Elsie Wayne

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. I cannot believe that the government would bring forward legislation regarding what it calls junk mail. What does it call child pornography? Does it not call that the worst crime there is in this whole world? We do not want to let it go and we will not let it go.

We hear talk that maybe there will be an election in early 2004. I want to tell the House that child pornography will be the number one issue in that election if it is not corrected right now. I mean it. It will not be junk mail; it will be child pornography.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would support that. This bill should be divided. Child pornography should be a separate vote in the House of Commons. It should be taken out of the bill right now. The biggest problem we have is that if they do not and if we defeat it probably nothing will ever come up in the House of Commons. However even if we vote against it, it will not be defeated because the Liberals will have everybody in every seat to make sure they get what they want.

We must move amendments if they do not divide the bill and allow those two votes in the House of Commons, which they should. We divided Bill C-15. If the majority of Liberals were to divide the bill I would get down and say a prayer right here in the House of Commons for each and every one them. So help me, I would. However I cannot see it happening. If it does not, then we need to make sure the amendments and the changes take place.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Yes, they should lose their licence.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is another area that has to be addressed and it needs to be addressed immediately. The Internet has created a major problem when it comes to child pornography. Yes, those who are in charge of it should be held totally responsible for it. It is happening all across the nation. I am getting all kinds of calls on this, from down in the U.S.A. and so on.

Yes, we need to take a stand. We need to have legislation in place which says that anybody on the Internet who is dealing with child pornography should be held totally responsible and should be taken to court. I mean it. As for them not having control of it, they are supposed to have control of it and monitor it. They are the ones who should be held responsible.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. It has a lifelong, lasting effect on all of these children. The sex trade is out there because nobody corrected it. Nobody did anything. Nobody showed those little children that this is wrong. Nobody took them into their arms and said they were going to correct it and take care of them.

Subclause 7(1) of Bill C-20 amends subsection 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code, defining child pornography to include

any written material the dominant characteristic of which is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years--

That addition of a clear section for the purpose of specifically defining what constitutes child pornography is welcome. As I have stated concerning the removal of “for a sexual purpose”, we know, I know and everybody in the House knows that this is what this is all about for those people. That is what it is all about. It does have an effect on the families down the road and on those little children.

We owe it to those little children to correct this. We owe it to those little children, and I cry out to members tonight, like never before in the House of Commons. I would like to see us bring forth the changes we need, the additions to this bill, and we will all vote in favour of it, if it is done in the proper fashion, if we know it is going to protect them for the rest of their lives.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

We should not tolerate it. Not one person in the House should tolerate it. If ever there were a subject, if ever there were an issue in the House whereby all of us should say to the minister that we want the strongest legislation to correct this, this is it. We want it done now. If all our colleagues on the government side unite with the rest of us, we can do that.

We talk about our relationship with other countries. Let me say that if we were to correct this one and bring in the right legislation, our friends across the border would be singing the praises of Canada. They would be singing our praises all over the world. That is not the way it is now. They will not be singing our praises. They will not be saying that we have done the right thing again.

I really and truly cannot imagine that any one of us here wants to see a little child abused in the manner we have seen. When the members of the police department of one of the largest cities in Canada came to Ottawa to ask us to please give them the tools so they can do the job, they were ignored. The government did not give them the tools to do the job with what has been taking place. This does not give them all that they need. They need more and more. Let us give them everything they need and they will go out and help to clean this up. Then these people will not be doing what is called artistic merit.

We have to send them the right message. It depends on what we do with what comes before the House on this subject. We must give them the right message and we have to do it now. I call on all members across the way who are listening to everything I have said tonight to make sure they put through the proper amendments to the bill that is before us to make sure that those children are protected for the rest of their lives.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

It is shameful, and I never thought when I came up here in 1993 that I would ever have to stand in the House of Commons on behalf of a tiny child and ask my colleagues on the government side to make the right decision.

As I have stated before, when I brought up the Charter of Rights and Freedoms one other time in the House of Commons, a lot of my colleagues on the government side said I would never get an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms putting in responsibilities because no one would allow any constitutional changes. It is now the time if the courts are to dictate to us what is right or wrong for the children of Canada, for those little innocent babies out there. If anyone in the House had seen those videos and pictures, I do not believe they would ever vote in favour of this legislation without amendments.

The contention is that section 1 limits are justifiable in this case and are correct when weighed against the potential harm to children and the intent of Parliament to protect the rights of those most vulnerable. Simply put, it is my belief that the Supreme Court erred when it favourably interpreted the Shaw decision. Unfortunately, it seems that the minister's lawyers have weighed the rights of the individual against the rights of the child. We are once again left with an attempt to correct what the Canadian public realizes is a very serious problem.

