Peter MacKay

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important motion, this very important issue with which parliamentarians and Canadians have been seized for a number of years and which has been brought sharply into focus, pardon the pun, by the Sharpe decision which has come down from the British Columbia court. This decision, I think, has caused many Canadians to question loopholes and some of the lax criminal justice response we have when dealing with the issue of child pornography.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. John's East. As a very fine member of the Progressive Conservative caucus, he is one who for many years has been advocating a stronger position from government in relation to this serious issue of pornography and its distribution.

The motion is a motion which I take to read as taking these steps “including but not limited to”; I see the motion as a gateway to a more activist and more interventionist approach on the part of government when dealing with this issue. Our Progressive Conservative Party wholeheartedly supports any legislation which will help to address and to eventually eradicate child pornography.

The myriad of problems surrounding this issue, including the hamstrung ability of the police to investigate in many instances, as well as the increased use of technology and the proliferation of this type of disgusting material becoming ever more readily available through the Internet, poses serious challenges for the law enforcement community. Investigation on the part of the government into all aspects of what we should do is very timely and extremely important. In fact, it is so important that I can think of no issue that the Department of Justice could be more actively engaged in at this time.

There are positives and negatives that we must look at when considering this issue of age of consent. We look forward to the government clearly putting on the record its position and what active role it might play in assessing the complications of this controversial issue. In fact, I believe we are going to hear divergent opinions on this issue. One of the perverse elements of the way in which the motion currently is worded is that it actually could have a negative impact on some criminal code sections by lowering the current age of 18 to 16. This is what we have to keep in mind. It is not simply a matter of a paintbrush sweeping across the code and stamping the age of 16 as being the appropriate one. There is a danger here.

With respect to this issue, Bill C-15, passed in 1989, addressed the question of age of consent, replacing the prior unsuitable legislation. That bill prohibited adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual contact with boys or girls under the age of 14. That bill also made it illegal for adults in positions of trust or authority to have sexual contact with minors between, and here are the key words, the ages of 14 to 18. Therefore, by simply stamping 16 in its place there is a danger that a very naive, unworldly youth of the age of 17 might fall outside the parameters. We have heard the sad tales of people in positions of trust, those involved in the church, those in the school system, foster parents and sadly even parents, who take advantage of youth who are under the age of 18, not 16. We want to be careful not to narrow further the ability of the prosecution to proceed with charges when positions of trust are involved.

I note with interest that in 1981 the current Prime Minister, then the justice minister, proposed Bill C-53, which would have retained a broader version of the prohibition against sexual activity with a young person between those ages of 14 and 18. That bill was not adopted.

Raising the age of consent to 16 would have to be accompanied by an exemption permitting sexual contact with someone between the ages of 14 and 16 if there are only a few years difference between the actual partners. We are into an area of morality and we are into an area of practicality, one in which we would have to proceed with some caution.

The overall effect of the Sharpe decision by Mr. Justice Shaw has many in society recoiling with dismay that a learned judge would in fact open the door to potential pedophiles and those who take advantage of youth, who denigrate images and engage in writings that have a very corrosive effect on societal norms.

Mr. Speaker, as you would be aware, Mr. Justice Shaw in handing down the Sharpe decision in my view broadened the interpretation of the current exemption or defence of artistic merit. Not only did he acquit Mr. Sharpe on some of the charges dealing with the material and whether he was in fact advocating or counselling illegal sexual activity, there was language in the obiter, that is, language in part of his decision, which in my view can be interpreted as, or one could glean that, it is expanding the artistic merit definition. I will quote from page 40 of the decision:

Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence.

Justice Sharpe went on to state that the “community standards” considered in determining obscenity do not apply, and further, the creator need only point to objective fact to support the defence and then the crown must disprove it.

There are real problems with that. When one looks at the definition of a story, if you will, that would fall into the category of having some artistic merit, it appears that the base level is that the story have a beginning, a plot and a conclusion. The material, however offensive and disgusting, is somehow to be gleaned as having artistic merit if it meets this very base level. I would suggest that we are mandated, obligated, to respond with legislation to close this legislative loophole.

