Gurmant Grewal

[Criminal Code, March 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true that such heinous crimes have been increasing in our communities.

In the city of Surrey, many children have been kidnapped. There are some famous cases where the kids have been even murdered. I do not want to name those children to respect the privacy of the families. It is certainly very painful to see that happen.

The city of Surrey is considered, unfortunately, the auto theft capital of North America. Break and enters, gang violence, drug related violence and organized crime related violence have been escalating.

One root cause is the government has not been giving enough resources to the law enforcement agencies. Today there are 4,200 fewer RCMP officers on our streets and highways than there were when the Liberals came to power in 1993. Moreover, last year the Canadian Police Association said that the RCMP needs an immediate infusion of $250 million into the system.

The Canadian per capita average indicates that British Columbia would need 691 more police officers. In Surrey there is one police officer per 893 residents. In Vancouver there is one police officer per 400 people. On a per capita basis, we have just half the police officers.

There are 75 vacancies in the RCMP in the city of Surrey alone. Those positions have been vacant for a very long time. Why? One underlying reason is that the Liberal government is not giving our law enforcement agencies enough resources.

In addition to having fewer police officers, they have the highest number of files per police officer. In Surrey, RCMP officers each handle on average 126 files. We know what the result is from starving the RCMP of resources, officers and vehicles to patrol the streets. Naturally the response time after 911 calls is longer. Naturally there is a shortage of police officers on the street. Therefore crime is on the rise.

We need to take action. I have been calling upon the weak and arrogant Liberal government time and again to do something about it. The Liberals have not done anything. With Bill C-12, the Liberals had another opportunity to make the legislation tougher to protect our children and they have failed.

[Criminal Code, March 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, it was indicated in the House of Commons yesterday during question period, surprisingly by a Liberal member, who cited John Robin Sharpe as endorsing this bill. How shameless that a Liberal member would stand up and indicate that a notorious pedophile in this country endorses this bill. It indicates so clearly that the bill is good for pedophiles and not for victims and does not protect our children.

Where is the defence for protecting our children? It is completely missing. The underlying cause is the government lacks the political will to protect children from pedophiles.

There are many loopholes in the bill. Previously it was artistic merit and now the government would put in law the public good defence. How good is that public defence when it does not protect children from pedophiles, from child pornography, from sexual exploitation? How good is the public good defence? I cannot understand why the Liberal government is letting it go forward in this form.

I have been watching since the new Prime Minister took power, after many years of backroom stabbing and manipulations, and he has not come forward with a single piece of his own legislation. He is recycling the legislation from the previous Liberal government.

He has missed the opportunity to include in the law the amendments from the official opposition's thoughtful members. Time and again we have raised those issues in the House, to make the law tougher and make the sentences meaningful but the government has ignored us. The Prime Minister has chosen to ignore us again. He has missed that opportunity. The loopholes in the law will continue and people like John Robin Sharpe will continue to endorse the laws made by the weak and arrogant Liberal government.

[Criminal Code, March 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

Contrary to yesterday's assertion by the justice minister, the official opposition cares about protecting children from sexual predators. That is why we are firmly opposed to Bill C-12. We want legislation that makes the perverts who prey upon our innocent children fearful.

Unfortunately, Bill C-12 fails in that regard. This bill has been endorsed by none other than Mr. John Robin Sharpe, the very man who was found guilty of possession of as many as 400 images of children whom prosecutors contended were being exploited sexually.

In March 2002 Sharpe's conviction concerning the images was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, he was ultimately acquitted of related charges that had been filed against him in connection with the stories he had written, specifically because those writings were deemed to have artistic merit. Mr. Sharpe feels that this bill is so poorly crafted that even he could use it to his advantage in the courts.

To quote the nation's most notorious child pornographer, “The interesting thing about the child sex laws is that they may offer some unintended opportunities for the defence”. Mr. Sharpe asserts that the federal proposal is a panic reaction to his two successes in challenging the current legislation in court. He further writes, “I am fairly confident that given good legal counsel, and a by-the-book judge who bases his decisions on the wording of the law...I and my stories would again be acquitted under the proposed measures”.

The problem with this bill lies in the proposed public good defence. Mr. Sharpe is not alone when he claims that the proposal is too vague to survive court challenges. Many legal experts agree with him. Judges who interpret and apply the law do not consider the many fine speeches delivered in this chamber. They simply look at the words of the laws that we pass in this place.