If Liberal members are unwilling to protect the rights of children and, by extension, their families, I suggest that at the very least they take the opportunity presented in the upcoming budget to consider financially supporting victims of crime.

The Progressive Conservative Party has been supportive in the past of the law enforcement community, victims' groups and child advocates who are constantly tasked and constantly struggling with the lack of resources available to them. As I have said before, what could be a more fundamental issue? We know that the lasting impact on victims of sexual abuse is sometimes a life sentence. Very often, the mental anguish and the detrimental effect on the development of young people is everlasting. It is certainly incumbent upon Parliament to take every available opportunity to make this a safer and kinder society.

There is a need for victims to have more support, a stronger voice, an ability to be heard in a substantive way by the individuals who ultimately will decide whether a person will be incarcerated and, after the fact, whether that person will be released. It talks directly to the issue of respect for the dignity of victims. It is clear that there has to be an equitable approach taken by the government. That is why we need a victims' ombudsman office, an idea that was brought up today by my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

We have a budget specifically set aside for the commissioner of corrections to deal with the concerns, some legitimate, some not, of federal inmates. There is a federal budget allocated to ensure that inmates, some of whom are serving time for absolutely heinous crimes and have victimized numerous citizens, have an office where they can go if their situation in prison is not to their liking. Yet victims very often are completely ignored and they have no outlet, no central office in the country where they can go to find out about important things like parole hearings or information pertaining to response to treatment.

While we debate the merits of this bill, elevating the philosophical discussion of public good, it becomes evident that this legislation is a far cry from solving the problems associated with the Shaw decision. For the sake of children, every member on the government side and in the House of Commons must do better. They have the ability to make a substantial difference in the lives of all victims in the upcoming budget. I cannot believe that any one of us would want to sit here and allow a child or a young person to be abused in the manner in which they are being abused at the present time. Because of the decision brought down in the Robin Sharpe trial, I have to say that now offenders have the freedom to do just about anything. There is no way that in this country called Canada we should ever allow this to continue.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, members usually stand in the House and say it is an honour and a privilege to speak to a certain topic. On today's topic, it tugs at my heart to have to get up and think that in Canada and in this House of Parliament we have allowed child pornography to take place for so long and we have to debate it in the House of Commons.

My colleague from Labrador was saying that there is no reason we should have to do this. We have laws for everything else. We have laws for minor offences.

This is one of the most horrible offences there is in any child's life. People can refer to artistic merit. What is artistic merit? I will say that when the police representatives from Toronto came to Ottawa and asked all of us to attend a meeting and they showed us pictures of children of what was supposed to be artistic merit, I had to put my head down and close my eyes.

Tears ran down my cheeks. I could not believe that anyone would do such a horrific thing to tiny children. This is Canada. There should not be one person in the House of Commons on either side who would stand for this sort of thing to happen.

The Liberal answer to the John Robin Sharpe case is Bill C-20. That answer is not good enough for all of us. The minister could have tightened the gap in the law with a very clear definition and determination of what constituted child pornography. He could have then outlawed it with a zero tolerance policy and said that it is not acceptable and it will not be allowed to take place in our country.

In my opinion a portion of Bill C-20 still leaves our little children very vulnerable. The bill does not answer in a positive manner the question raised in the Sharpe case. The bill will not act as a deterrent to those wishing to produce child pornography of what they call the imagination.

I have to say that those people who enter into child pornography and call it artistic merit are people who have a mental problem. Those people are not normal in any way, shape or form. In no way should they be allowed to continue down that road in our country.

When I was the mayor of the city of Saint John I was appointed to sit on the citizens forum on Canada's future. I travelled across the nation and interviewed and met with people of different cultures. There was a lawyer from Ottawa on that board with us. He said that we were dealing with the wrong thing. When I asked him what he meant, he said, “We should be dealing with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was one who helped to draft it”. I asked him why we should be dealing with that and he said, “Because when we drafted it, we left something out. We left out responsibilities. Everybody in Canada has their rights and their freedoms, but not responsibilities”.

Everybody should have responsibilities. John Robin Sharpe should have responsibilities. He should have been taken to task by the court. In no way should that man have been able to be free after what he did with those little children.

If every member of Parliament sitting in the House of Commons looked at those pictures that the Toronto police department brought up, not one member of the House would have allowed that to take place ever again.