The Progressive Conservative Party has been supportive in the past of the law enforcement community, victims' groups and child advocates who are constantly tasked and constantly struggling with the lack of resources available to them to undertake this monumental task. As I have said before, what could be a more fundamental issue? We know that the lasting impact on victims of sexual abuse is sometimes a life sentence. Very often the mental anguish, the detrimental effect on the development of young people, is everlasting. It is certainly incumbent upon parliament to take every available opportunity to make for a safer and kinder society.

We have heard from victims as recently as today at the justice committee. There was a very telling comment that I think warrants repeating. It dealt with the need for victims to have more support, a stronger voice, an ability to be heard in a substantive way by the triers of fact, by the individuals who ultimately will decide whether a person will be incarcerated and, after the fact, whether the person will be released. It talks directly to the issue of respect for and dignity of victims, whereas victims very often are unwittingly and irreversibly brought into a cold and foreign forum in which they have no control and of which they have no prior knowledge.

It is clear that there has to be an equitable approach taken by the government. This is why we need a victims' ombudsman's office.

We have a budget specifically set aside for the commissioner of corrections to deal with the concerns, some legitimate, of federal inmates. There is a federal budget allocated to ensure that inmates, some of whom are serving time for absolutely heinous crimes and have victimized numerous citizens, have an office where they can go if their steaks are burned, if they are not getting access to the Movie Channel or they do not have the ability to log on.

Yet victims very often are completely ignored. They have no outlet, no central office in the country, where they can go to find out about important things like parole hearings or information pertaining to response to treatment.

In conclusion, we very much support the motion before us, but I would like to seek unanimous consent, if I may, to move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That, after the words “that the government immediately introduce legislation to”, the substitution be made of the words “eliminate the legal loophole of artistic merit and other measures to enhance the protection of children from pedophiles and child pornographers in light of recent court decisions”.

I anxiously await the positive response to my amendment from members present.

[An act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to correct some of the inaccuracies put forward by the parliamentary secretary who comes from a rural riding I might add. I was quite surprised actually at the adamant stance he has taken to protect his government's very interventionist legislation that will impact in a very negative way on many of the residents who are involved with the rearing and raising of animals.

In his legal definition he stated many of those legal maxims which I would describe as penetratingly obvious. He said that prosecutors would have the discretion to proceed with charges or not. Of course they would. He said that somehow colour of right excuses and defences do not have to be disproved by the crown. That is very obvious. The reality is that by taking animals out of the property section it removes the defence that is explicitly stated in the current provisions of the criminal code that stake out that lawful excuse of colour of right provided for those animal users and animal industry people, a specific defence that has been there and has been sacrosanct.

It is fair to characterize the government's position as once again driving a very firm wedge between rural and urban Canada. There is what I would describe as a cultural difference that exists when it comes to dealing with animals in many instances.

It is the view of the Progressive Conservative Party that absolutely we need legislation to protect animals. By all means we have to update and modernize provisions of the criminal code in that regard. However it is an absolute sham to suggest that somehow it is necessary to go so far as to deem animals as no longer property. That definition of property goes a great distance to actually protect animals because who has a greater interest than those animal owners and industry people who rely on animals for their very livelihood, for their very existence?

I am surprised by the support that exists from members like the member for Malpeque and others on the government side who come from rural ridings. They must have a great sense of discomfort when it comes to the whip telling them that they will have to vote in favour of this legislation. We have seen that scenario play out time and time again.

The cruelty issues are ones which are extremely emotional, ones which invoke a very strong response from most if not all Canadians. The examples given where animals have been dragged behind vehicles, or barbecued, or skinned alive are offensive to everyone. There has been a very effective PR effort made by some interest groups and some government members to paint anyone who opposes this legislation as being in favour somehow of cruelty to animals. That is absolutely untrue and absolutely inflammatory and inconsistent with statements that have been made.

The people at justice department who drafted this legislation were very clever in putting forward their case in suggesting that somehow this will have no impact and this will just currently bump along with the way these prosecutions have taken place. There is nothing that cannot be achieved. There is no intent, no ability on the part of the police and the prosecution and the system of those that want to embrace and enhance animal protection that cannot be achieved by simply leaving these provisions plus these amendments within the current property sections of the criminal code.

