Dean Del Mastro

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon. member had to say. As we know, the hon. member was actually the daily filibuster, as it were, on the former sponsorship program when the Conservatives were trying to get to the bottom of what actually happened. We know the member stood in the way of that.

What I and the members on this side of the House would really like to know is why the Liberals are using the unelected Liberal Senate to hold up the bill? If they do not agree with accountability, then they should stand in the House and vote against it. They should have some courage and not use their unelected friends in the Senate to do it for them.

[Canada Elections Act, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that in principle the hon. member is very much behind the bill.

I think we recognize that the bill is about leveling the playing field for all parties in the House, not to give the government an advantage to call a snap election when perhaps another party is not ready. It would allow for a better debate on policy and on principle so that all parties could go into an election prepared and our voters could make the best decisions. In that regard, I can expect that the hon. member would concur with Bill C-16.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the first anniversary of the release of the Gomery report. The report was an unequivocal condemnation of the Liberal Party and its practices. The Gomery report turned out to be a lifting of the cloak of secrecy off the Liberal Party, revealing a culture of entitlement, corruption and gross mismanagement of taxpayers' money.

Thankfully Canada's new government introduced the federal accountability act as its first order of business. Regretfully, a full year after the release of the Gomery report, Bill C-2 has still not been enacted into law.

Despite the unanimous consent of the House, the Liberal controlled Senate has stalled, delayed, refused, undermined and attempted to dismantle legislation that is designed to restore the faith of Canadians in their political system.

Bill C-2 has been carefully considered, debated sufficiently and is supported by the people of Canada, including the constituents in the riding of Peterborough. Let us get on with passing Bill C-2 and stop the shenanigans in the unelected Senate.

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member with great interest. Quite frankly, I thought she started off well but then kind of drifted off toward the end.

This bill is about protecting our children. I do not want children telling me whether or not they feel they should be protected. As adults and as legislators we have an obligation to protect them under the Criminal Code. I have travelled a fair portion of this country, including British Columbia where the member is from, and I know Canadians want their children to be protected. They do not care if their children do not feel they should be protected.

I would like to know if the member thinks it is all right for middle aged men or middle aged women to target children 14 and 15 years old for sexual relationships on the basis of consent? I do not care if children 14 and 15 years old consent to it. It should not be a defence in Canadian courts. I would like to know if the hon. member thinks that is a suitable defence for an adult to use in court?

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern for our children, our families and our society as a whole.

The biggest difference between this legislation and previous legislation is that for the first time we are raising the age of protection from 14 to 16 years of age. This is the benchmark for most established societies, but in Canada it is 14 years of age. Sexual predators in Canada are targeting children 15 and 16 years of age who are currently not protected by the law. We are seeking to protect 14 and 15 year olds from sexual predators who specifically target them. That is the difference.

It is critical that all members of the House support the bill.

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to participate in the second reading debate of Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act.

There are many reasons that Bill C-22 is so welcome. It realizes an important component of this government's tackling crime commitment to safeguard Canadian families against sexual predators. This commitment in turn reflects the importance that Canadians ascribe to the protection of children and youth against sexual exploitation. Most important, Bill C-22's reforms will finally provide 14 and 15 year olds with much needed additional protection against adult sexual predators.

Bill C-22 proposes to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. Age of consent, or age of protection as Bill C-22 now calls it, refers to the age at which the criminal law recognizes the capacity of a young person to engage in sexual activity. All sexual activity with a young person below the age of protection is prohibited, and of course any non-consensual sexual activity, regardless of age, is prohibited.

It is not unusual for the law to prescribe lawful conduct based upon chronological age. For example, in the criminal law context, the age of criminal responsibility is 12 years. In other contexts, conduct is regulated by age for various purposes, including for example, attaining the age of majority, driving a motor vehicle, consuming alcohol and tobacco, mandatory attendance at school, and working.

Such legislation clearly recognizes that children and youth need to be protected. This is the framework within which the existing Criminal Code prohibitions against sexual activity with children and Bill C-22 operate.

