Leon Benoit

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-12 today. What the bill is intended to do, which is quite different from what it actually does, is to make amendments to the Criminal Code that are intended to safeguard children from sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect.

Clearly these are issues that should have been dealt with a long time ago. In fact, I have been in the House for over 10 years now, and when I first came here the government promised it would deal with these issues. Legislation has appeared on a couple of occasions before and it was supposed to deal with some very serious problems regarding child exploitation, abuse and neglect, yet nothing concrete has happened.

I can safely say that things are no better now when it comes to protecting our children than they were when I came here 10 years ago. In fact, if we take a careful look at the law and the way the courts interpret the law, I think it is safe to say that things are actually worse now and the law actually does a poorer job now of protecting children than it did 10 years ago.

Now we have Bill C-12, which is supposed to fix these flaws in the law, but clearly Bill C-12 will not do that. There are several clear gaps in this legislation, which really make it clear that it will not do the job that it is intended to do. Again, the stated purpose of the legislation is fine, but what the legislation delivers is not. Frankly, that is a common problem that I have seen over the past 10 years. We have seen legislation that states a noble goal but then once delivered really does not do it.

The government seems extremely weak when it comes to putting forth effective legislation and that is too bad, especially when we are talking about protecting our children. I am going to point out some of the specific areas where this legislation clearly fails.

First, this legislation does not eliminate all defences for the criminal possession of child pornography. That is what the Canadian public wanted. It wanted all defences for the possession of child pornography eliminated.

Second, it does not raise the age of consent for adult-child sex. Since I have been here, I have seen literally tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands, possibly millions--it probably is in the millions--of names presented on petitions from Canadians who have called on the government to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. What has the government done about these hundreds of thousands and probably millions of petitioners? It has ignored them, and that is really another serious flaw in this legislation. The government did not listen to the people who really understand what has to be done, but I will get to that later.

The third thing this legislation clearly fails to do is institute mandatory sentences for child sexual assault. What more important role has the law than to protect our children? To me the answer is clear: there is none. There is simply no more important role of the law than to protect children, yet this legislation clearly fails to do that.

The laws in the United Kingdom and the United States put in place mandatory sentences for sexual assault against children. Why is this so difficult or why is this government so unwilling to do that in Canada? Quite frankly, I do not have the answer.

I do not have the answer. It has been so frustrating. Several members of our party have taken on this issue with everything they have. We have all spoken to this issue. We have all encouraged the government to get serious about protecting our children. Yet what do we get? We get Bill C-12, which absolutely, certainly and clearly will not do that. Why? I will not try to answer for the motives of the government. I can say that this will not do it.

Because of this, Canada is becoming a global haven for child predators. That is not the kind of reputation I want for our country. One of the things we do not want Canada to be is a haven for sexual predators, yet because of our weak law that is exactly what we have become. It is shameful and it is embarrassing. More important, it is a failure of the Government of Canada to protect our children. It is such an important failure that it has to be corrected. The government has made several attempts to correct this over the years but it has clearly failed.

I want to go back to the issue of who the government listens to when it comes to making laws with regard to this issue. Does it listen to the Canadian public? No. As I have already said, we have had petitions presented in the House that have been signed by hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people. I would venture to guess that all of us in this party have presented petitions on this issue. Clearly the government has not been listening to the Canadian public.

This government tends to be elitist and wants to listen to a certain elite group of people that knows better than the general public; that seems to be the way it thinks. If that is what it wants to do, has it listened to front line police officers? That would make sense. Front line police officers know that child abuse takes place and they know how it takes place. They know where they fail in building a case that would stand up in court because of the law put in place by the government. Front line police officers know all these things. They also know the unbelievable damage this predation does to children and their families and their communities. Front line officers have told the government that, but does the government listen? It does not.

Until the government listens to child advocates, to front line officers and to the Canadian public, it will never fix this problem. I just want to say that a Conservative government will. We will. We have been speaking out on this issue and putting forth concrete recommendations for change. We have put amendments to legislation that the government has brought forward. Those amendments by and large have been ignored.

But when we form the government we will fix this issue, because to us the protection of our children is important. It is something we see as one of the most important things a government can do and clearly one of the things government is expected to do. We will do that.

Part of this problem has come about as a result of the artistic merit defence. How many people have called the offices of every single member of Parliament, including Liberal members, to say they were upset with the Sharpe decision? In that case, the Supreme Court interpreted artistic merit and said that in the law it should be interpreted in the broadest sense possible.

While members of Parliament on both sides of the House have heard about this again and again, the government has done nothing to fix the artistic merit problem in Bill C-12. It simply is not going to change in that regard, but this has to be fixed. That is a big part of the reason why this problem has been allowed to carry on for so long. It simply has to be fixed. I have very little faith that this will happen, but I hope it will before Parliament is dissolved. If the government does not fix it, we will.

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make my closing comments on the legislation.

My private member's bill is about saving lives. The bill was designed and drafted by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Louise Knox, the president of this organization, lives in my constituency. We have talked many times about the devastation caused by drunk driving. Her son was killed by a drunk driver. She knows the loss a family can feel as a result of this completely unnecessary death.

The bill tries, in a very reasonable way, to eliminate two of the most commonly used technical defences for those who are guilty of drunk driving but get off on technicalities. They hire a good lawyer, go to court, get a soft judge and get off on technicalities. The purpose of this legislation is to protect against that to save lives.

