Dick Proctor

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member for Saint John had heard what I said. I think that she and I are not in disagreement. As I said to the member for Mississauga Centre, I agree that if a child has been exploited in any of this, it is obviously a criminal activity and should be prosecuted under the full extent of the law, which under this bill would now be significantly greater than what we had before.

What I am trying to do is differentiate between this. I appreciate where the member for Saint John is coming from, as well as the members for Cypress Hills—Grasslands and Mississauga Centre. It is that it is a difficult concept. However we cannot make legislation for somebody who visualizes or imagines or dreams something and puts that in an artistic form, be it in a book, magazine or an art catalogue. If it has not physically harmed an individual, then we have to look at that and consider it before we take any legal action or automatically say that they cannot do that, that we will burn the book and that we will put them in prison for ten years.

As members of Parliament, we have to protect both sides. We have to ensure that children are not sexually exploited. At the same time there has to be some recognition of artistic merit and the need for it. That is the balance we are trying to strike here. What the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is saying is important and we need to weigh that very carefully.

I was at the same conference last year as the member for Saint John when the police were here. I saw her put her head down and refuse to look at the visual images. I know what she is talking about and where she is coming from on this. However there is a balance and we have to try to find that balance, which is what we are doing today.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the premise of the question from the member for Mississauga South, if a child has been abused it is pornographic. I agree 100% with the member's point on that issue.

What I am trying to say is that if an artist has visualized this, or dreamt this, or put this in his or her writings or drawings as the case may be but it has not actually affected or involved any minor and if the body of work in question is not primarily pornography but, as I said before in my answer to the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, is incidental to the main body of work, then it should be looked at in that light, if it is not filth and garbage.

Again, I might find all this terribly offensive myself and I am sure I would. However we have condemned artistic material over many hundreds of years which on reflection perhaps should have been given a second look. It seems to me that on this question there is reasonable balance on both sides. We are not saying it is perfect legislation. We are saying that we will support what the government has provided today under this omnibus bill.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's specific questions, the position that I take, and I believe would be shared by a majority if not all of my caucus colleagues, is that if it has not specifically hurt a minor in the production of it, if it is created by people's visual imaginations and if the main purpose of it is not simply about pornography and sexual exploitation, then under the laws people do have a right to their own imaginations and thoughts, however perverse the member and I might think they are.

Nevertheless, if they come from an artist's thoughts and the body of work that is presented is not pornography per se, that is it may be an element of the overall story but not the main focus of it, then personally I would say, as I do not want to speak for my colleagues, those are fair limits of artistic expression.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House on the first day back after the Christmas-New Year's recess and to take part in the second reading debate of this important legislation, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

As we have already heard in the House, we are trying to find a reasonable balance between proposed legislation to strengthen child pornography laws and to better protect teens from sexual exploitation. The concern on the one hand is that the legislation does not go far enough, while on the other hand civil libertarians are saying the rights to free expression would be violated by the reforms designed to narrow any defence against child pornography changes. The bill, according to those folks, says nothing about raising the age of sexual consent to 16 from 14, which at least one political party has proposed here today.

The argument goes that children are falling between the cracks and landing in the hands of sexual predators. We have heard that on the other hand the government is saying that teens from age 14 to 18 are better shielded by doubling the maximum jail term for sexual exploitation to 10 years from five under the proposed legislation. That would further deter those in positions of trust or authority, and I am thinking of teacher-student relationships, who might be inclined to sexually exploit a younger person.

Courts would be asked to focus more on the behaviour and motives of the accused and less on the young person's consent. The argument is that it is a much better protection than simply raising the age of consent.

That is the issue that we have before us. It is not an easy question to answer because the question of child pornography is of great concern to all of us. While there seems to be widespread support in the Canadian public on this issue, we have witnessed many times in the past the unwarranted targeting of artists, art organizations and businesses under the guise of various public morality laws.

The defence that the government has provided Canadians is the defence of the public good. An individual would only be found guilty of a child pornography offence if the act or material in question did not serve the public good. That means to me that if the risk of harming outweighed any positive benefits, the material or act would be considered a criminal act. This would protect legitimate visual artists and other artists.

There is also a new definition for written work to be considered child pornography. For work to be considered along this line it would have to have as its main characteristic the description of those prohibited sexual acts written explicitly for sexual purpose.