This unprecedented step to designate animals as somehow outside that property section opens up the proverbial can of worms that puts in danger hunters, farmers, scientists, individuals who very much rely on and work with animals in their day to day existence. I would suggest it is aimed specifically at farmers who engage in some practices such as branding or castration.

We have to be very honest. We cannot be pristine and somehow removed from the fact that animals are a source of food and therefore have to be slaughtered on occasion. There are religious acts that involve the sacrifice of animals. I would be quick to add that scientific research often does impinge upon the rights of an animal. However, let us be very pragmatic about this, it is done for the greater good.

I say this without a bit of sarcasm; we are at the top of the food chain. Scientists engage in activities to find new methods and new cures for human conditions. They engage in certain acts of genetic experimentation done to address some of the horrible illnesses that are out there. Some priority must be given to those very legitimate and lawful acts.

The proprietary aspects of animal use have been very important throughout the debate. We have heard from a number of industry people as well as those on the other side who in a very strident way have made their case. The important section which currently permits acts to be done with legal justification, legal excuse or with colour of right should remain, and should remain in that property section.

We share the concerns that have been expressed by Canadians involving the lax sentences that are sometimes handed down. Again I state for emphasis those objectives of increasing the sentences of expanding the availability that judges have to mete out sentences that are more in line with public abhorrence of violence toward animals and toward people. There is a clear nexus, as other members have said, between individuals who exhibit aggression toward animals and later go on to exhibit that same type of aggression toward human beings. There is no denying that fact.

If we are to send a message of deterrence and public protection, we have to have a higher range of sentencing. That can be achieved and it is achieved by portions of the bill, but it flaws the entire process I would suggest. We see this time and time again. This is perhaps why the former minister of justice called her own department the world's worst law firm because it does not get it right. It does not seem to take into account the interests of rural Canadians who each and every day rely on working with animals.

Let us not beat around the bush about what will happen if a crown prosecution or a private prosecution is commenced against an individual who legitimately has been engaged in activities that might be deemed as cruel to animals, such as branding. That person will be up against a system which may take months and may cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars to go through. That type of delay and interference with a person's livelihood could very well result in bankruptcy, in ruined reputation and in loss of reputation in the community.

Let us not pretend for a minute that our justice system is working well. There have been strikes at legal aid. Cases have been thrown out of court because of delays. There is a huge backlog of cases already in the justice system. This could very well result in a further exaggeration of some of the miscarriages of justice that often occur.

There is a real troubled sense for many members of parliament, particularly those from rural Canada, who are faced with voting for this bill and simply swallowing what I would deem to be a poisoned element of it, plugging their noses in doing so, or standing up and putting these legitimate concerns forward. That is what I, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, on behalf of a rural riding, am attempting to do.

There are legitimate worthwhile elements of the bill we would love to support. However, we heard from a number of the groups that came before the committee, such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and rural representatives from across the country who said that this bill will put them between the proverbial rock and a hard place. It will impinge upon their ability to carry out what were previously deemed as normal and lawful activities.

It is with great regret that I express on behalf of our party that we cannot support this legislation in its current form. We would very much love to see the opportunity that the amendment would provide, to bring the matter back to a committee. We could hear again from the stakeholders and particularly from those members of the agricultural sector who described the impact of this legislation as being extremely detrimental.

That is what we should do. We should take the time to get it right. Time and time again we see the government cutting off debate and shutting down legitimate concerns. That is why I would encourage members of the House to support this amendment and have the opportunity to bring the legislation back for study at the justice committee.

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House and before parliament is: how do we treat gross disorderly conduct within this Chamber?

When the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca took it upon himself to become overly familiar with the Mace he crossed the line. This is not to confuse the cause with the contempt. There is simply no doubt that there was a prima facie case which exists to warrant the exception of the motion to deal with this matter. It is a particularly serious matter, one that has happened on rare occasions throughout the entire history of this parliament. In this House and in other parliaments this has consistently been treated as gross and disorderly conduct and contempt when a member seizes the Mace.

It strikes at every member and at important symbols not only of the House but of the country. His party made much of the arrival of a new level of decorum with respect when it first arrived at this institution, yet his actions betray that public commitment. It is the equivalent of stomping on a flag, or grabbing the gavel from a judge in a court that is in session or grabbing a badge from a police officer in the course of his or her duties.

