Wendy Lill

[Criminal Code, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-20. I support a vast majority of the bill. I have one problem with it which I will address later on in my remarks.

I support the sections in Bill C-20 dealing with sexual exploitation. I feel it is important to have mechanisms that protect children from sexual exploitation by those in positions of trust, be they parents, teachers, coaches or any other adults.

I support the creation of voyeurism offences because with various technological advances it has become even easier to invade people's privacy. This section would seek to update the Criminal Code to ensure that modern day peeping Toms could be prosecuted for the full range of crimes 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 legislation, an improvement is made which states that photographing someone surreptitiously or using a mini camera to spy on them would be prosecuted under a section of the Criminal Code. Other offences would include prosecution under the section of distributing those materials, most commonly by e-mail or over the Internet.

I support the section that facilitates the sensitive treatment of children as witnesses as it seeks to make it easier and less traumatic for children to testify in criminal trials. This is a critical element of the bill and I support it. We have to do everything we can to make children feel comfortable when testifying about acts that have been committed against them.

I support also the increase in sentences for offences against children. We need to protect children from the growing range of exploitation. That includes the more sophisticated methods of exploiting children now through technological advances.

I have one concern with the government totally dropping the defence of artistic merit against potential charges of child pornography. Let me elaborate on what I see as problems with using the Criminal Code in this way. Let me also try to address some of the more extreme accusations that some make surrounding this difficult but important issue.

I strongly believe it is the role of Parliament and the Criminal Code to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation. I have two sons and any form of sexual assault on them would be an unbelievably horrific thing to even contemplate. However, I am a writer of plays as well as a legislator. I think the government is making a mistake by caving in to the politics of fear that some have created coming out of the recent Sharpe decision at the Supreme Court.

Do not get me wrong. I think that anyone who creates sado-masochistic pornography depicting children as sexual objects is sick. I think people who distribute such trash are criminals. The courts agree, which is why Sharpe was convicted on charges of distributing child pornography.

The Supreme Court has sent us a message and I am worried that because of the high levels of emotion that surround this issue we are not hearing its message. The court said that artistic merit was a defence against a charge of possession of child pornography that is valid, but which could be interpreted as too broad and therefore anyone could say they are an artist. The court did not say that Sharpe was an artist. It said that Parliament drafted a sloppy law. Sharpe got off on the possession charge because of poor drafting by this House.

My worry is that the elimination of the artistic defence is simply another form of sloppy drafting. This one is dangerously sloppy because it could lead to establishing a principle in our Criminal Code that criminalizes the imagination. I will give a personal example.

Many years ago I wrote the play All Fall Down which among other things deals with allegations of sexual assault at a daycare. I will not go into the full plot; for that, members will have to buy a ticket. I worry that if we create a section of the Criminal Code which says that writing anything similar may result in charges of creating child pornography we are saying to creators, do not create.

We must not use the Criminal Code to censor art. Artists play an important role. That role is to hold a mirror up to society. If we do not like what we see, that is certainly another issue but we cannot say to artists that they cannot even attempt to address the vast and troubling areas of abuse of power and sexual exploitation of children. These are critical areas to look at. We have to go to the very heart of darkness of what we are seeing in our society. We have to look at that and we have to challenge ourselves. I have always thought that was the role of artists.

We should not use our Criminal Code to censor art and artists. I do not think we can take away the only defence they have for the very important role that they play. The government has put forward a substitute defence, and that is of the public good. I do not see this as giving legitimate artists who are telling important stories confidence that they will not be tracked down by overly moralistic police or crown prosecutors.

Remember that Sharpe was not the first person charged with child pornography offences under the previous law. It was just that he was the one who defeated the law because of poor drafting. Eli Langer, a respected Toronto painter, was charged in 1993 for giving a showing of his paintings which included depictions of nude children. He was acquitted after a long and expensive trial. We have seen gay and lesbian artists and bookstores charged by police and harassed by customs officers for material which does not have anything to do with children.

I have heard from arts groups that works of art such as Lolita by Nabokov, if he were writing it today, would not pass our laws of child pornography. We would have to look at Romeo and Juliet and many other works of art. Works of art will not be created in the future if we go in this direction of censoring people's imaginations.

I worry that the police chief of Toronto has been publicly criticizing the government and has been using child pornography as his reason to ask for more federal money for law enforcement. It does not bode well for our freedom of artists if police believe that their funding will increase if they lay more child pornography charges.