We must walk a fine line on the legislation. On the one hand, in the wake of the John Robin Sharpe decision of last year, we must ensure that material he produced is condemned and not condoned, especially under a defence of artistic merit. On the other hand we must ensure that works with real genuine artistic merit are not criminalized. How to do that is the crucial question that is before us in the House today.

One of the main problems with the legislation is that artistic merit would now be decided upon by judges. An option to that could be to figure out some mechanism by which artistic merit could be decided upon more independently, perhaps by a panel of experts. Rather than simply having a decision based on the public good, which could be a particularly difficult concept upon which to decide, a defence based on artistic merit or excellence could be judged by a panel of experts.

Another problem under the legislation as it now stands is that artists would have to prove that their work should be exempted rather than the other way around. We would all agree that this is contrary to the judicial system in which the onus is on the Crown to prove someone or something is guilty, not the other way around.

If people decide to oppose the bill because it does not allow for art, then it needs to be made clear that the goal is to stop the harassment of artists by overly moralistic forces in our society. We raise that because it has happened in the past and civil libertarians have spoken out about it. It is not necessarily a good thing for any society when police and prosecutors are asked to judge artistic merit through the personal lens of community morals.

Dealing with the bill more specifically, on the issue of sexual exploitation, the proposed section deals with the calls from numerous Canadians to increase the age of sexual consent. While the proposed legislation does not do this, it does create a new definition of exploitative relationships. Rather than having a list of relationships prohibited in which one participant is an adult and one is a minor the legislation before us would establish that there are certain characteristics that would categorize a sexual relationship to be illegal.

If, for example, a court were to decide that a relationship was exploitative that would call into question its legality. Therefore, as I indicated earlier, a relationship between a teacher and a student would remain illegal, however now under the proposed legislation a relationship between a minor and an adult that was not necessarily illegal under the old provisions could be deemed to be so if a court found it to be exploitative. Because it is highly unlikely that a court would find a relationship between a high school senior over the age of 18 and a high school junior, say 15 and a half, to be exploitative, this effectively would remove concerns around criminalizing teen sexual activities. This seems to be flexible yet enforceable enough to protect children more effectively than previous provisions.

On the issue of increased maximum sentences the proposed section strives to create greater maximum sentences for offences in which a child is victimized. The only potential concern around this proposed section has to do with increased sentences for failures to provide the necessities of life to a child and abandonment of a child. These would target low income Canadians more so than others and might be a more heavy-handed approach than is necessary in ensuring that children who live in marginal circumstances are provided with the necessities of life.

I would like to comment on children as witnesses. This proposed section makes it easier and certainly less traumatic for children to testify in criminal trials.

On the issue of voyeurism, this proposed section would create a new offence in the Criminal Code. With various technological advances it has become ever easier to invade someone's privacy. We are suggesting that this proposed section would seek to update the Criminal Code to ensure that modern day peeping Toms could be prosecuted for the full range of crimes that they commit. Until recently voyeurism type offences would be prosecuted under trespass sections of the Criminal Code, as they would usually involve trespassing on someone's property in order to invade their privacy.

With this proposed legislation photographing someone surreptitiously or using a mini-camera to spy on them would be prosecuted under a special section of the Criminal Code as well as other offences which would include prosecution for distributing these materials most commonly by e-mail or over the Internet.

Our original concerns about this proposed legislation around child protection have been the need to strike a fair balance between child protection and the maintenance of certain important freedoms. In our opinion these concerns seem to have been addressed sufficiently in the proposed legislation.

The newly redrafted child pornography provisions were a response to the decisions of the B.C. Court of Appeal in the Sharpe decision which forced the government to introduce this defence of artistic merit to ensure that freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not infringed.

Part of the concerns in terms of the trial of Mr. Sharpe was that he was found not guilty of child pornography offences for written material which he had produced. That material was generally considered to be offensive and pornographic however. What the government has done with the new legislation is attempt to tighten the defence of artistic merit to ensure that the production of materials like this is prohibited.

The defence the government has provided Canadians with is a defence of public good. An individual would only be found guilty of a child pornography offence if the act or the material in question did not serve that public good. It means that if the risk of harm outweighs any positive benefits, the material or act would then be criminalized. It seems to me that this would protect legitimate visual artists. I have indicated there is a new definition for written work to be considered child pornographic. For work to be considered pornographic, it would have to have as its main characteristic the description of these prohibited sexual acts.

