House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 46% of the vote.
The Environment October 17th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, misleading the people of Canada is the question for that member. Today at the environment committee, he was part of a plan to derail the CEPA review at that committee. He needs to decide and tell the Canadian public why he derailed the CEPA review.
Lung Disease October 16th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Lung Association is meeting with MPs to raise awareness of the burden of lung disease in Canada.
The Canadian Lung Association supports this government's efforts to reduce the levels of air pollution and I believe it is looking forward to the introduction of the clean air act.
Like this government, the Lung Association recognizes the importance of reducing air pollution for the sake of our health. Smog and poor air quality continue to cause thousands of deaths each year and hundreds of thousands of severe episodes of asthma and bronchitis, particularly among children and the elderly. It is estimated that six million Canadians suffer from serious lung diseases and unfortunately, these disease rates continue to rise.
This government's approach was developed with the long term health benefits of Canadians in mind. Our approach is achievable and beneficial to our environment. Canada's new government is committed to improving the health of Canadians by cleaning up the air we breathe.
My thanks to the Canadian Lung Association.
Business of Supply October 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the commitment of the hon. member.
I personally have a little difficulty with the term “older worker”. I am 56, so I find myself in that category. I do not consider myself old. Mr. Speaker, I do not consider you to be old. Many of my colleagues here who are in that age group, I do not consider to be old.
I went to university. I took some criminal courses and found it fascinating. Members cannot understand that feeling. I found that most of the students, and we did not called them older students, we called them mature students, were in this age group. We have heard some comments, which are a little bit over the top, that if we are in this age group, we are not able to learn. That is utter nonsense. People in this age group are very capable of learning. If people find themselves in a situation where they need help, the government does want to provide that help.
The motion before us says:
That the House reiterate to the government the importance of implementing a real income support program for older workers that would apply to all older workers in all economic sectors, in all regions.
The definition is so tight that it makes it difficult to support. There are different areas of Canada that have different dynamics in economics, in job availability, and in retraining availability. Would the member be willing to slightly change that motion by inserting the word “displaced”? So instead of the motion saying “all older workers”, and I could be considered an older worker, it would say “all displaced older workers”. Would there be an appetite to look at an amendment?
Business of Supply October 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, first, on this issue, I am shocked to find that I am considered an older worker. I am in that age group. In all seriousness, this is an important issue.
In some areas of Canada there are low levels of unemployment and there is ample opportunity for employment in many communities where older workers do not need access to income supports. In fact, 44% of unemployed older workers live outside of censused metropolitan areas.
Thus, how does the Bloc motion take into account different situations in the labour market right across Canada?
Petitions October 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from hundreds of residents in Langley.
The petitioners ask that traffic issues in the riding be dealt with. They recommend that there be a development of a long range, 50-year master transportation plan for the Lower Mainland assisting Langley in determining whether alternate safe routes for the bulk and container traffic that travels through Langley is warranted, that the federal government provide adequate funding for rail and road separation projects and potential alternate routes, and assist Langley to secure efficient, workable and affordable transportation systems, including light rail at surface levels with growth capacity as required.
Criminal Code September 29th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for his hard work on Bill C-277 and for bringing it to this House.
I would also like to comment on some of the addresses that have been made in the House.
The Liberal member said that more information is needed to find out whether or not this bill is on the right track. Then let us send this bill to committee so we can have that debate and let us hear from the witnesses.
The Bloc has said that rehabilitation is needed. Let us send the bill to committee so that we can hear from the witnesses how to rehabilitate these pedophiles.
The NDP has just said that we need to prevent the crime and provide the tools. Let us send this bill to committee so that we can find out what tools are needed.
Bill C-277 addresses the seriousness of a criminal behaviour that targets our children: Internet luring.
Since 2002 it has been a crime in Canada to use the Internet to communicate with a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of child sexual exploitation or abduction against a child. Because we criminalize this behaviour, we have to be able to track for the first time the prevalence of this type of activity.
Over 600 Internet luring cases have been referred to the police by Cybertip since 2002. The trend seems to show that it is becoming an increasingly more common problem.
Cybertip has been Canada's national tip line for child sexual exploitation on the Internet. It has been in operation collecting valuable data and referring child sexual exploitation cases to the police since 2002. The data provided by Cybertip.ca and the anecdotal evidence that has been collected over the last four years paints a disturbing picture of a typical Internet luring case.
Picture a man in his mid to late 30s who portrays himself as a 17-year-old boy, who spends his time online in teen chat rooms. Now picture a young girl, 13 years old, who likes to chat with her friends in the teen's chat room, where the conversations get a little racy. Imagine this man gaining the trust of this young girl, striking up a friendship, talking about life, love and sex. Imagine this man taking the relationship to another level, telephone calls, using webcams and perhaps even in-person meetings. This is a typical scenario and escalation of events in cases where a real victim is at risk.
This criminal behaviour is becoming increasingly prevalent, which means that Canadian children are increasingly at risk.
When the luring provision was originally enacted, it was introduced to address a problem. The problem was not related to luring per se because luring itself is not a new phenomenon but one that has been greatly facilitated by the Internet and its associated technologies.
The problem with the act of luring, the grooming and enticing of a young person, was at that time there was no specific offence of luring to commit a child sexual offence and it fell short of an attempt to commit a child sexual exploitation offence. Canadian jurisprudence that dealt with the issue of attempts required that the act, which would constitute the attempt, would be more than mere preparation. It would be difficult to characterize chat or email as more than mere preparation, hence, the creation of the offence of luring a child. The new offence criminalized communicating for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a child sexual exploitation or abduction offence.
Why is all of this very important? Because this is how the current penalty of the luring provision was determined.