What does public good really mean? The government has failed to make that clear. What if, as Mr. Sharpe suggests, a judge finds it in the public good to allow possession of child pornography if it prevents convicted child molesters from reoffending again? That certainly is within the realm of possibility.

If Parliament passes this bill, a person would be found guilty of a child pornography offence when the material or act in question does not serve the public good or where the risk of harm outweighs any public benefit. Since the Sharpe case, Conservatives have called again and again on the federal government to eliminate the artistic merit defence, but replacing it with a public good defence is not the solution. We must eliminate all defences that justify the criminal possession of child pornography.

The Liberals need to get their priorities straight. They have brought forward many pieces of legislation, but none of them protect children against child pornography. For years I have been demanding a stop to the sexual exploitation of children, but the Liberals clearly lack the political will to fix that problem for our society.

In fact, during the Liberal government's tenure, family values have been continually eroded. We can talk about any single issue that relates to family values. Those family values have been eroding under the Liberals, whether it is the definition of marriage, protecting children from child pornography, raising the age of consent, taxation laws with respect to single parent families, or giving law enforcement agencies enough resources and laws with teeth.

On every single front, the Liberal government has let families down. It always forgets that the stronger the family, the stronger the community and the stronger our great nation would be. The foundation of this great country is the family, not the social welfare system. We have to strengthen our families. We have to protect children and other vulnerable people.

Canadians want laws with teeth. That is one thing we can do in this chamber. At least we could make laws with teeth and not have just a slap on the wrist or a revolving door criminal justice system. We cannot do that anymore. Why can the Liberals not see that we want deterrents in place, not some sort of motivation for criminal behaviour?

Bill C-12, which we are debating today, will increase maximum sentences or maximum penalties for offences that harm children. I agree, but that is not good enough. How many times has government introduced legislation that increases maximum sentences? What is the good of increasing maximum sentences if the courts will not apply the full force of the laws we already have in place? Increasing penalties is meaningless if the courts do not impose the sentences.

We know from experience that when maximum sentences are raised there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices. What is needed? Mandatory minimum sentences. We need truth in sentencing. We need no conditional sentences for child predators. We need minimum mandatory sentences instead of the maximum sentences so that the judges can implement them.

Bill C-12 creates a new category of sexual exploitation that protects people aged 14 to 18. Courts would focus not on consent but on whether the relationship is exploitative based on age difference, control exerted and other circumstances. Again, that is not good enough. It is already against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority, or with whom a young person is in a relation of dependency, to be sexually involved with that young person. It is already in the law. It is unclear how adding such people will add legal protection for young children.

What the Liberals should have done instead was increase the age of consent for any sexual activity. A major shortcoming of the bill is that it fails to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between children and adults. I fail to see the rationale for permitting adults to engage in any sexual activity with children. The government should raise the age of consent, currently set out in section 150.1 of the Criminal Code, from 14 to 16 at least, if not 18.

In Surrey, we are all too familiar with the problem of prostitution. Studies have found that 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes enter the trade as children. In particular at that age, the recruitment process for the sex trade in Canada preys on young girls and boys and specifically targets those who are at the current age of consent, that is, 14. According to the Children of the Street Society, the majority of parents who call asking for help from the police have children who are 14 years old and are being recruited into the sex trade by the pimps.

I ask the Liberals, do they think that 50 year old men should be able to target 14 year old runaways for sex, give them a sexually transmitted disease and get them pregnant? What response will Liberals give at the doorstep during the upcoming campaign? I would be very interested to hear from the government members who lack the political will to protect our children from these sex predators.

The results of dozens of studies show the effect of adult sexual contact with children. There is a huge risk of clinical depression, suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, and extreme promiscuity and involvement in prostitution. It is vitally important that we do not confuse physical maturation with psychological maturation. The “age of majority” is a term used by lawyers to protect the offender and to describe the time in life after which a person is legally no longer considered a child. In essence, it is an arbitrary time when a child becomes an adult in the eyes of the law.

Why is it that we as a society feel that children are ill-prepared to drive, to drink, even to vote or marry or drop out of school or even watch violent movies, but we feel they are totally ready to decide for themselves with whom they should have sex? It is a pity to have this societal social evil. This makes absolutely no sense.

