Libby Davies

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I did raise this in my comments at the beginning. This is one of the concerns that was put forward by the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health. I actually would point out that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh tried to bring this amendment forward as did the Liberal member.

I agree that it seems a contradiction that we would have this inconsistency in the law, that the age of consent for anal sex would be 18 whereas the current age of consent for other sexual activities is 14, presumably now going up to 16 with this bill if it goes through.

I appreciate the member's comments because what it does for me is reinforce the concern that I have with the government's refusal to address that contradiction, even though there have been legal decisions that have squashed that particular section, and I know the member is supporting it, and it is being brought forward on the basis that it has more to do with a moral view on what is right or wrong.

We are all entitled to those views. I have those views. Other people have those views, but to encode it in legislation and to not address the issue of anal sex and the inconsistency there really is a reflection of where the Conservatives are coming from. That is actually one of the reasons why I find that I cannot support this bill.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-22, dealing with the age of consent. There always has to be a few dissenting voices, so I will be one of them.

As we know, the current age of consent in Canada is 14, and there are already very strict provisions in the Criminal Code for youth. They provide protection for youth between 14 and 18 from exploitative relationships that involve a person in authority or trust. I know the bill speaks about the protection of youth, but I would argue that provisions are already in the Criminal Code to provide this kind of protection.

We also have very strict provisions in the Criminal Code that prohibit activities related to prostitution for anyone under 18, and I am very familiar with these provisions. I was on the all party committee that dealt with prostitution. It very strongly believed that there should be strong criminal sanctions against prostitution activities, sexual exploitation of youth under 18. There are also very strict provisions regarding pornography. Therefore, these are already covered in the Criminal Code.

I know from the messages, the emails and the people to whom I have spoken in my community and elsewhere across Canada, people are very concerned about the exploitation, harm, violence and coercion that can exist, whether it is in a sexual relationship or not, and the protection of young people generally. I concur with that. It is a very serious issue in our society and it is something on which we should focus.

The problem I have with the bill is it goes way beyond that because it is a very sweeping bill. It goes much further in laying down a regime that becomes kind of a generic law, which will criminalize some sexual activity for young people. We have to look at that and distinguish where there are harms and where there are not, where there is consenting activity and where there is not.

I know at committee, Andrea Cohen, who is the president of the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, which I believe was formerly called Planned Parenthood, an organization with which we are very familiar, made it very clear that the Federation for Sexual Health was not for the legislation. She said:

We believe it's a rather crude instrument to deal with a pretty complex issue, which human sexual behaviour is, particularly around youth.

She laid out three concerns to the committee, which she felt needed to be addressed.

The first was that young people, because of the bill, would not be feel comfortable about seeking information around sexual health services because of fear of a lack of accountability. I think the concern is if the bill is approved, young people will be less likely to seek sexual health information or advice if they know their activities are outside of the law.

Ms. Cohen also laid out a concern about:

The perception or reality that a young person or his or her partner would be reported to authorities and prosecuted for consensual sexual activity outside of the five-year limit will result in sexually active youth not seeking or getting the health services they need.

I know this concern was very much echoed by the Canadian AIDS Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society as well.

The second concern of the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health was that the increased age of consent could be used as a justification for denying young people the sexual health education services they needed. Its concern was that it may actually place educators and health professionals in a very difficult position in that they may be reluctant to enter into conversations or exchange information with young people, under the proposed new age of consent, due to the uncertainty about their own legal obligations. We should be very concerned about this. We are in an environment where young people will be very reluctant possibly to come forward and to seek the kind of health advice, information, support and counselling they need.

The third concern of the federation was it pointed out that the Criminal Code included a clause that set the age of consent for anal sex at 18 years, which is higher than for any other type of sexual activity. It pointed out that there was no logical or medical reason to treat one type of sexual activity differently than the others.

Those were the concerns that the federation laid out. The NDP justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, tried very hard in committee to get them addressed. He tried to get amendments in the bill that would reflect these concerns, but unfortunately they were not permitted, leaving us with a flawed bill. I thank the member for trying to get those.

Members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community have also expressed their very serious reservations about the bill. People are concerned that this will lead us into a much more moralistic attitude and that will prevail. People are concerned that consensual sexual activities will be targeted, particularly in the GLBT community where there has been a history of prosecutions.

The government wants to raise the age of consent, and that is the main message in the bill. The message around the close in age exemption is not getting out. The main message is that the age of consent will be raised to 16. We have to be very concerned about the message that the bill sends out because it may create an environment where young people become very insecure and uncertain about their own rights and what they can and cannot do.

