it is. Eventually those affected stop recognizing family members and friends.

Alzheimer's patients have difficulty performing regular tasks, have problems with language, disorientation of time, disorientation of place and have varied mood swings and many more symptoms that are not a normal or typical part of the aging process.

It was in 1906 when Dr. Alzheimer, a German neurologist and psychiatrist, first discovered Alzheimer's disease. The disease is a progressive, degenerative brain condition with no known cause or cure. Since 1906, many organizations have been created to study, to educate and to offer support for Alzheimer's patients and their families. For example, the Alzheimer Society of Canada was founded in 1978. It has grown and expanded to serve Canadians from coast to coast.

The education of the early warning signs of any health problem is of great importance to people of all ages. There is a growing influx of Canadians who are showing signs of Alzheimer's and other related dementias, and people are being diagnosed at much earlier ages. With proper consultation and programs, Canadians will be able to recognize the signs of diseases such as Alzheimer's and many others which may affect their daily lives and the lives of their families and friends.

In my riding of Brant alone, approximately 1,800 residents have been diagnosed or who have shown signs of Alzheimer's or other forms of related dementia. By the year 2021, in Brant the estimated portion of the population over the age of 65 suffering from Alzheimer's or a related dementia will increase by 50% from the year 2000.

With our high percentage of an aging population, Alzheimer's and dementia are issues that will in time affect all of us. Whether a personal diagnosis or a diagnosed member or friend, our lives will be changed by a disease that will and has become an epidemic.

It comes as a great surprise to most individuals when they learn that Alzheimer's disease and dementia are the fourth leading cause of death in our elderly. With proper research facilities and federal, provincial and territorial support and funding Canadians will be better suited to address issues such as Alzheimer's and many other diseases which may affect us.

Many educational organizations and groups already exist. I would point to groups such as the Alzheimer Society of Brant, which provides a wide variety of support in my community through support services, counselling, education and training of caregivers and of those affected by Alzheimer's and dementia.

The Alzheimer Society of Brant has members present in many of our local long term care facilities, in our seniors residences and in our hospitals, but more needs to be done. Individuals such as Vic Prenderjast, president, Janet Lovekin, executive director, and Wanda Dzierzbicki, community development coordinator of the Alzheimer Society of Brant, to name just a few, are present in many of our health facilities training staff and speaking directly to those who are affected by Alzheimer's.

Many of these organizations survive through the kindness and generosity of others. It is evident that the need for research, education and community support is a vital part of Alzheimer treatment and care.

In order to accomplish significant steps in treating this debilitating disease and many other illnesses which affect the lives of so many, governments, medical professionals, communities and individuals must continue working together.

While Alzheimer's is a disease that can affect any of us with little or no warning, many other chronic ailments exist. Through a combined strategy and partnership, we as Canadians may one day be able to win the difficult battle against Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia and the many other diseases that affect our lives.

[Organ Donor Awareness Week, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week.

I was fortunate to attend the Brant County Organ Donation Awareness curling bonspiel held April 9 at the Brantford Golf and Country Club. It was very moving and inspiring to hear from those who had received the gift of life through organ donation.

Canada has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the world at 13 donors per million population. Some areas, such as Toronto, have only 10 donors per million population.

In Canada, up to 30% of people waiting for a solid organ transplant die on the waiting list. There is a chronic shortage of hearts, lungs, kidneys, livers and bowels for transplant in Canada. There are more than 3,500 people awaiting organ transplants in this country.

In recent months there has been much attention focused on the idea of creating a living will. It is my hope that all Canadians will take the time to speak to their families about organ and tissue donation.

[Volunteerism, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. C.J. Dick, an outstanding member of my riding of Brant.

C.J. has tirelessly volunteered for many organizations in Brant and has raised countless funds for such groups as the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Humane Society and others. In the past few months he has raised some $9,500 for the Multiple Sclerosis Society.

C.J. has donated his time and efforts to ensure that our local community agencies remain well funded and that these agencies continue to provide their support to those in need and their families.

