Ken Epp

[Ethics Commissioner, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has chosen Dr. Bernard Shapiro as the new ethics commissioner. Oh yes, there are a few formalities to complete: an interview by a Liberal dominated committee and a vote by a Liberal dominated House. However, beyond that, it is a done deal.

We asked for an equitable process involving all political parties in the House. How does the Prime Minister justify ignoring all calls to make this a truly independent, non-partisan appointment?

[Ethics Commissioner, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Bernard Shapiro has been chosen by the Prime Minister as the new ethics commissioner. His personal credentials seem impressive but we are singularly unimpressed with the method of appointment and the restrictions on his role when it comes to addressing ethical breaches of cabinet ministers.

The Prime Minister talks about the democratic deficit and giving more power to members of Parliament but in this very important matter, MPs are relegated to being as impotent as the furniture in this place.

Cabinet ministers are shielded from parliamentary and public scrutiny. Questions about ministerial misconduct will still be dealt with behind closed doors, just like in the old Chrétien days. Where is the direct reporting to Parliament on this one?

This whole exercise is just another example of appearance over substance. The Liberals want to have it appear as though they are addressing the deep ethical deficit in this government but they are unwilling to do anything substantial about it.

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the bill talks about the public good and there is a bit of a definition of it. It says:

For the purposes of subsection (6), acts or material that serve the public good include acts or material that are necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice or the pursuit of science, medicine, education or art.

I have very little problem with it when it talks about public good including justice. Law enforcement agencies, lawyers and so on who are laying charges against an accused may have some of these images. It is legitimate. How about the pursuit of science, medicine and education? I suppose, to some degree, if one is training young doctors or nurses about anatomy, some of these things are not pornographic and they would be able to use that defence as having these things in their texts, et cetera, totally legitimately.

However I ask, and I do not usually use this word in my vocabulary but I use it now advisedly and correctly, what the hell is happening with arts? At what stage would the member say the public good is served by pornographic pictures of children in art? Where is the public good in that? I would like my colleague to give his impression of this definition.

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wild Rose has hit the nub of the problem, and that is there are loopholes in the bill that allow those who should be found guilty to argue in the courts and who probably would on this technicality go free with no jail time or restraint. They will still be out there in a position of abusing our most precious young people, our children.

It is interesting that our amendment posed by one of my colleagues my party, specifically mentions that. John Robin Sharpe has given a statement saying that this is a good bill. The person who has been charged with heinous crimes has said that this is a good bill because he can probably use it to get off. If that does not alert us as to what we are doing and the error we are making, then what will it take? I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from Wild Rose that it is the loopholes in the bill that need to be corrected.

While the member opposite is saying that they want to collapse the debate so it can be voted on, I would like to emphasize that we indeed need to get to the vote, but the vote must be affirmative on both the subamendment and the amendment. We must say that the bill is to be sent back to the committee. The subamendment provides that the committee report back by June 1. That gives a very short timeline, but adequate to correct those serious flaws in the bill.

I urge members opposite, when it comes time to vote, to vote in favour of the subamendment and the amendment so we can do this one right.

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether that member is a mother and a grandmother. I do not know about that part of her personal life. I spoke personally when I spoke to the bill, in view of my children, my grandchildren and their friends and other young people across the country of that age. I agree with the member that we ought to bring this to a vote, but will the Liberals support the amendment to send it back to committee?

The subamendment calls for the committee to report back by June 1. That is only a few weeks from now. We certainly can send it back to the committee, bring the bill back here, get it amended and fixed so that it actually does the job. The object is not to pass this bill, which is flawed. The object is to pass a bill which works.

I remember when I was an instructor at NAIT, one of my colleagues had a parchment on his bulletin board in his office that said, “If you don't have time to do it right, when will you find time to do it again?” This is my concern. We can pass the bill, but I presume the Liberals will vote against both the subamendment and the amendment because they want this bill to go through the way it is, with these serious flaws. I say no to that. The remedy is to send it back to committee, let it look at these things, let it amend the bill and send it back to the House. Then at least I would be most eager to pass the bill as quickly as possible.

Will I vote in favour of this flawed bill? The answer is no. The majority Liberal government over there will to jam through a bill which is inadequate and which does not protect our children. That is not good enough.

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will understand that I was not prepared to speak to this bill, but sitting here and listening to the debate has just given me a motivation to get up. I want to plead with the government members on the other side to support the amendment and send the bill back to committee so that it can get it right.

I am very concerned about this. As the House knows I am father and a grandfather. When I think of any pervert using either my children when they were younger--they are now over the age of 18--or now my grandchildren for sexual purposes, I cannot express the degree of repulsion that it gives me in my mind.

I am very concerned that the bill, while it is being advertised by the Liberals as being a bill to protect children, is inadequate, It says that it is an act to amend the Criminal Code for the protection of children and other vulnerable persons. It just does not go far enough.