Under the Criminal Code the penalty for attempts is half that of the substantive offence that was attempted. Therefore, since the new luring provision, in a way, criminalized activity that was somewhat less than what could normally be characterized as an attempt, it was seen as appropriate that the penalty should be half of what the other child sexual exploitation offences carried.
Today we look at Internet luring very differently. The prevalence of this criminal behaviour and the risk of physical contact have been two supporting factors for treating this crime more seriously.
However, it is the direct contact that is made between the predator and the victim via the Internet, where a relationship of trust is created for the sole purpose of exploiting the young person and betraying his or her trust, which escalates this behaviour above that of an attempt and puts it onto a level with that of the other child sexual exploitation offences.
The last time we debated the bill, a number of questions were posed in relation to it. After careful consideration of its aims and purposes, I think we may have the answers to those questions.
If members will allow me to refresh the collective memory of the House, the questions were the following. Does the existing penalty of Internet luring adequately reflect the serious nature of this offence, particularly in comparison to other contact child sexual offences? Would the proposed new maximum penalty be consistent with the penalty with contact child sexual offences? Would it be consistent with other measures that are currently before Parliament, including Bill C-9, which proposes Criminal Code reforms to prevent the use of conditional sentences for offences that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment or more?
These are good questions. I believe I have already answered the first question, in that the current penalty scheme does not adequately reflect the seriousness of this type of criminal behaviour. Internet luring should be treated in the same way as the other Criminal Code offences relating to child sexual exploitation.
Second, Bill C-277, as amended, which calls for increasing the maximum penalty on indictment and summary conviction for the luring offence to 10 years and 18 months respectively, is completely consistent with the maximum penalties for the other child sexual exploitation contact offences. Only two child sexual exploitation offences continue to have a five year maximum penalty on indictment. Both are related to child pornography, possession and accessing, where contact with the potential child victim is not an element of the offence.
Finally, the bill is also complementary to government bills currently before the House, namely Bill C-9, on conditional sentence of imprisonment, and Bill C-22, on the age of protection. Bill C-277 also fits into the government's priority on tackling crime and, more specifically, on treating child sex exploitation crimes more seriously.
If enacted, Bill C-277 would, by virtue of raising the maximum penalty on indictment for the luring offence to 10 years, bring the offence up to the threshold contemplated in Bill C-9, which would remove the possibility of a conditional sentence, or house arrest, if the accused was prosecuted by the way of indictment.
Bill C-9 in its current form proposes to remove the possibility of conditional sentencing orders, which we commonly refer to as house arrest, for all serious crimes. Bill C-9 currently defines serious crimes as those crimes that carry a penalty of 10 years or more on indictment. The use of conditional sentencing in child sexual exploitation cases has been seriously criticized and Bill C-277 and Bill C-9 together will answer that criticism in part.
BillC-22, on the age of protection, although not directly linked to the penalty enhancements that are being proposed in Bill C-277, will expand the protective shield of section 172.1, the luring offence. Currently all children under 14 years are fully protected by section 172.1, but only some youth between 14 years and 18 years are protected by it. When Bill C-22 is enacted, the full protection of the luring offence will be extended to all children under 16 years.
New technologies, including the Internet, have created new opportunities for Canadians, and for the most part they have been extremely positive. However, they have also created new opportunities for would-be child molesters to anonymously and secretly enter into our homes through the Internet with a view to sexually exploiting our children.
Since its enactment in 2002, section 172.1 has served as a useful and effective tool for law enforcement and has resulted in convictions. In a recent Nova Scotia case, Kevin Randall was convicted of Internet luring as a result of engaging in explicit online communications with a person he believed was a 13-year-old girl but who was in reality an undercover police officer. The offender had arranged to meet the 13-year-old girl at a coffee shop, where the police apprehended him with a pocketful of condoms.
Clearly, section 172.1 is an important tool for law enforcement and it is being used to successfully secure the conviction of offenders. Our obligation as parliamentarians--
The Environment September 29th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the member is asking for specifics on our plan. The plan will be tabled next month. It is a good plan. It deals with greenhouse gas emissions. It is achievable, it is realistic and it is what the commissioner is recommending. It is good for Canada.
The Environment September 29th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, we agree with the commissioner's recommendations. For 13 years the Liberals did absolutely nothing.
The commissioner said that she wanted a plan with action, which is exactly what our minister is doing. Imagine if Canada had had this environment minister for the last 13 years, the emission rates would have gone down. Instead, the Liberals caused the emission rates to go up. Shame.
The Environment September 29th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, this government is taking a comprehensive approach to greenhouse gas emission reductions and climate change. All sectors need to be a part of the solution to clean up our environment. We want to involve all Canadians to be a part of the solution of our made in Canada plan.
Night to Light Walk September 29th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, Gabrielle Starr, a grade 8 student from Langley Secondary School, has launched a career as an advocate for children in Africa. Gabrielle is organizing a 10 kilometre walk on October 21 to help the children of northern Uganda.
While there is a new and tenuous peace accord in Uganda, children who have been kidnapped and forced to become child soldiers for the Lord's Resistance Army are still living in terror in the wilderness. In order to avoid capture, children walk up to 17 kilometres every night to sleep in safety. During the raids, young girls have been abducted and given to the rebel soldiers as wives.
Gabrielle and others are working to help the crisis in Uganda. Please join Gabrielle at the Night to Light Walk on Saturday, October 21 in Langley to help raise money for the New Life Center in Kitgum, Uganda to provide support for the children, their families and their community.
In the words of Gabrielle's mother, “It is empowering to see what a 13 year old can do”. We thank Gabrielle Starr.