Mr. Dick is an example of true selflessness. I ask all hon. members to join me in thanking C.J. for his continued efforts and to encourage others in our communities to follow his generous lead.

[Public Works and Government Services, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Accenture, a U.S. based research company, recently released its global study on leadership and customer service, and for the fifth year in a row Canada is being recognized as a world leader in government service online delivery.

Could the Minister of Public Works explain how this leadership in government service delivery will benefit rural Canadians?

[Forum for Young Canadians, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to acknowledge five exceptional students from my riding of Brant.

Throughout March and April, high school students from across Canada will participate in the Forum for Young Canadians. It is with admiration that I acknowledge those selected from Brant.

The event, which takes place on Parliament Hill, is an excellent opportunity for senior high school students from across Canada to study firsthand the roles and processes of government in Canada. The event is also an outstanding opportunity for younger Canadians to socialize with their peers and gain knowledge of the unique and varied aspects of Canada.

I would like to ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all those involved in this educational and meaningful event.

[Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act, March 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, Canada's experience with diversity distinguishes it from most other countries. Our 30 million inhabitants reflect a cultural, ethnic and linguistic makeup found nowhere else on earth. Over 200,000 immigrants annually from all parts of the globe continue to choose Canada, drawn by its quality of life and its reputation as an open, peaceful, and caring society that welcomes newcomers and values diversity.

Over time Canadian governments have reflected society's increasing willingness to accept differences within the population, specifically the legitimacy of the rights of all minorities to maintain their culture and traditions. Through our history, however, there have been instances of laws that would be considered regressive today.

Canada, in the years prior to World War I, witnessed a heavy immigration from eastern Europe. When war broke out, the country faced a serious problem: what to do with recent immigrants who were citizens of the very countries with which Canada was at war? This problem became most acute in 1914 when German and Austro-Hungarian nationals, resident in Canada, were called upon by their respective governments to return home to honour their military draft obligations.

According to some historians, over 8,000 individuals were interned in approximately two dozen camps under orders made pursuant to the War Measures Act. The internees were composed of a mix of nationalities, including Turkish, Bulgarian, German and Austro-Hungarian. The largest number were from Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which included Croatians, Czechs, Poles, Serbians and other Europeans. The numbers also included approximately 5,000 Ukrainians out of an estimated population of about 171,000 of Ukrainian origin in Canada at that time.

From the beginning, internees were treated as prisoners of war and, in keeping with the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907, received the same standards of food, clothing and accommodations as Canadian soldiers. It is estimated that by the end of the war, in 1918, there were only three internment camps remaining in operation, the last of which officially closed in February 1920.

In 1994 the hon. Sheila Finestone, then minister of state for multiculturalism and status of women, stated in this very House:

--as Canadians we are proud that our citizens trace their origins to every part of the world. Together we have built this country on the principles of fairness, generosity and compassion. Our history records the remarkable success we have achieved by applying those principles.

Our history also records that at times we have strayed from them. There have been episodes that have caused suffering to people.

In the crisis atmosphere of war, some Canadian ethnocultural communities found their loyalty questioned, their freedom restrained and their lives disrupted.

Canadians wish those episodes had never happened. We wish those practices had never occurred.

We can and we must learn from the past. We must ensure that future generations do not repeat the errors of the past.

We believe our obligation lies in acting to prevent these wrongs from recurring.

Canada in 2005 is a very different Canada. Tremendous steps have been taken toward making our country a better place. We have worked and will continue working with Ukrainian Canadians and other communities to document their history and experiences through a range of commemorative projects, including films, books and exhibits, that enable them to tell their stories to other Canadians.

Finally, the Ukrainian community has helped to shape the strong multicultural society we are today. I and all members of Parliament honour the contribution that individuals of Ukrainian descent have made in the building of Canada. I recognize that this contribution was made even in the face of dark moments and great hardship. We need to find an acceptable way to highlight and educate Canadians about this valuable contribution.