Raising the age of sexual consent would definitely put us more in line with other western nations. We know that in Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent for sexual activity is 15. In Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and even the United Kingdom, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16. In Canada, we still have that age of 14. It is time for the Liberals to prohibit adults from having sex with children under the age of 16. This age of 14 is not a good thing for society.

The need to protect innocent and vulnerable children from pimps and other sexual predators is a matter of highest priority. It should not be on the back burner of the government's priorities. How many Canadians are aware that a 14 year old can move into a conjugal relationship with a 50 year old? There is nothing the parents can do, at least legally, to put a stop to such an exploitative relationship. Persons at 14 and 15 years of age lack the mental and emotional maturity to cope with the psychological effects of engaging in sexual activity with older persons.

A survey last summer found that 80% of Canadians, eight out of ten people, believe the age of sexual consent should be raised to 16. So why does the age of consent remain at 14?

I know that the Liberal government is governing the country with polls. It has been looking at the polls for the definition of marriage and now is looking at the polls for when to call the election, but why does it not see this same poll, in which 80% of Canadians demand from this weak and arrogant Liberal government that the age for sexual activity be raised from 14 to at least 16? Why are we depriving parents of the ability to protect their children from sexual exploitation? It is a very important issue. It cannot be ignored.

I talked about minimum mandatory sentences. They are a root cause of the criminal justice system not being effective. Let us take marijuana cultivation as an example. According to a British Columbia police study, on average it takes seven convictions before a person will serve jail time for cultivation of cannabis. In neighbouring Washington State, first time offenders get an automatic three month sentence. Needless to say, we have considerably more grow ops in British Columbia, particularly in my constituency, than they do south of the border.

But what does the government do? It introduces legislation that would increase maximum sentences for larger grow operations. What about the minimum sentences? Minimum sentences are what Canadians need. They send a message to the criminal element in society that we are serious about preventing crime, whether it is child pornography, drugs or any other violent crime.

It is very important that we look into these issues seriously. I talked about Surrey. We know that last year a massive RCMP probe, code-named Project Snowball, tracked more than 2,000 Canadians, including over 406 in British Columbia, suspected of possessing and distributing sexually explicit pictures of children. Out of those 406 identified in British Columbia, 23 were from Surrey.

A quick survey of local Surrey newspapers reveals many cases of adults sexually exploiting children. For instance, there is 32 year old Stephen Smith, who was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual exploitation involving two underage boys he had met on the Internet. Dale Nault, a 34 year old, also from Surrey, was charged with three counts of sexual assault involving a 14 year old boy he met over the Internet and with one count of possession of child pornography.

In all these cases, the government failed to protect the children. I know that my time is almost up, but I would like to say that if the Liberals were serious about protecting our children and making our streets safe for all Canadians, they would strengthen our laws by introducing maximum sentences and ensuring that sentences handed out are actually served. They would give law enforcement agencies the resources they need to fight crime instead of wasting money on a useless gun registry.

Rather than registering sex offenders, the government has been wasting billions of dollars registering guns of law-abiding citizens. We need a comprehensive sex offender registry, tougher sentences for pedophiles, elimination of all legal loopholes for child pornography, a streamlining of the administrative process for convicting sex offenders and the prohibition of all adult-child sexual contact.

In closing, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding: “and that the committee report back no later than April 5, 2004.”

[Petitions, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a number of petitions signed by hundreds of people across Canada.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately hold a renewed debate on the definition of marriage and to reaffirm, as it did in June 1999 in response to the motion by the official opposition, its commitment to take all necessary steps to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Homelessness, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government has had over a decade to fix the problems that ail Surrey but it has only made matters worse.

Since the Liberals came to power, Surrey has achieved the dubious distinction of having more homeless people per capita than any other city in Canada.

With this government's deplorable record on crime, we now have the highest rate of car theft in North America. The marijuana trade, break and enters, gang violence and organized crime are all flourishing.

Unemployment is up. With no deal on softwood lumber, there have been shutdowns at the MacKenzie Seizai and Westminster Wood Products mills in Surrey and the Acorn mill in North Delta.