I think about the little children who have been put through that horrible situation and their future.

The fundamental question in this debate must centre around the harm caused to those most vulnerable in our society, the little children.

Underlying this, we must give thought to the role of the court in the context of judicial policy making as it pertains to the supremacy of Parliament and overruling Parliament. We must show how this new legislation will eradicate child pornography within the context of the artistic merit defence. Unfortunately for Canadians, the legislation does not go far enough and could once again be subjected to judicial interpretation, putting our children at risk.

There will most definitely be constitutional challenges, there is no question. The people of Canada will not allow this to take place in the future. I have to say that while the addition of a clear section for the purpose of specifically defining what constitutes child pornography is welcome, the removal of “for a sexual purpose” would, in my opinion, completely change the meaning of the legislation positively. The exclusion of these four words would send a clear message to the judiciary, removing the subjectivity of the purpose of the work and putting the emphasis on the acts described within.

I have a family. I have children and two grandchildren. I cannot believe that any of my colleagues here would allow anything like this to take place with my grandchildren. I will fight this until my dying day, until it is straightened out, so that it never happens again. I know my colleagues on the government side. I do not believe they want child pornography to take place. I do not believe that those who are sitting here tonight want to have the abuse of little tiny children called artistic merit.

All of us in the House of Commons know that anyone who would do what John Robin Sharpe did has a real mental problem. His mental problem should have been addressed. He should never have been allowed to walk out the door of the courtroom.

I understand the intent of the minister's legislation, but I fear the manner in which it is presented will not be sufficient to protect against the abhorrent creation of pornographic material depicting children. The public, along with child advocacy groups and members of the House, have called upon the government to produce a clear, concise piece of legislation which would completely remove the chance works of this nature and to see the light of day once again. Once again the minister has left open to interpretation by the courts a matter that strikes at the very heart of our democracy.

The intent of the bill is to protect children from all forms of exploitation, including child pornography, sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect. Unfortunately definitions of public good will be vague and no level of objectivity exists which will allow a court to decide what is pornographic and what is not. We have just seen that happen. Once again it will be a question of acceptability to the individual. Obviously, an argument as to what constitutes the public good will predominate, leaving our children vulnerable.

As we travel across this nation, people today stop and ask what has happened to Canada and what is taking place with the types of bills which are before the House of Commons, especially those with regard to what we are debating here tonight. Even more so they are asking about the traditional family. We are moving in the wrong direction. I have to say that for most of us who speak out, the majority of Canadians from coast to coast are with us. They do not want to see any child being abused in this manner. If anyone sitting in the House thinks this does not abuse a child, then there is something wrong.

The overall effect of the Sharpe decision by Mr. Justice Shaw was to leave many in society in dismay to find that a learned judge would in fact open the door to potential pedophiles and those who take advantage of youth, those who denigrate images and engage in writings that have a very corrosive effect on the norms in our society. Works of this nature go against the very fabric of what is acceptable in a moral and just society. There can be no denial that a direct correlation exists between the fantasies of sick individuals and harm to our children.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, these people are sick. They are not normal. Why should any court or any judge be in favour of what these people are doing instead of looking after the little child out there? Why risk the potential danger when the collective will of the people is to see this material stricken from existence? In handing down the Sharpe decision, Justice Shaw effectively broadened the interpretation of the current defence of artistic merit. I cannot believe that anyone in our judicial system could do the likes of that.

What does that say to all the others out there who are doing the same thing? It says it is okay. It says these people can do whatever they want with our little ones because when they go to court they will not be found guilty. They will be given a little slap on the wrist and that will be it.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP presenter said that he referred to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have rights and we have freedoms but every one of us who has been elected to the House of Commons has the responsibility to protect our children.

The Toronto police force sent their representatives to Ottawa to meet with us. At the meeting they told us that it was all child pornography. They asked us to strengthen the laws and to give them the tools to straighten this out and correct the situation.

My question to the hon. member is this. How could anyone say that it is artistic merit when they use a child? Glory be, it is not. It is child pornography and every elected person in the House of Commons should be against it and ensure that the legislation brought forward will protect children and correct this.

[National Defence, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has stated that he did not believe the retired generals who called for increased defence funding.

Last month the minister himself stated that we needed to put more money into the military. He said that Canada cannot sit at the G-8 table and go to the bathroom when the bill comes. The defence committee, the defence minister and the officers of the armed forces have all said we need more money.

What happened in the past month to make the minister flip-flop and why is he going back to the bathroom to hide?