These definitions are generally up to the courts to uphold and enforce and would likely meet challenges to their constitutionality. It seems to me on balance that this section seems to strike an effective balance.

I further would add that in the Sharpe case specifically, his stories included tales of children younger than 10 engaged in sado-masochism with adults. As I pointed out, such writings would sicken most Canadians. However from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association point of view and Alan Borovoy, the long time head of the CCLA, it does not excuse Ottawa's efforts to criminalize works of the imagination. Mr. Borovoy is on record as saying that it would have no objection to criminalizing material that is produced by abusing an actual child. However if we are talking about fictional depiction, then there is simply no reason to prohibit that.

That is the position of the New Democratic Party on this. To the NDP it seems that the legislation does a reasonable balance of ensuring the protection of children and others from exploitation and harm, while balancing the needs of a free and democratic society. While we may discover ways in which the legislation can be changed and improved upon as we learn more about it and the effects, it is worthy of our support here today.

[Equalization Payments, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is still for the Minister of Finance. When the equalization formula was last renewed, it forecast that changing the mining tax base would result in a slight net gain for Saskatchewan. It is unclear whether this prediction was made by people overseeing the gun registry, but Saskatchewan now owes $300 million plus future reductions of $100 million a year.

Is the finance minister reviewing this matter and will it be on next week's agenda when he meets with his provincial counterparts?

[Banks, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, bank mergers are not in the public interest. They lead to reduced competition, fewer choices and higher charges, not to mention layoffs and branch closings. Canadians ought not to have to pay for the greed of the bankers.

Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether he favours bank mergers and how he feels about the idea of having foreign investors in our banking system?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Halifax was speaking, the member for Kings—Hants was trying to convince us how wonderful Dr. McGowan's private health care clinic was, to be used in the evening at Sunnybrook. He suggested there were ideological blinders that were preventing us from seeing that.

I note that the Ontario provincial auditor found that the Ontario system was paying $500 more per case to the Sunnybrook cancer care clinic compared to public clinics in the province.

The member for Kings—Hants has urged all of us to speak the truth in this debate and certainly we would want to do that. I wonder if he would comment on why it is costing Ontario more money to run Dr. McGowan's private clinic at night than it would cost to run a public clinic during the day.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. The employment insurance fund, whether it is $35 billion, $40 billion or $45 billion, comes from companies and it comes from the workers in all those companies, and it is to be administered by the federal government. It was never intended to be used to pay down the debt or to finance any other programs. It should be there for forestry and lumber workers who have been laid off as a result of the softwood lumber dispute. As I indicated, due to the death of the cod fishery it should be used to help the people on the east coast and it should also be used to help farmers.

A good indication is that the government is, I think, scared to death of the possibility of retaliation by the Americans under our free trade agreement and NAFTA. It does not want the retaliation or the fear of the retaliation. It think it is for that reason that we have not seen money going into addressing the sorts of things the hon. member has outlined, whether it is softwood lumber, the forestry industry or the cod fishery.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is difficult. In fact, if I understand the advertisements and public comments made by premiers over the last couple of years, they are concerned about the reduction in transfers from the federal government. As the people who have to account for and administer the health care system, they are prepared to indicate that the x amount of dollars received from Ottawa has indeed been spent on the program for which it was intended.

We have to understand that health is a shared jurisdiction and money is coming from Ottawa. More money is required, but the money that is coming from Ottawa needs to be accounted for. I do not see that there is any significant difficulty with doing that.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today and speak to the presubmission of the budget, which we understand will be coming down in February. I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax.

I would like to summarize the majority report, which, after having read it, seems to suggest that this is a great economy. However we would underline that there is no new money for programs other than for tax cuts.

In the fall of 2000, leading up to the federal election, there were $100 billion in new tax cuts to come in over a five year period. Now we have been told that $70 billion has been forecast for the next five years of surplus in our budget. This indicates that perhaps the finance department does not count as well as most other Canadians. Again we see that 14 of the 51 recommendations are to be based on lowering taxes even further.

However, when it comes to social programs, it is an entirely different story. We do not see money proposed to be spent on health care or other existing programs unless it can be reallocated from current programs. In short, this is taking money from one program to pay for the $15.3 billion that Mr. Romanow has indicated health care needs in additional funds over the next five years.