I would like to see a very careful examination of this issue at committee. We need to come up with a law that will protect children and which will also protect the creative spirit of artists to pursue their craft without fear and to play the very important role in society of holding up that mirror and having us look long and hard at ourselves.

I hope the committee will actively look for artists as witnesses. I will certainly be putting forward names of people and urging them to tell their stories to members of Parliament. I hope the committee will travel across the country to hear artists. As members of Parliament we need to understand the real fears which I have heard from this community. We need to understand all of the fears that are around these extremely emotional issues.

If members do their work here and in committee, I hope that they will redraft the section and that new ways will be found to create a section of the Criminal Code that protects children from real threats of exploitation by adults and which also protects artists from censorship by the police and the state. We need to do a better job of drafting this law than we did in 1992. I hope we are up to the challenge. I will do my part to make take place.

[Canada Elections Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure speak today to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act regarding political financing.

The NDP has long been calling for the removal of big money from politics and supports this legislation in principle. However, the devil is in the details in every piece of legislation and we will be combing over the details of the bill to make sure that it is really moving us toward fairness and a more democratic system of political financing.

I would like to review in brief some of the contents of Bill C-24 and talk about the concerns we have with it, which we will continue to raise. First is the issue of individual donations. The legislation allows individuals to donate $10,000 a year to any party, candidate or riding association. All contributions will be indexed for inflation. Individuals can donate in multiples of $10,000, for example, to the Liberals, to the Alliance, et cetera.

Our concern about this is that the amount is too high. We believe that this kind of money can still buy influence and the whole idea of this bill is to eliminate buying influence in our political system. The level should be set much lower. We would suggest something like $3,000, as it is in Quebec and Manitoba. The Canadian Labour Congress, the CLC, calls for $5,000. In addition, we would seek this amount as a limit for individual donations to a maximum amount for all parties, not to each party.

On the issue of corporate and union donations, the bill prohibits contributions to political parties from corporations, unions or other associations. As an exception, it does allow those organizations to contribute $1,000 annually to the aggregate of candidates, local associations and nomination contestants of a registered party. All contributions are combined under the limit of $1,000.

Again the NDP has a concern with this. Unions like the CAW, for example, would be considered as one unit no matter how many locals there are, but franchises of corporations, let us say Ford car dealerships, may be considered to be separate entities, each able to make a $1,000 donation. This is an inequity that we do not believe is fair. We must argue that all contributions be banned or that unions be given equal treatment.

On the issue of public funding for elections and between elections, the bill provides for an annual public subsidy to parties of $1.50 for every vote they received in the previous election. Based on the 2000 general election, the Liberals would receive $7.8 million annually, the Alliance $4.9 million annually, the PCs $2.4 million, the Bloc $2.1 million and the NDP $1.6 million. Had the $1.50 per vote been in place for the 1997 and 2000 elections, the NDP would have received more money than it received from union contributions, including the federal and provincial share of affiliation fees lost.

The bill extends the candidate rebates to those receiving 10% of the vote rather than the old 15% limit. It also increases the national rebate to 50% of allowable expenses for political parties from 22.5% and includes the cost of public opinion polling for the first time. Our concern is that the provision is not indexed and so will decrease in value over time. Contributions from individuals, corporations and unions are indexed. We must push for further indexing.

In terms of trust funds, several Liberal MPs, and perhaps others, have amassed large trust funds and we are not sure how the new legislation will treat trust funds. One interpretation is that they will continue to exist but could not be used for political purposes beyond the $1,000 annually that an association can donate to the candidates or riding associations. The NDP remains concerned that there will be an enormous temptation for some MPs to find ways to slip trust fund money into their political work and campaigns.

On the issue of third parties, if the government truly wants to remove the perception that big money rules politics, then it is even more imperative to limit the amount of money that third parties can spend during elections and on politics generally.

The amendments do not deal with third party expenditures. The existing elections act does limit expenditures of third parties but the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the National Citizens' Coalition challenge. The federal government is appealing that ruling.

Our concern is that the intent to get big money out of politics is severely undercut if third parties are free to spend what they want. Once the political parties have restricted themselves to accept only individual donations, it would follow that judges would find it harder to rule against legislation limiting the involvement of third parties.

In conclusion, the NDP offers its support in principle to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. We will be working to make sure that it in fact is meeting the spirit of its intent. We will be working for specific amendments that will bring this legislation into line to benefit all Canadians.

[Arts and Culture, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that yesterday's budget is uncultured. The minister made no effort to even pretend Canadian culture is a priority. In fact the budget hurts arts in the country.