I cannot imagine why anyone in the House would not support the legislation. In fact the parliamentary secretary, in the last hour of debate, gave his reasons why the government, or members of the Liberal Party, might not support the legislation, and they were absurd. I am will read them so members can see just how ridiculous this argument is. Normally, I would not use that type of strong language, but I think it is being factual. He said:

Bill C-452 would impose a new and highly unusual requirement upon an accused person. In order to challenge the result of a breath or blood test, an accused would have to prove one of four things: first, the analysis was faulty; second, the equipment was faulty; third, the procedure was faulty; or, fourth, the accused drank alcohol after driving but before the testing.

The parliamentary secretary was arguing that requiring the accused to prove one of these things was unreasonable. He even went so far as to say that it somehow went against charter protection.

However, let us just examine whether that is the case. What I am talking about are the two most commonly used defences to get drunk drivers off the hook. My colleagues have presented the information effectively on these two defences, but I am going to present them once more and then quickly show how absurd the parliamentary secretary's arguments are.

The courts until now really have interpreted the Criminal Code in a manner that results in the evidentiary breath or blood test results being thrown out solely based upon the accused's unsubstantiated and self-serving testimony.

People go to court, accused of drunk driving, and say one of two things. In the case of the Carter defence, they say that they only consumed a small amount of alcohol. Even though the tests showed they were clearly drunk, based on the evidence they presented, that they had only consumed a small amount, they could not be guilty because their blood alcohol concentration simply could not have been that high.

In the other case, that of the last drink defence, they say that when they were tested their blood alcohol level was above the legal limit, that they were driving drunk according to the test, but what they did was guzzle back a bunch of booze just before the police stopped them. Therefore, while they were drunk according to the test, they were not drunk while driving. Believe it or not, some courts, with the right judge and the right lawyer, allow these defences to stand.

The parliamentary secretary says that it is unreasonable for the accused to require evidence that the test was wrong. The legislation says that if the tests are done appropriately, then that individual should be found guilty. The parliamentary secretary argues that it is an unreasonable thing to require. But is it? When the roadside test is consistent with the tests done a couple of hours later and is consistent with what the police officer saw, should that not be enough to convict the drunk driver, unless the accused can prove that the machine was faulty or that the proper procedure was not followed or specifically that something else was done wrong?

I would argue, for the sake of saving lives, the bill should be passed so the strong evidence that the machines provide will stand up in court and these technicalities will no longer get drunk drivers off the hook and lead to these needless deaths across the country every year.

[Royal Canadian Mint, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when these guys get caught, then they are going to change something and make it better.

This trip was clearly nothing more than a personal vacation for an ex-minister and the government should be quick to condemn it. George Radwanski is paying money back to Canadians, and so should Alfonso Gagliano.

Why is it standard Liberal practice to abuse the public trust and defend lavish vacations that the average Canadian simply cannot--

[Royal Canadian Mint, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government is printing money at the Mint and spending it like it is its own, but it is not. This crown corporation funded a six-day tour of Italy for Alfonso Gagliano and his cronies, but only one day of official business was conducted.

Given that the Prime Minister has said he will never defend the indefensible, when is he going to call up his good friend Alfonso Gagliano and order him to pay back the taxpayer money that was spent on this trip?

[Government Contracts, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the public works minister continues to insist that he only cancelled that $1 billion contract with Royal LePage based on the CITT ruling.

There is a clause in all government contracts saying that if bribery or fraud is discovered in the initial awarding of the contract, then that company is not allowed to re-bid. Public works officials are alleged to have accepted bribes, and allegations of corruption have swirled around this contract from the very start.

Therefore, is that not the reason the minister cancelled this contract and why is he letting his friends at Royal LePage re-bid on this $1 billion contract?

[Government Contracts, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to insist there was no wrongdoing other than that found by the trade tribunal in its hearing, but that is not true.

In fact in a letter I have, his own head of procurement said that there were reasons other than those considered by the trade tribunal which led to the cancellation of the contract. He said that the contract was cancelled “for reasons unrelated to the grounds of complaint filed by Prudential”. Those were the reasons given in the tribunal.

Why is the minister hiding the truth about why he cancelled this $1 billion contract?

[Government Contracts, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works continues to avoid the truth about the shady $1 billion relocation contract for Royal LePage. I will give him a hand. The contract was cancelled and ordered re-tendered and no official reason was given. Officials from the minister's department were alleged to have taken gifts, including cruises, for that contract from guess who? Royal LePage.

The CITT ruled that the bidding process was fixed, favouring Royal LePage, but did not call for the contract to be re-tendered. Is it still the government's position that there was no wrongdoing, but it cancelled the $1 billion contract with Royal LePage anyway?

[Agricultural Pest Control Products Replacement Act, April 29th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-522, an act respecting the replacement of agricultural pest control products.

Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill is meant to protect farmers in particular against the removal of a product that is very important to them in protecting their livestock and crops. A product may be taken away without scientific evidence to indicate why it should be taken away.

I have seen this several times over the 10 years I have been in the House, in particular the use of strychnine to control gophers. The scientific evidence to remove that product was not there. This would simply protect against that and require that a committee of the House actually examine the removal of a product which is very important to farmers or others.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-521, an act to amend the Criminal Code (search and seizure).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill on search and seizure. This bill is meant to correct something that was improperly inserted in Bill C-68, the gun control act. That bill allows for search and seizure without a warrant, which is something that is very unusual. This bill would correct that and require a warrant for search, and also restitution for unnecessary damage done as a result of that search.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Do-Not-Call Registry Act, April 28th, 2004]

Another gun registry.