Liberal cuts have severely affected Surrey Memorial Hospital and infrastructure development. Under the Liberals, B.C. has become a have not province. B.C. Coast Guard, Vancouver Port Police and CFB Chilliwack have all closed.

The Liberals have ignored British Columbians and now British Columbians will ignore the Liberals at the polls. It is time for a Conservative government.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, about the poll showing that almost seven out of ten Canadians support Canada's participation in a missile defence system, I referred to that in my comments. It was the Pollara survey. It was done very recently, in November 2003, by Pollara. Therefore, that is clear.

The second point was about deterrence. This is the discussion that we hear. The hon. member referred to some comments. It is important that we develop a strong deterrent. We know that Taep'o-dong 1 and Taep'o-dong 2 missiles have already been tested by North Korea. This has already been done. We are already aware that China has ICBM technology, allegedly stolen from the U.S. It becomes quite evident that deterrence is logical. It is reasonable and real. We also know about the terrorist organizations. They may have nuclear bombs and all kinds of stuff.

The only solution that we can develop is strong deterrence. We can effect counterterrorism because we have the rogue states. One way to control rogue states is to have this program.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

For these very reasons he has mentioned I think it is evident and very important for Canada to be a partner. The government has wasted eight years.

I think the international community has to negotiate. We have to bring the world together rather than divide the world. At the same time, in the accomplishment of that objective, which is pre-emption or deterrence and preventing most of the threats, I believe an effective defence system is important. Canada could be a prominent component of that whole discussion or forum, but some of the actions we have taken, such as those on landmines or the International Criminal Court, have alienated our neighbours already.

Our participation in this particular national missile defence program, at least in discussions at this moment, will be very effective. This is one reason why I have been urging the government to do this. I did my part in 1998 when I was at the Pentagon. I did my part and the official opposition has done its part. It is this government that should take the initiative and carry on the discussion and the participation.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for allowing me to share his time with him. He made excellent points and I would like to keep the ball rolling.

It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central. Today it is to participate in the debate on the Bloc motion, which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should oppose the proposed American anti-missile defence shield and, therefore, cease all discussions with the Bush administration on possible Canadian participation.

The Liberal government had eight years to decide its involvement in the U.S. missile defence system, but rather than deciding to have involvement in the program it has been putting off even launching the formal discussion.

In 1998 I had an opportunity to accompany the now foreign affairs minister to Washington, D.C. I had discussions with the assistant defense secretary in the Pentagon. I raised this issue there in 1998. The Americans would appreciate our getting involved in this program, at least in the discussions. It is going to be an issue that affects Canada.

After waiting for eight years, last month the defence minister wrote a formal letter to Donald Rumsfeld, his American counterpart. In it he said that Canada is ready to negotiate an agreement, a kind of framework for a memorandum of understanding on a ballistic missile defence system with the United States with the objective of including Canada as a participant in the current U.S. missile defence program and expanding and enhancing information exchange.

Ballistic missile defence, also known as national missile defence, is a cornerstone of the Bush administration's security policy. The Government of Canada confronts the difficult policy decision on whether or not to participate in the ballistic missile defence program. This decision will have serious implications for Canadian foreign policy and Canadian defence policy. It could be a decisive moment in charting the future of Canada-U.S. defence cooperation.

The idea of ballistic missile defence and the deployment of nuclear warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles can be traced back to the 1960s. However, the deterrent effect of mutually assured destruction was deemed more stable than a world of offensive missiles and defensive missiles. In 1972 the United States and the Soviet Union signed the anti-ballistic missile treaty restricting the number of ABM systems either country could deploy to two, and later to one, at one site.

In 1983 U.S. President Ronald Reagan called on the U.S. to build a space based ballistic missile defence system that would protect the United States. The strategic defence initiative, also known as star wars by some misinformed people, was a research program designed to develop emerging technologies, including high intensity lasers and particle beams for ballistic missile interception.

Even as the cold war wound down and the Soviet Union collapsed, billions of dollars earmarked for missile defence were reduced to some extent but the funding was not eliminated. President Bush Sr. and President Clinton also continued to provide funding for missile defence. The result of the research and investment in the last 20 years will soon materialize into a missile defence system for the United States and perhaps the allies of the U.S.