Currently, the age of protection is 18 years where the sexual activity involves prostitution, pornography, or it occurs within a relationship of authority, trust, dependency, or one that is otherwise exploitative of the young person. For example, sexual activity between a teacher and his 17-year-old student, even if she purported to consent, is prohibited and has been since 1988. I am glad that Bill C-22 will maintain this age of protection.

The present age of protection for other sexual activity is 14 years. The Criminal Code currently has an exception for 12 and 13 year olds. They can consent to engage in sexual activity with another person who is less than two years older but under 16 years and with whom there is no relationship of authority, trust, dependency, and it is not otherwise exploitative of the young person.

Bill C-22 will not change this close in age exception for 12 and 13 year olds, but will increase it from 14 to 16 years of age so that 14 and 15 year olds will benefit from the same protection that 12 and 13 year olds have now.

Bill C-22 also proposes to create a new close in age exception for 14 and 15 year olds. Under this proposed new exception, 14 and 15 year olds could still consent to sexual activity with another person, provided that the other person was less than five years older and that the relationship did not involve authority, trust, dependency and was not otherwise exploitative of the young person.

I am very pleased to see this proposed close in age exception for 14 and 15 year olds. It reflects an appreciation of the basic realities, namely that, like it or not, young persons, specifically 14 and 15 year olds, are sexually active.

In February 2006 the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health and Ipsos released the results of a national survey of 14 to 17 year olds on their sexual behaviour and knowledge. The survey revealed that 27% of youth between 14 and 17 years of age reported being sexually active and 20% of youth age 15 reported being sexually active. It found that on average, teens have had three partners since becoming sexually active.

While some may find these statistics startling, the government has clearly said that the objective of Bill C-22 is to criminalize adults who sexually exploit youth and not to criminalize teenagers who engage in consensual sexual activity with their peers. Bill C-22's proposed close in age exceptions ensure that this is the case.

Bill C-22 also proposes another time limited exception for defined relationships that already exist when the new age of protection act comes into effect, relationships that would otherwise become illegal by virtue of the fact that the partner is five years or more older than the 14 or 15 year old.

Specifically, Bill C-22 proposes that existing marriages involving a 14 or 15 year old and a spouse who is five years or more older be excepted from the new age of protection. Similarly, if it is an existing common law relationship as defined and it is not a relationship of authority, trust, dependency or one that is otherwise exploitative of the young person, it will benefit from a time limited or transitional exception.

This means, if the couple had already been cohabitating in a conjugal relationship for the period of at least one year or for a period of less than one year but the relationship had already produce a child, whether born or is expected, when the new age of protection comes into effect, the relationship will have an exception that is otherwise illegal. I want to reiterate, though, that these exceptions would be transitional or time limited and would not apply to such a couple, for example that seeks to marry or establish a common law relationship after the new age of protection comes into force. Clearly, to allow such a relationship would be contrary to the objective of Bill C-22.

I have gone into some detail in describing the exceptions proposed by Bill C-22 because it is very important that they be fully appreciated and understood. During the previous debates on private members' bills and motions that sought to increase the age of consent, a major criticism of those efforts was always that they had not adequately addressed what is clearly the objective of Bill C-22: how to prohibit adults from sexually exploiting teens without criminalizing teens themselves for engaging in sexual activity with other teens.

Bill C-22 does exactly that. It builds upon the existing Criminal Code framework for age of protection and it provides the necessary safeguards to prevent the criminalization of teenagers who engage in consensual sexual activity with other teens.

The message in Bill C-22 is very clear. It is directed at adults, not at youth, and it is this. If one is five years or more older than a young person, one is prohibited from engaging in any form of sexual activity with that young person. Under Bill C-22 there is no more uncertainty about whether 14 or 15 year olds consented or purported to consent to sexual activity. Their consent becomes irrelevant. The focus and onus is on the adult as it should be.