I refer the Chair, as others may have, to the Waddell case of October 31, 1991, which was initially raised at page 4271 of Hansard . The House will doubtlessly have before it the entire case which climaxed with Mr. Waddell's subsequent summons to the bar. I would suggest that this was a prudent and proper way to proceed and a precedent for the Chair to consider. The House could descend into one-upmanship and chaos if this type of behaviour is tolerated unabated.

I will be the first to acknowledge that there was a very timely and sincere apology from the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca. I personally, along with other members, urged him to do so and was present in the House when he made that apology. Yet given the seriousness of this occasion and given the fact that there were few members present, that it would be more appropriate if the member again made such an apology.

I am also concerned, as I think others may be, that there have been numerous statements made outside this place such as letters to the editor. There have been references to the fact that this was very much a premeditated issue, one that was planned and one that was part of a strategy.

There is another precedent. That would be the case of the Heseltine affair which took place in the United Kingdom in which a member who was subsequently deemed or dubbed Tarzan by the media seized the Mace and in some reports was seen to be swinging it over his head.

A more accurate account is found in the BBC report. That report may offer an alternative for the House of Commons. I am quoting from that brief report. It states:

Michael Heseltine famously seized the mace after a particularly heated debate (in the House of Commons) in 1976.

The evening of 27 May proved to be a particularly eventful one for the House of Commons. The government was attempting to steer its Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill through the Commons.

The Bill was hotly contested, with Michael Heseltine leading the Conservative opposition. The vote on the amendment had been tied and was lost on the Speaker's vote. The vote on the main government motion--which would have expected also to be tied--was in fact carried by the Labour Government.

At this, some of the Welsh Labour MPs began to sing “The Red Flag”. Heseltine, infuriated by the traditional Labour Party anthem, grabbed the mace and held it over his head.

He was restrained by Jim Prior, replaced the mace and left the Chamber. The Speaker suspended the sitting until the following day.

The next morning Michael Heseltine apologised unreservedly for his behaviour.

I underline the word unreservedly. A genuine apology, a genuine contrition would save the House and taxpayers a lot of bother and expense that would result from proceedings in a committee. Therefore, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca should not portray himself as a martyr here. He made what I would consider to be a timely and sincere apology. I see nothing that would prevent him from doing so again.

However we have often heard very miserable statements of apology that simply do not ring true or carry sufficient remorse for the occasion. What he has said since in his own defence of his actions and in his editorial comments I am afraid diminish that previous apology.

The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca is an intelligent, learned and capable member of the House and a member that has contributed greatly in the past. He knows there is a boundary between legitimate protest against the actions of one party and the commission of a contempt against the entire House.

I do not doubt for a moment his emotion and anger, but I would suggest his actions were deliberate and planned. The boundary to which that anger was portrayed in the House was crossed. There appears to be a level of premeditation to which I referred. Walking out of the House is one thing but getting up and grabbing the Mace is certainly another.

I would urge him to purge his contempt and let us return our attention to the iniquitous government opposite. That is our job. It is not a time for righteous indignation but a time for humility and apology.

The member should know that his actions have attacked the entire House of Commons, the membership of the House and those who elect us, the crown and the Speaker of the House. In that we cannot and categorically do not support him.

There is a level of respect that should be upheld. It is not a disproportionate punishment which is being suggested by this motion for him to come before the bar and apologize to members present. Therefore, for the reasons stated, we support the motion as drafted, not as amended.

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose next the hon. member is going to challenge me to step outside in the truest parliamentary performance.

Back to the issue at hand--

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise to take part in this debate. I think we have gone far afield now from what should have taken place with respect to the dealing of this matter within the House.

Certainly the Mace is of undeniable procedural significance to which members who spoke previously have referred. What took place last Wednesday was I think properly deemed to be contempt of the House and something that brought the Chamber into disrepute.

I want to stay away from a lot of the partisan diatribe that we heard from the leader of the official opposition and House leader, and I hasten to add, a former speaker of the British Columbia House of assembly. Yet he referenced the previous Progressive Conservative government of which at one time he was a member before he began his legendary political bed-hopping.