I also want to draw attention to another good presentation that was made at committee from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which raised a couple of concerns. This needs to be seen in a broader context over a lot of the legislation that we see from the Conservative government. The association said at committee:

—Bill C-22 represents a fundamental shift of policy and attitude toward sexuality. In 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Butler decision dealing with the definition of obscenity, signalled a fundamental shift from the legislation of morality to the legislation of harm.

This is a very important issue. Some members do not want to think about the direction that some of this legislation is taking. Since the Butler decision, there has been an emphasis to enact legislation that focuses on harm and the protection of individual rights, particularly where there are consenting activities. There is now a concern that this legislation will take us in another direction. We should be willing to debate this and to look at the implications and the consequences of that kind of direction. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association made an argument based on public policy and how it could change over the years.

The association also raised a concern that in the absence of evidence of harm, the rush to get through this bill is an unconsidered response to a moral objection rather than a legislative response to harms that have been shown. This is an important point.

I have heard some of the debate by Conservative members. I know they feel very strongly about their point of view, and I respect that. However, we have to also put on the table whether the legislation will accomplish what they are seeking to do, which is to protect young people from violence, exploitation, predators, rather than to put down this blanket that will criminalize youthful sexual activity even if it is consenting. That is my main concern about the bill.

The bill would criminalize consensual sexual activity for some 14 and 15 year olds. It sends a message of moral attitude and judgment rather than focus on harm and exploitation, which are issues with which we seriously need to be deal.

In the real world, teenagers do have sex. They do have sex with older people. Despite what the member for Wild Rose said, I think he said that kids were dumb, we have to recognize what this bill may end up doing in terms of the very people it seeks to protect.

This bill is flawed. I believe that it will tend to drive issues of youth sexuality underground. It will cause young people to be less open about what they need to protect themselves, and their sexual health and their sexuality.

I do not support the bill for those reasons. I do not support the approach being taken by the Conservative government. I do not support this kind of broad-sweeping legislation that I think will criminalize sexual activities of youth and will not in any way ensure their protection from predators. I have a great deal of skepticism about the bill.

Today I have heard members say that something like 80% of the population supports this measure. I do not know whether that is true or not. I am sure it is high. But, again, I think it is based on a very strong and legitimate concern about protecting young people from exploitation and predators, whether it is through pornography, prostitution or random sexual relationships.

However, I really feel that this legislation would take us beyond that, into a direction that would end up criminalizing young people who do not need to be criminalized and would actually put them into an environment where they would be less open about what is going on and less likely to come forward and actually seek protection and health.

I realize that is not a popular thing to say, but I do think it needs to be said. I think we should have very sober thoughts about this bill and what it would do. I have considered it very seriously and I have actually struggled with it, as have other members of the NDP caucus.

There are a majority of members of our caucus who support this bill, but nevertheless I feel that as a member of Parliament I have an obligation to put forward a view. I think there are some issues here that need to be addressed and for the reasons that I have outlined, I find that I cannot support this bill, not because I do not believe that children should not be protected, they should, but because I do not believe this bill would actually accomplish that.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, will you then be allowing other parties to also comment on whether or not these amendments are admissible? If you are allowing the mover to do so, then there may be other points of view.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in response to what you responded to the member opposite, I would like to question how this process is unfolding. It seems to me that we cannot begin a debate on these amendments that have just been put forward until we know whether or not they are in order.

If the member is going to rise and put forward arguments as to why they should be in order or--

[Afghanistan, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is the government's story and information that keeps changing every day in question period.

Correctional Service Canada has told us that it will release the documents requested today or Monday but it will not matter because the access coordinator has told us that the whole document will be blank.

This is outrageous. The story would not keep changing had the government simply told Canadians everything. The truth will set them free.

Why does the government continue to confuse Canadians? Why does it not simply tell us what is really going on in Afghanistan?

[Afghanistan, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has refused to admit that his Minister of National Defence has become a liability to soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. The daily changing story and the chaos that the minister has created are surely grounds for dismissal.

However, it gets worse. For over a year, the NDP has been asking Correctional Service Canada for information on the officers who supposedly report on Afghan prisons and prisoners but DFAIT and DND claim no knowledge of this and have produced no documents.

How is it possible that three government ministers have three stories and none of them match?

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for bringing a lot of substance to this debate by giving a historical view of how the Senate came about and what the real issues are before us.