By not renewing $60 million in CBC funding, our national public broadcaster will have to cut television and radio production in both official languages. Fewer Canadian stories will be told because the CBC is the primary producer of distinctly Canadian television and radio.

By reducing the federal commitment to the Canadian television fund while increasing the film and video tax credit for foreign production, he is shifting public support from Canadian stories to Hollywood productions.

The promise of only $10 million per year to preserve our thousands of historic properties is a travesty and an insult. Our nation's soul needs a strong public broadcaster and well funded culture support to flourish.

The budget reaches a new low in Liberal cultural policies. We now not only see a policy of indifference but one of active neglect. Our nation and our creators deserve better.

[Persons with Disabilities, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to find out how well the Minister of Finance has listened to Canadians with disabilities.

Thousands of letters, a committee report and a unanimous vote of the House called on the minister to do three things: amend the Income Tax act to allow for broader access to the disability tax credit; streamline its application process; and, finally, re-examine all tax measures relating to Canadians with disabilities, especially looking to make the disability tax credit refundable for those with no or low incomes.

Has he done these things? Has he listened?

[Foreign Affairs, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, while millions of people around the world marched against the war in Iraq, we should not forget that war is the leading cause of disability. War casts its mantle of death and destruction over life and limb.

Modern weapons of war devastate people in their body and soul. They sear human memory with permanent scars. They shatter the dreams and hopes of children. They sentence people to long lives without limbs, without loved ones, without sight and sound and without the ability to care for themselves. Those are the wages of war.

Canada first created disability support programs for disabled veterans from the first world war. Today thousands of members of the armed forces and their families struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder and the other effects of armed conflicts.

We must therefore be ready, both in our foreign aid and development aid, to support those in conflict zones, and also be ready to support those Canadians who are serving overseas in whatever capacity. We must remember that the real result of war is not to challenge a dictator. The real result is death and disability for innocent human beings.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments on this important topic and say that I agree with him. The NDP is also concerned about the concerns of Canadians regarding the loss of identity and protection of identity. When we find out that in a poll of 3,000 people 75% are concerned about that loss of identity, we take that seriously.

The fact that there is a leak requires us to protect that identity by going the route of a national identify card. It does not however address the issues that people are concerned about.

Recently, thousands of Canadians received letters from their insurance company saying that there was a theft, in Regina, of a hard drive and there may have been a lot of important information that was stolen, and that they should keep an eye out at their banks and at various places where they do business to see whether any material had been accessed.

It is disturbing for Canadians to suddenly realize that their information is being moved around and that it can be stolen. As it turns out, it looks like this hard drive may have been stolen for reasons other than for information theft.

I would like to ask the member, how is it that a national identity card would allay the fears of those thousands of people who have had the experience of identity theft in that respect?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 11th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-13. The New Democrats have worked long and hard on the bill because we believe the time is long past that we have a bill governing reproductive technology.

The bill is overdue, it is important and there are several issues that must be addressed. We have fought long and hard in the committee that they be addressed.

At the committee stage, the New Democrats proposed 13 amendments to improve the bill. Although the language was not as strong as we had hoped, we were able to add the protection of the health and well-being of women to the principles. We also fought that the donors be provided with independent information before participating. We fought for the concept that the public needs to be informed on the risk factors relative to infertility.

It also was important that the board of the assisted reproductive agency of Canada, called CARA now, be made up of at least 50% women. We feel that this is important because women's health issues are central to this whole issue. We have to be sure that women are making the decisions and that their sensibilities and understanding are totally engaged. We must ensure that we are communicating with women, that we know their needs and that they are informing the board at all times on how everything is working and how we are doing in this area.

We also felt it was important to add a comprehensive conflict of interest clause governing the board. However we were unsuccessful in adding the precautionary principle to make safety an overriding concern in the whole bill.

The committee also voted down the NDP amendment to tighten up the commercial sale of reproductive materials and to make the agency more accountable by stipulating what it would do, rather than what it may do. This is a very important distinction.

Finally, we tried and failed to facilitate donor identification in recognition of the needs of children born through reproductive technology.

Unfortunately and incredibly, since that stage we have seen the bill come back. The government has ignored many of the recommendations made by the committee. That point has already been made today in the House. In the last draft of the bill the government overturned some important recommendations. This is very discouraging.