He made reference of course and castigated the government with respect to some of its actions and contempt. That is a strong word but appropriate word with respect to what took place that provoked the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca to the action that he undertook. Yet the previous speaker from the Alliance in this Janus faced justification of the action, really distracted from the issue at hand.

Of course the oldest trick in the book is to accuse the accuser. He compounds the contempt when he starts naming the cause as just and justifying the end. As all members know, we break oath with this place when we bring disrepute to the Chamber.

We could all easily reference some of the reversal positions of his own party and the public promises that were made to bring a new level of decorum to this place. We know about the denial of the pensions, the denial of the perks of office, the Stornoway that none of them were going to live in, including the hon. member who gave his remarks in the House, not going to take the chauffeur driven limousines, going to bring a new decorum, having Mexican hat dances outside the Senate, painting jalopies with Canadian flags and circling the parliamentary precincts and throwing flags on the floor of the House of Commons, all of that. The members of that party do not like to talk about that any more because that is part of their ancient history, the reformed reformers.Yet it is all there.

I hasten to add that some of their own members were outside of caucus for remarks seen as unbecoming. They asked to come back but were asked to give a very contrite and public apology, and yet the same standard should not apply. The same standard should be glossed over now. When one of their own members is accused, there should be no contrition.

I would not want anyone to take from my remarks that I condone or support the government's action in killing the private member's bill which is the subject of this. It was not the proper action, yet this was not a legitimate form of protest.

[Ethics, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government has given us: broken promises; red book reversals; GST and free trade; the ethics counsellor; the Somalia shutdown; APEC; homeless friends; the rewarding of friends; the strangling of protestors and parliament; patronage; nepotism; Gagliano; Liberal fundraising scandals; contract cancellations; Pearson airport; helicopters; waste; AG ignored; billion dollar boondoggles; jazzy jets; convicted Liberal fundraisers; shady Shawinigan golf course deals; BDC interference; disdain for ethics, due process and accountability. Why?

[Ethics, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a poll released today confirms what Canadians have been saying for a long time: 69% of Canadians feel the little guy from Shawinigan has become the big enchilada from Ottawa.

The government continually puts its own interests and politics ahead of the interests of Canadians. When will the Prime Minister and his government make integrity and accountability a priority?

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend and colleague from Souris--Moose Mountain for a very passionate and I believe heartfelt expression of how many Canadians feel. It is certainly empowering and invigorating for members of parliament to see such a straight from the heart expression of the abhorrence Canadians feel for this issue.

I took from within his remarks the desire of the member to see more done. I would ask him whether he would support, and I am sure he would, a national child protection strategy. It would look specifically at expanding other areas of the criminal code to put our efforts toward protecting children, to give the police and the judiciary greater ability to respond in a firm fashion.

I am talking about in some instances giving the judges the ability to bar or destroy certain evidence that was used and introduced in the courts. We could allow judges to have mandatory minimum sentences apply in some instances where child pornography was present. We could allow for the taking of DNA samples, as we have in certain instances in the criminal code that deal with issues, I would suggest, far less damaging and far less detrimental than the issue of child pornography. We could allow for the rules of disclosure to be amended. This would empower the police in some instances to produce a sample of the offensive material rather than the reams and reams of documents and thousands of pages of information.

As we have seen in other instances, we could allow the courts to put creative sentences in place that would bar these offenders, pedophiles and those who engage in this activity, from any contact with children. Sadly, many of these offences that occur are perpetrated by individuals known to the children, in fact, individuals who are in a position of trust. Current provisions in the criminal code bar individuals from attending schoolyards or swimming pools, but nothing bars their interaction with children in a dwelling house, which is where most of these offences take place.

Surely there is more we could do, a national strategy that touches on just a few of those issues and others that time restricts me from mentioning. Would the hon. member certainly like to see that effort undertaken by this place to gain greater relevance and greater importance in parliamentarians' efforts to eradicate child pornography?

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I am pleased to take part in this important debate. I want to commend my friend from Palliser for his remarks, which I think were very apt and timely.

The debate deals with an issue that has plagued Canadians particularly in recent days and months in the aftermath of what is now known as the Sharpe decision coming out of the British Columbia court of appeal, which in essence creates an exemption for types of child pornography on the basis that they might in some fashion have artistic merit.