In July 1998 a commission headed by then Republican Senator Donald H. Rumsfeld concluded that the threat was imminent and that the U.S. should develop and deploy a system as soon as possible to protect it against ballistic missile attack from countries such as North Korea, Iran, Russia and China, whether intentionally or accidentally, or even some rogue nations and terrorist organizations.

Almost on cue, in August 1998 North Korea tested a long range three stage version of its Taepo Dong I missile and later developed the Taepo Dong II, both capable of hitting North America. This prompted the Clinton administration to accelerate the ballistic missile defence system, aiming for deployment by 2005.

The proposed system is directed against a ballistic missile threat that many analysts expect to grow dramatically in the next 10 to 15 years as ballistic missile technology diffuses through the international system.

Construction is already underway in Alaska. Construction crews are busy at work at a former military base a mere 400 kilometres from Dawson City, Yukon. They are carving 25 metre deep holes for missile silos and are erecting about a dozen state of the art military command and support facilities. This will be the home of a vanguard force of rocket propelled interceptors for defending the United States against ballistic missile attack. Incoming warheads would be destroyed in their mid-course phase by exo-atmospheric kinetic kill missiles.

The ballistic missile threat is real and requires a defence capability. Alternative policy responses such as strengthening the missile technology control regime, pre-emption and deterrence will prevent most threats. Some countries will defy arms control, build weapons and will be undeterrable. Arms control, deterrence, pre-emption and defence are complementary strategies, not alternative strategies. They have to work in combination with each other.

The U.S. government does not require the participation of the Government of Canada in order to deploy or operate the proposed ballistic missile defence system. No installations need to be built in Canada and the use of Canadian territory is not required by the proposed system architecture. The U.S. would prefer Canadian participation as it would provide a more comfortable political environment and would enable the United States to operate the system through Norad.

Canadian refusal will make little or no difference to the direction of the international security environment, the future of arms control or international perceptions of Canada. Canadian refusal will certainly not stop the deployment of BMD. However, a refusal to participate would sacrifice larger, more tangible interests that are at stake in any decision.

Although Canada may unlikely be a direct target of a ballistic missile attack, the proximity of most of the Canadian population to the United States and the poor accuracy of first generation intercontinental missiles mean that Canada shares largely the same threat as does the United States. We know that 90% of the Canadian population lives in very close proximity to the Canada-U.S. border, within a 100 kilometre range. It is a very serious threat and very serious concern for Canadians.

For states that have just developed ballistic missile capabilities, such as North Korea, it is extremely likely that their missiles are very inaccurate. Thus, the possibility of a warhead going astray and impacting on British Columbians or Albertans is quite possible. Do not forget that many people live in British Columbia and Yukon, in between Alaska and the mainland United States

Even if there were no missiles anywhere targeted at Canada, even if the threat to Canada was non-existent, a nuclear explosion in the United States would have a serious and profound impact in Canada environmentally, economically, politically and militarily. If Canada refuses to participate, it would in effect strip Norad of many of its current capabilities and functions and we would not have access at the table to discuss future opportunities

Moreover, Canada has a history and its reputation is at stake. There could be serious consequences. We have 87% of our trade with the Americans. I will conclude by saying that Canada should participate. Even the polls are indicating that 70% of Canadians want Canada to participate.

[Committees of the House, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, re-elected as the co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

[Criminal Code, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act.

Yesterday I participated in a debate about encouraging our youth to vote and to get involved in politics. Youth are our future. The most vulnerable groups in our society are children, women and seniors. All the laws we see coming from the government side over a period of time are not protecting any of these groups.

Some time ago there was an incident in my constituency of Surrey Central. A senior citizen, a second world war veteran who was deaf and mute, was beaten to death. Another time there was an incident in the Cloverdale area of Surrey Central. A young girl was abducted, badly treated, and I do not want to go there, and she was murdered.

We constantly see that our streets are not safe. These two vulnerable groups of citizens are not being protected in our society. The government is not doing enough. The law enforcement agencies do not have laws with teeth. We have ended up in a revolving door with legislation after legislation which is ineffective and is not working and is not giving adequate resources to the law enforcement agencies.

The bill before us today was first introduced in 2002. The Prime Minister tries to continue the charade that he leads a new government, yet here he has put an old, flawed bill before us. Admittedly, there are some good things in the bill, but with the good things there are some bad things as well. I have outlined them in the chamber many times before. However, the Prime Minister has not bothered to incorporate any proposed changes. He has not even seen the need to introduce any amendments of his own. How committed can the Prime Minister be to democratic reform? How new is his government or his ideas when we see legislation recycled time and again in this chamber and it does not reach anywhere?