I believe it is in the interest of all hon. members to support Bill C-22. It sends a clear message now to adult sexual predators, namely that Canada protects its children and will deal sternly with those who threaten them.

I would like to move on to another big reason why I am so supportive of Bill C-22. The bill is good for the people of my riding. Residents from all over my riding, be they from Peterborough, Havelock, Norwood, Ennismore, Bridgenorth, Curve Lake or anywhere else, have been telling me that they want their children protected from sexual predators. They are frustrated with laws enacted by the previous governments, which fail to keep their children safe, which fail to recognize exploitation for what it is and which undermine one of the key building blocks of our communities, the family.

Bill C-22 is in line with what our government has promised to do, namely to restore balance in the justice system and crack down on crime. Getting tough on crime involves protecting our children and citizens from those who threaten them. This is a two-pronged approach. The first is to ensure that imprisonment is imposed on those who commit serious crimes. The second is to ensure that what constitutes a crime is properly defined by the lawmakers of our country.

It is the duty of the lawmakers of Canada work in line with the sentiment and demands of the Canadian public. I happen to be one of those lawmakers. I would be remiss in my duties, as a representative of all people, including those in Peterborough, if I did not support the legislation.

As I have indicated, a provision of Bill C-22 provides a close in age exemption for teenagers who engage in sexual activity with other teens. This is a very worthwhile thing to consider. Governments cannot absolutely regulate human behaviour, in this case the sexual activity of minors.

While not speaking from personal experience, some teenagers are not always the most well behaved when dealing with authority regardless of the issue. Bill C-22 recognizes that teenagers will be teenagers and without explicitly sanctioning sexual activity, keeps the government out of their private lives. This is the correct approach. Young people are not likely to read any government legislation before deciding whether to engage in sexual activity with a partner. This is why our government has taken the lead on this issue, providing protection for young teenagers, not seeking to criminalize them.

Keeping the streets of Peterborough and the country safe has always been and remains a very high priority for me. The people of my riding deserve to walk the streets without fear. Bill C-22 is part of a wider initiative to provide safe streets and communities in Canada. The idea that everyone can walk down George Street in Peterborough and feel as safe as if they were in their backyard is something that is very important to me. Knowing that proper laws are in place to keep sexual predators off their streets will go a long way in Peterborough by showing constituents that their government is governing with their well-being as its primary focus.

A couple of weeks ago I had the honour to attend the 17th annual CSC Chaplaincy Conference held at Sir Sanford Fleming College in my riding. The guest speaker that evening was Jim Stephenson, the father of Christopher Stephenson, a young boy whose tragic and preventable death provided the motivation for Christopher's law. Christopher's law was revolutionary in Ontario as it established a sex offender registry. Christopher's law works to protect our children from sexual predators, and so does Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 has been a long time coming. It recognizes the concerns of Canadians, including those in the Peterborough riding who want to see their children protected from sexual predators by raising the age of protection from 14 to 16 years of age. The bill should be unanimously supported by all members of this House, and I call on all members to do just that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's comments. He talked about cuts and quite frankly I suggest that his long term memory is not working very well because the Liberal cuts of the mid-1990s created real disparity in Canada.

Health care wait times doubled under the Liberal government. Far more children live in poverty today than before the Liberal government came to power. Far more people rely on food banks than before the Liberal government came to power. I would like the member to talk about the effects of the cuts the Liberals made to the provinces which bled down to people and caused real hurt.

The Conservatives may have targeted a few programs that we consider not to be efficient, but we did not spend any money on a sponsorship program that put money into our friends' pockets.

[Liberal Leadership Campaign, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, after shaking down children for campaign donations and attempting to raise the dead for, we can only assume, a divine intervention in his Liberal leadership campaign , the member for Eglinton—Lawrence is once again reminding Canadian taxpayers that the Liberal Party regards public money as its money.