One of the main issues that the government overturned was the issue of equity and women's equity on the board. The second issue it overturned was the conflict of interest guidelines. At the present time it would be possible for large biopharmaceutical corporations to sit at the table and make decisions that would be very much a conflict of interest. They would have very much to do with the profits and the directions their companies were taking on the issue.

It defies reason that those important recommendations would hit the cutting room floor at this point in this important legislation.

Some of the improvements that have been made to the bill's principles have to do with the reference to women's health. The fact that the precautionary principle, which is a tool for ensuring that women's health is primary, is still not incorporated in the bill. It is not in the overriding principles in such a way to reflect the actual governance of the CARA board.

The rights and health of women must be the first consideration in regulating reproductive technologies. Our approach to reproductive technologies must be grounded solidly in the concepts of women's reproductive freedom.

It is clear that we are concerned about the bill and that we will be making recommendations against it at this point in time.

As the New Democratic Party critic for persons with disabilities, I must say that persons with disabilities and families of persons with disabilities always have a concern when it comes to reproductive technology and what is coming our way in terms of creating designer children and potentially a designer species. It is important that we always keep front and centre the human dignity of persons with disabilities, who are living now and will continue to live, contribute and be incredibly important to our society, even as they struggle with their disabilities.

Although some people do not understand the linkage between reproductive technology and disabilities, the linkage is clear to those people who have disabilities. They see a society that often ignores them and seems to be running ahead to deny them their rights, as opposed to recognizing them and allowing them to plan for the future and to live their lives in a more substantial and respectful fashion.

At this point the New Democrats will be voting against Bill C-13 at report stage. We will continue to fight for the precautionary principle, that we have equity for women and that the issues around disabilities and the conflict of interest issue are dealt with and strengthened in the legislation.

[Employment Insurance Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from the opposite side for her comments about this important bill. I also want to mention a comment made to me by one of her colleagues as I entered the House. The member talked about a situation that he faced 10 years ago. A mother came to him and said that she had a son who was dying. She wanted to stay home with her son, but she was not able to collect unemployment insurance. The only alternative was for her son to go into the hospital. There he went, at a cost of $400 a day, and that is where he died.

When we think about that, it is so tragic at all levels, because in fact if she could have stayed home with her son the cost at that time would have been $50 a day, I think, to pay for unemployment insurance while she stayed at home and cared for her son as he left the world. It would have been the perfect thing to happen. Everybody would have won. The hospital would not have had to pay out that additional money and we all know in our hearts that if someone is dying they should be with their loved ones in a home situation. That is what the bill is all about. It would institute a system which is caring and which meets the needs of Canadian families.

I am very proud that I have a colleague here who has done the work on this. He has in fact put it together in a way such that I think we can all see its possibilities and how it could in fact work to benefit all of us through a system that is already in place, the unemployment insurance system, which is there to provide insurance for people when they need to take time off, for example, to be with their newborn, which is something that the government has very rightly instituted recently, and a very progressive program it is. This bill is another piece of that program. It is at the other end of the spectrum, when people are leaving the world. Why not institute it at that point in the human journey as well?

I wish to express my thanks for this important bill and for the comments we have heard throughout the evening. The bill has had a very welcoming reception and I look forward to it going further, with more debate.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member who has been speaking about a phenomenon I am seeing every day in my riding. I am seeing many more people who are no longer eligible for employment insurance.

Over the last couple of years $20 million has been removed from my community that used to come in to workers who were unable to find work, or who were without work for a period of time. That is $20 million that would have gone into small businesses, into the community, and is no longer there because we have been carving out the employment insurance system and putting it all in this growing surplus.

I would like to ask the member how it is that he is able to justify with his motion the further hollowing out of this important income support program for people who are unable to find work, or who are without work for a certain period of time.

[Disability Tax Credit, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today members of the NDP caucus are delivering over 1,500 letters from Canadians to the Prime Minister expressing opposition to the government's unfair approach to the disability tax credit. These letters echo the recent unanimous vote in the House which forced the withdrawal of the Minister of Finance's proposed changes to the DTC. These letters prove that Canadians are watching the government and members from all sides of the House will not accept the Minister of Finance trying to sneak the same odious restrictions back on the public agenda over the holiday break.

Five million Canadians with disabilities deserve respect from the government, not harassing bureaucracies and punitive legislation. The courts, Parliament and disability groups from coast to coast to coast are all calling for new humane and compassionate approaches to the definition of disability under the Income Tax Act.

It is time for the Minister of Finance to be Santa and not Grinch this Christmas.