My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst will know that even though the cod fishery has been closed down, not a single penny from the $45 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund will go into a transition program to assist workers who will suddenly and unceremoniously be thrown out of work.

Homelessness is a disgrace in a first world country like Canada. According to my colleague from Vancouver East, almost 1,000 people every night live and rely on the gratitude of shelters to survive. When I arrived yesterday in Ottawa I had to wonder if anyone had frozen to death because of the -20° temperature in the city overnight.

When I thought about why I was concerned, I realized that this was not something I would have worried about in any city in Canada 10 or 15 years ago. Why is it that we are suddenly worrying about it? It is because it is happening with all too much frequency. That is why my colleague from Vancouver East has suggested that we spend at least 1% of our budget on housing and homelessness.

I mentioned the health care issue and the fact that there is nothing proposed in the budget to deal with the money that Mr. Romanow and, for that matter, Senator Kirby are saying is required to begin to fix what is wrong with our vaunted health care system.

On a slightly different note, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency reports that there are currently $16 billion in unpaid taxes. That amounts to twice as much as last year. I point out that this is not on money that is foregone because people are not paying personal income tax on their wages or salaries. In the terminology of the CCRA, it is because 20% of the corporate sector is at risk of non-compliance.

On the other hand, we note how the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency goes after people with a vengeance who have been entitled in the past to a modest disability tax credit of $960. However, when it comes to making sure that unpaid taxes of $16 billion in the corporate sector is collected, it seems to me that there is a significant difference in the emphasis on which this government goes after the corporate side compared to those who are trying to maintain and enjoy a very modest credit on their disability taxes.

Today the Liberals and the Alliance have been talking about reducing taxes. I would point out that without any further changes to our tax regime our taxes by the year 2005 will be 5% lower than Washington, but according to the majority on the committee, this is still not good enough.

I listened with care to the member from the Canadian Alliance who was lamenting all the ills and shortcomings in Canada; the fact that our productivity is lower than the United States; that we have a significantly weaker currency; and that we do not spend enough money on research and development. The litany was very good but what was lacking was the perspective as to why that has occurred in recent years.

I think one of the reasons that has occurred is something called the North American Free Trade Agreement, which celebrated its 10th anniversary yesterday. I note that in a poll 47% of Canadians said that we as a country were the losers in NAFTA.

I maintain that we cannot do sufficient research and development, something else that the Canadian Alliance pointed out, when we are required to send so much of our raw materials, our natural gas and our oil, to the United States. We cannot have a two price system for wheat to develop prairie pasta plants because we have signed on to an international agreement that prohibits that.

The majority report says that drug patents must be vigorously defended. We must remind ourselves that the increases in drug prices are the biggest driver now in the costs of our health care system. Because we do not have the ability to have generic drugs in the way that we did before, thanks to Bill C-93, and we are protecting a multinational industry here, it is forcing us to have much higher health care costs.

I think other political parties simply are not connecting the dots. They do not see the connection with what has transpired over the last 10 years. I encourage them to look at that.

The government set targets to eliminate the deficit and to reduce the debt. It has done that, but we on this side of the House are encouraging it to also set realistic targets to put money into the shortcomings that we are beginning to see in our safety net and the unravelling that has occurred in recent years. We need to see much more money put into health care. We have called for 25% in federal cash transfers immediately, moving toward the fifty-fifty funding that the provinces once enjoyed with the federal government. We need money for national home care, for pharmacare and we need better programs for wellness and disease prevention.

Also, still with health care, we need new investment to attract, train and retain nurses so that we can build the model, which Mr. Romanow talked about in his report, with more nurse practitioners and less on reliance on doctors as the gatekeepers of our health care system.

We also need to ensure that Canada's health care system is protected against international trade agreements. When I met with the Canadian Health Coalition yesterday I was surprised to learn that in Calgary it is very difficult now for patients to receive cataract surgery because the entire eye industry has been basically contracted out and the ophthalmologists are intent on doing laser surgery as opposed to cataract surgery.

Time does not allow me to talk about the farm issue, the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management which is also at risk under international trade. However I will conclude by saying that I believe Canadians want to see more money being put into social spending, health care, post-secondary education and social programs. They want to help farmers and rural Canadians. They want to improve the environment for air and water quality. I am proud to be in a caucus that continues to push for these kinds of advances.