I would like to voice my opinion with respect to the specific clause that has to do with the public good. I ask the Liberal members to give this consideration. Sure, the public good can be used for a defence in protecting law enforcement agencies, and people who are involved in research and that type of thing. Perhaps to some degree that is legitimate and we need to protect that. I agree with that.

However, when a pedophile or other pervert is found out and charged in court, I guarantee that he will roll out the defence of the public good. I would like to read from the bill. It states:

For the purposes of subsection (6),

(a) it is a question of law whether an act serves the public good and whether there is evidence that the act alleged goes beyond what serves the public good, but it is a question of fact whether the act does or does not extend beyond what serves the public good; and--

When I read that, Mr. Speaker, do you not have a bunch of questions in your mind as to what the meaning of that is? It is a question of law and it is a question of fact. It seems that it talks about exactly the same things; whether or not it serves the public good.

This is of course what lawyers in court spend hours on: is it a fact, is it true or is it false, is the evidence accurate and is it covered under law? I am certain that persons who are charged under this bill will stand up in court and say that they plead the public good. They will make all sorts of arguments. Freedom of speech is a public good, freedom of expression, and personal freedom to go and to do what one wishes is a public good. I can see them making those arguments, and to a degree, we all agree with that.

We live in a country where we can move about in freedom. We live in a country where for the most part we can do almost what we want. I know this is getting close to moralizing and I will probably be criticized for it. However, we have people who have the freedom to go into all sorts of places of so-called entertainment which is really nothing but obscene and very disrespectful, usually of females. We have those freedoms. That is considered in our society a public good. If we can argue that that is a public good, then it is not a very great step to argue that for me to observe this art form is a public good.

I would like to urge the members of Parliament to support the amendment. We have a very serious duty to protect children and other vulnerable persons, especially women, from this kind of abuse and assault.

I would like to urge the members to send this back to the committee and have the bill state explicitly what the public good is, so judges and lawyers do not have to spend a bunch of time on a technicality that finds these perverts and obscene people not guilty of the offence. I am not a lawyer so I am unable to discuss the details of the technical part of this. However, it is very evident to me in the wording of the bill that there is the question, whether it is a question of law or a question of fact.

I urge members of Parliament to exercise their authority. The new Prime Minister has said that he wants democratic improvement and that he wants to give MPs more power. I appeal to all members of Parliament on both sides of the House to exercise that authority in this instance. This is a very important bill. It needs to be passed, but it needs to be amended, corrected and fixed up before it is passed.

The other area with which we have considerable difficulty is the age of consent, and this ought to be corrected. It talks about young people under age 14. This is another travesty of justice in the country. It is deemed that a 14 or 15 year old can consent to all sorts of sexual activity with an older person. This law would only protect those under age 14.

I know 14 and 15 year old young people and they need the protection of the law. It says in the preamble of the bill that this is for the protection of vulnerable persons. People 14, 15, even 16 year olds are terribly vulnerable in our society. Why would we not as members of Parliament and as legislators do everything possible to protect them against exploitation? They are so vulnerable, and it happens every day.

We read about it in the papers and hear about it on television news. It is despicable. It is incredibly sad when I hear of the things that are done to these young people. They are drawn into a relationship of trust, either through the Internet or through personal contact. Then the laws says that they are over 14 so they can make these decisions. We need to ensure that their decisions are the right ones. At age 14 and 15 they are so vulnerable to being persuaded by a powerful older person who can talk them into it. This needs to be amended in the bill.

My appeal is very simple. It is sincere. It is very important in my view that the bill be passed, but only after these serious shortcomings are corrected. I would like to see the members of Parliament over there exercise their wisdom on the bill. God has given them the intelligence to say to the government that the bill is not good enough, that it needs to be fixed and then they will support it.

If those amendments were made, I would gladly and happily support this bill. However, passing this bill so the Liberals can go out on the campaign trail telling the people, in my view falsely, that they have addressed the issue of children's vulnerability when they have not is a gross injustice and one which we ought not to perpetrate in the House.

My appeal, therefore, is sincere and I wish people would respond positively.

[Criminal Code, April 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his compassion and passion on this issue.

What I would like to pose to him as a question, because we have such a very limited time, is simply this. He proposed during his speech that instead of having the defence of artistic merit or public good, either of those defences, we would simply list those people who would be able to possess this for a valid, legal reason, whether they were prosecutors or whatever.

I wonder whether he is afraid that perhaps by having a specific list someone may be convicted who was inadvertently omitted from the list. In other words, who should be on the list and who should not?

[Criminal Code, April 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering whether the member thought she was making a speech or whether she was posing a question to my colleague. I think she just answered it, so let us let her go on.

[Criminal Code, April 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this member whether he thinks it is okay for a 25 year old to have sex with a 14 year old and if he does not think so, why does he not do something about it?

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech said explicitly that the government would address the democratic deficit. I think it was called democratic renewal. If democracy does not include the election of candidates, than I do not know what democracy is. How does he square it?