While the federal accountability act is languishing in the Liberal dominated Senate, the staff of the publicly funded Career Foundation have demonstrated true accountability. By blowing the whistle on a scam which saw clients of the publicly funded organization work on the member's leadership campaign in the days running up to the so-called stupor weekend, they have demonstrated great courage.

Let me speak very, very slowly to the official opposition. Taxpayer money is not the property of the Liberal Party.

Thank goodness Canada has a new accountable government that respects public funds.

Old habits may die hard for the Liberal Party, but the age of transparent and accountable government is well under way in Ottawa.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-278, a proposal to extend EI sickness benefits.

Bill C-278 speaks to a common belief that all members of the House have and, indeed, all Canadians share, a belief that Canadian workers should be treated with fairness and compassion, especially when they are ill and unable to work,and that they receive all the benefits to which they are entitled.

The bill in that spirit proposes an extension of the sickness benefits paid under EI from the current 15 weeks to a maximum of a 50 week period, a potential increase of 35 weeks.

While the duration of the EI sickness benefits is an important issue that warrants examination, the reality remains that we need to learn a lot more about the impact and labour market implications of implementing such a proposal.

As a starting point, what do we know about the situation? EI sickness benefits are designed as a short term income replacement measure intended to complement the range of other supports that are available for longer term illnesses and disability, including benefits offered through employer sponsored group insurance plans, private coverage held by individuals and long term disability benefits available under the Canada pension plan.

We know that about 300,000 individuals claimed sickness benefits under EI last year. Of those 300,000, about one-third or some 100,000 claimed the 15 week maximum benefit period. We also know that the average claim was for 9.5 weeks.

More recently, we have also learned that the 9.5 week average claim period under the existing EI compares closely with the findings of a new Statistics Canada study on workplace absenteeism due to sickness or disability. The results of that study can be found in the April 2006 issue of “Perspectives on Labour and Income”, a publication that is identified as a comprehensive journal on labour and income from Statistics Canada.

This new information shows that since 1993 the average duration of long term workplace absences for personal illness or disability has remained steady at around 10 weeks, very close to the EI experience of an average claim of 9.5 weeks.

The Statistics Canada report offers some other interesting insights as well. For example, the study indicates that factors like age, health, unionization, pay and job security can all have an influence on workplace absenteeism due to illness.

Age is a significant variable. Among employees age 45 or older, 4.6% had taken long term illness leave. This made older workers significantly more likely, 1.5 times more likely, to be on illness leave as compared with those under 35, even after controlling for health and disability factors.

Demographic information like this can be very useful, especially in looking at the supports available for persons who may require more than 15 weeks away from work due to illness or injury.

What things do we need to know more about? Before endorsing the modifications proposed in Bill C-278, we need to have a more comprehensive understanding of the broader implications of extending benefits under EI for both government and the private sector.

To begin with, the idea of extending EI sickness benefits raises a number of considerations related to cost and the potential impact on employees and employers in the labour market. For example, how would this affect coverage from private financial services companies who offer insurance against income loss because of sickness or disability, particularly those providing insurance that complements EI?

Furthermore, we need to know more about the potential cost of extending the EI benefit period. Under the existing program, the maximum benefit is $413 per week. The average claim last year was $2,700, for a total cost of over $810 million for the program for one year.

Extending the benefit period could have a significant impact on that cost. Would it be double the $810 million or triple? We do not know because we do not have sufficient research to tell us what those exact costs might be.

Consequently, it would not be a prudent course of action to give a blanket endorsement to the proposals in Bill C-278 without having the ability to adequately measure its potential cost.

Presently, as I have suggested during the course of my remarks, we lack the information and analysis needed to properly evaluate the potential effects of extending EI sickness benefits. Therefore, I believe it would be premature to declare either opposition or support for the proposals contained in Bill C-278.

However, that does not preclude support for further examination of such. Moreover, I would like to assure the member for Sydney—Victoria and all Canadians that Canada's new government is committed to ensuring that the EI program continues to serve Canadians in an effective and timely manner.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Oh, oh!