I also thank him for the work he has been doing on this file in terms of bringing forward the substantive issues on democratic reform, as did the previous member for Ottawa Centre, Ed Broadbent. It was Ed Broadbent who really picked this up and set before Parliament the real qualitative changes that need to be made. The current member for Ottawa Centre is continuing that work.

The problem with this bill, like so many other bills that come forward, is that it is just window dressing. When we think of organizations like Fair Vote Canada or the Citizens' Assembly that took place in British Columbia, these are substantive processes that show there is a hunger out in the communities to address democratic reform.

I find it interesting that both the present government and the previous government had ministers responsible for democratic reform and yet we saw nothing happen. I think part of the question here is the process for arriving at democratic reform. I would like the member for Ottawa Centre to comment on that in terms of the kind of process we need to see, rather than this phony one that is set up for these focus groups, to actually engage people in the question of democratic reform.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that sometimes the debate becomes very trivialized.

The motion has been put forward with the most serious intent. Certainly it does say that we should notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner. Obviously, that is something that is worked out in terms of the process.

I just do not understand why the member would call into question that kind of language. It is the kind of language that would be used when signifying an intent to change a position. I really do not understand the question other than it is really just a bit of a cheap shot.

The real issue here is to recognize that the Liberals through their own motion have signified their support for the Conservative mission to February 2009. That is what they want to hide behind.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House all day so I have heard the member be confused all day, and I am sorry for that. I have a feeling that my response is not going to end his confusion. I have a feeling that he would like to remain confused because it happens to be a convenient question.

When we look at the position of the parties in this House, the NDP has been very consistent in its position, even going back to 2001, in terms of the questions we have raised, the position we have taken, the motion at our convention, the motion before us today, which is to say that we should be withdrawing our troops, we should be ending the military mission.

We certainly are not saying that we will abandon Afghanistan. Our leader was very clear on that today. The member maybe was not here to hear that. We have been very clear that we think there is a different kind of role that Canada should be playing.

We should be at the point where we are now using our influence in the world with our NATO allies, with people in Afghanistan, to actually engage in a peace process. We are not alone in that. I know the Conservatives do not like to hear that, but we are not alone in that position. There is a growing body of academics and former foreign affairs officials who are saying exactly the same thing, as are former military personnel and present military personnel.

I know the Conservatives do not want to hear it, but that is the reality of the debate that is taking place.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate and support your point about cellphones, as I think we all do. They are very distracting. We will try to make sure that our cellphones are turned off.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of the NDP motion put forward on Afghanistan. I have been in the House all day listening to the debate. It has been very interesting because there are obviously very strongly held viewpoints from different parties in this House. The points have been well argued. Sometimes there has been passion. Sometimes there has been a bit of conflict in the debate. It has gone back and forth. In a debate like this, we can expect that to happen.

I think it does reflect the kind of public discussion and debate that is also taking place outside this chamber in communities right across the country. We come here reflecting those views on what this mission is about and what Canada should do. What is the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan? That is really what we are getting down to here today.

I would like to go back for a moment to October 2001, because it was in 2001 that President George W. Bush spoke to the U.S. Congress and uttered his now famous assertion that “you are either with us” or with the terrorists. It was very shortly after that, hours after that, that the brutal bombing of Afghanistan began and, in October 2001 as well, Canada joined what was then Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Here we are almost six years later, an enormous amount of time, with an enormous human casualty from that war, not to mention what is going on in Iraq. Canada is still deeply complicit in the U.S. war, with no end in sight, despite, I believe very strongly, Canadians' growing anxiety and opposition.

I have heard from many constituents on this issue in Vancouver East, and indeed from Canadians across the country, who have expressed to me their very deep concern about the war in Afghanistan and Canada's participation and where it is headed. In fact, many people draw the links between the war on Iraq and the war in Afghanistan and the American government's agenda to use military force in the name of fighting terrorism.

There are a lot of people who see this new global reality as something that is very dangerous and harmful. It really demands of us as parliamentarians that we provide some answers as to Canada's willing involvement and support for this agenda being put forward so powerfully, with such destruction, by the U.S. government. We are very involved in it.

Let us then fast forward to March 2003, when, thank goodness, the then prime minister, Jean Chrétien, made the right decision following enormous public pressure, not the least of which was from the NDP in this House day after day, and said that Canada should not participate in the war and invasion in Iraq. That decision was made. I believe it was the right decision. It was supported by the Canadian people. People have understood it to be an illegal occupation.