The Department of Justice proposed Bill C-12 to expand the offence of sexual exploitation and the definition of pornography, and to eliminate the defence of artistic merit in child pornography proceedings.

The bill also increases maximum sentences for people convicted of these crimes. If passed, the bill would also increase penalties for failing to provide the necessities of life and abandoning a child.

Bill C-12 is a reaction to the 1995 case of John Robin Sharpe in British Columbia. Sharpe was found guilty of possession of as many as 400 images of children who prosecutors contended were being exploited sexually.

In March 2002 Sharpe's conviction concerning the images was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, he was ultimately acquitted of related charges that had been filed against him in connection with stories he had written, specifically because those writings were deemed to have artistic merit.

Bill C-12 purports to close the loophole that allows people to create child pornography using artistic merit as a defence and establishes a standard of public good.

If Parliament passes the bill, a person will be found guilty of a child pornography offence when the material or act in question does not serve the public good or where the risk of harm outweighs any public benefit.

Since the Sharpe case, Conservatives, and our predecessors, have called on the federal government to eliminate the artistic merit defence, but replacing it with a public good defence is not the solution to the problem. We must eliminate all defences that justify the criminal possession of child pornography.

The bill would also increase penalties for offences that harm children. The maximum penalty for sexual exploitation would double, from five years to ten years, and the maximum penalty for the abandonment of a child or the failure to provide the necessities of life to a child would more than double, from two years to five years.

These increases in penalties are meaningless, however, if the courts do not impose the sentences. We know by experience that when maximum sentences are raised, there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices. What is needed are mandatory minimum sentences. Maximum sentences do not help. When a judge sentences someone for life, which is 25 years, it is never 25 years. Similarly, tougher penalties would probably be a better deterrent to committing a crime. What we need are minimum sentences, truth in sentencing and no conditional sentences for child predators.

Bill C-12 would also create a new category of sexual exploitation that would protect people aged 14 to 18. Courts would focus, not on consent but on whether the relationship is exploitative based on the age difference, or control exerted, and other circumstances. This is not good enough.

It is already against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority or with whom a young person is in a relationship of dependency to be sexually involved with that young person. It is unclear how adding people who are in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person would add legal protection for young people.

What the Liberals should have done was increase the age of sexual consent, which is what we have been asking for a very long time.

A major shortcoming of the bill is that it fails to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between children and adults, and, shamefully, Canada's is the lowest among all the developed countries.

I fail to see the rationale for permitting adults to engage in any sexual activity with children. The government should raise the age of consent, which is currently set out in section 150.1 of the Criminal Code, from 14 years to 16 years, if not 18 years. Just imagine a grade 9 student giving consent to have sex with a 60 year old person or a 50 year old person.

This is not the Canada I migrated to. We need to do much more to protect our children.

In British Columbia's lower mainland we are all too familiar with the problem of prostitution. Studies have found that 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes entered the trade as children. There are literally hundreds of prostitutes under 17 years of age currently working on Vancouver streets. It is very shameful.

The recruitment process for the sex trade in Canada preys on young girls and young boys, specifically targeting those who are at the current age of consent, which is 14.

According to the Children of the Street Society, the majority of parents who call asking for help have children who are 14 years old and are being recruited into the trade. They argue that if the police had the ability to pick up the girls or boys, regardless of their consent, and return them to their families or to take them to a safe house, then many youth would be saved from entering the sex trade.

It is of no use looking at the age of consent from the perspective of the advantaged, critically thinking, well protected 14 year olds. The government has to enact laws that will protect our children.

During my tenure in the House I have watched as family values have been continuously eroded in Parliament. Every time the government introduces any legislation we see family values being eroded, whether it is the definition of marriage, the age of consent or the protection of our children from predators. When will the government listen to Canadians, for the sake of our children and the most vulnerable, and enact laws with teeth?

Bill C-12 is very complex, with cumbersome provisions and it would not make it easier to prosecute sexual predators. The government lacks political will. The Prime Minister should be ashamed for doing so little so late to protect our children and other vulnerable groups.