Nevertheless, Canada was still involved in Afghanistan. Again, I think that many people have drawn the link that our involvement in Afghanistan is helping the U.S. administration's effort in the war in Iraq, because it of course has a huge number of troops in Iraq. The Americans have a large number of troops in Afghanistan. Our complement in Afghanistan is assisting the Americans in terms of the pressures they face in Iraq.

What we have seen since that initial involvement in 2001 that was begun by former prime minister Jean Chrétien, was continued by his successor, the next Liberal prime minister, and now has been escalated by the Conservative government, is something that we are debating today. I think it is a very important debate.

Today in the debate I heard members from the Conservatives and even from the Liberals say they are confused about the NDP position. I want to say and put on the record that I am very proud of the NDP position. I think New Democrats have been clear from day one, because we have questioned and we have opposed this mission and we will continue to do so.

We will continue to speak out and demand answers, and in fact to some of the same questions the Conservatives asked when they were in opposition, ironically, and we will continue to call for the safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan because we believe that is actually the right thing to do.

We believe that Canada has gone down the track a long way on a wrong mission that is now supported by fewer and fewer Canadians. We can see from the debate in the House today and over the last few days on the question of detainees just how controversial even the question of detainees is becoming.

Right now Canada spends nine times as much on military combat in Afghanistan as it does on aid and development in Afghanistan. We believe that fighting the counter-insurgency is not going to resolve Afghanistan's security problems. What Afghanistan needs now is a peace agreement. Therefore, Canada should pull its troops out and take leadership. We should be using our influence in the international community within NATO in creating opportunities for peace and increasing significantly our support for reconstruction aid and development.

I have been involved as a peace activist for over 30 years. I believe very strongly that Canada has a responsibility to uphold international law, human rights and social justice, both in Canada and around the globe.

I believe that the NDP position has been very principled. It has been a position of integrity. It came from our convention, where our members spoke loudly and clearly. Again I think that is reflective of large numbers of Canadians who said that this was the wrong mission for Canada.

We have had a lot of debate today about the Liberal motion that came forward in the House on April 19. I have heard many Liberals say it is terrible that the NDP was supporting the Conservatives. Let us be very clear about what took place here. I have to say that I found it impossible to support the motion that was put forward by the Liberals on their opposition day, as did all of my colleagues, because it was a wrong motion.

Basically that motion confirmed the position that had been laid out by the Conservatives and voted on in May 2006. This was not an issue of the NDP supporting the Conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth. We were opposing a Liberal motion that we believed to be utterly wrong because it confirmed the vote that took place in May 2006 and it confirmed the position of that party.

Let us actually go back to that vote, because that was the critical test. That was the critical point at which this House had to make a decision. It was a government motion that was laid down as to whether or not our involvement in Afghanistan would be extended until February 2009.

We had a choice. We had a decision to make. That choice was made. It was very close. As we know, 149 votes were in favour of extending the mission for a further two years and 145 were against. Four votes separated that decision. I would remind the members of the House that there were 22 Liberals who voted with the government on that day. There were also many Liberals who were absent.

That was the test. That was the measure in terms of where we were going as a Parliament representing the Canadian people and Canadian views. It is incredibly regrettable. At that time we had an opportunity to say to the government that we would not extend that mission, but because of the position the Liberals took that unfortunately did not happen, so here we are today now confirming that position that has been taken by the Conservative government.

I would like to quote from a very good report done by James Laxer, in the “Mission of Folly”, where he says:

The war in Afghanistan, like the struggle in Iraq, is doing more to promote the cause of terrorism throughout the Islamic world than it is doing to win the so-called War on Terror. The argument made by some that to advocate withdrawal is appeasement and that we have a choice between fighting this enemy in Asia or on our own doorstep is a completely phony one.

Like previous invasions of Afghanistan, this one is almost certain to end in failure. Eventually, the West will decide to pull its troops out, leaving an even more despoiled country to sort out itself.

That is the real tragedy in this horrible situation that has unfolded. The Soviets could not do it with 140,000 troops and a massive intervention.

We need to be very honest. That is a very brutal assessment. We need to have a very honest assessment and to be clear that this military mission has no end. It has no clear strategy. It has no sense of what it will accomplish. It is something that, as we know from the government's own admission, could go on for 10, 15 or 20 years. We say that is wrong. Change the mission. Begin a peace agreement. Begin aid and reconstruction and development. Use Canada's influence in the traditional way that has met with success. That is what we should be doing.