I think that on its merits that decision has left Canadians with a great sense of ill ease and abhorrence for child pornography, which is so detrimental to the development of a child and exploits children in a way that has long term and lasting effects on their development.

This decision, if nothing else, has exposed some of the shortcomings in our criminal justice in the way in which we deal with child pornography. Bill C-15A and the amendments which form the subject of this debate touch directly on some of these issues. Yet one could argue that the wording of the amendment that is before us dealing with artistic merit reinforces the Sharpe decision, which is the very reason that we have seen such passionate speeches against the use of the words artistic merit in describing anything that deals with child pornography and has such a detrimental effect.

I can indicate at the outset that the amendment, which proliferates or continues this use of artistic merit to describe either written, photographic or computer generated images giving them some value as artistic merit, must be brought back, as referred to by my friend from Manitoba, to either the justice committee or the House itself. The justice department should make a very indepth effort into defining, within strict parameters, what artistic merit might encompass, perhaps excluding anything to do with child pornography.

Not unlike other pieces of legislation that we have seen come before the House, there were flaws in this bill. Bill C-15A in its origin was an omnibus package that required splitting. It required taking portions of it out and putting it in another bill. There have been ongoing changes and attempts to reconfigure the legislation as it now appears before us.

The government has agreed with a number of the recommended changes from the other Chamber and yet has not agreed with the one which deals with the elimination of the threat of prosecution for Internet service providers and cable companies. That amendment to the legislation is one which is somewhat difficult for many to understand. What it says in essence is that we cannot hold culpable or criminally responsible the Internet provider for the mere transmission of what would be deemed offensive pornographic material.

It follows previous precedent cases involving telephone companies or even the postal service. A supreme court ruling in The Electric Dispatch Company of Toronto v The Bell Telephone Company of Canada, which goes back over 100 years, found that the notion of transmission encompassing the person sending the message and the person receiving it but not the intermediary providing the technical wherewithal for the communication. This was referenced by Pierre Claude Nolin in the other place. One could say that this same argument would apply to the Internet service providers.

If all that companies do that are only acting as intermediaries between two or more persons is provide the means for storing or transmitting digital data for a third party, they might be innocently caught up in the transmission of smut or any offensive material. In this context one would expect there would be the recognition on the part of a trier of fact that the person who transmitted the child pornography without knowledge would not be held liable. However, where the issue is so serious and detrimental to the development of a child and to the spinoff effect there has to again be ironclad wording, very precise and clear language used in reference to that.

An amendment has been moved that essentially would negate the amendment brought forward by the Senate and would send it back for further study, which is perhaps what should happen. It appears that the issue, in the first instance, did not receive the attention it needed.

As we have seen with other bills, the Senate in its wisdom did good work but, because of the broad implications of this, we should take the time to ensure we have it right. For that reason, we in the Progressive Conservative Party feel that we cannot support the Senate amendment with the new and expanding forms of communication over the Internet. It is absolutely pivotal and critical that the legislation be precise and clear. It is meant to update the old sections which were aimed at the same sort of nefarious activity: the spreading of pornographic material that exploits children.

A number of Internet service providers that testified before the justice committee, providers such as AOL Canada, strongly supported the government's effort to limit the existence of child pornography and the proliferation online, and to capture the wrongdoers.

I think it is fair to say that within the industry there is a clear recognition and an acknowledgment that they must co-operate and do everything they can to monitor the service they provide and co-operate with law enforcement in preserving and, in many cases, turning over evidence to the police and to the law enforcement community.

I do not feel the bill captures the necessary tightness to ensure that both Internet service providers and this omnipresent, ever valuable effort to protect children is properly balanced. The possibility of liability attached to the stakeholders who participate in the blocking or the removal of material is still in the current wording and yet by virtue of this amendment we feel there is still some jeopardy that could exist for children.

I would suggest that most Internet service providers are being extremely diligent in their efforts to self-police their systems yet there is concern that by virtue of the wording of the legislation they could get caught in the net or the crackdown on individuals who bring pornography online.

Let us be clear, there is no property in good ideas and no political hay to be made on this issue. There is a very real intent and a very real spirit of co-operation on all sides of the House to ensure that we get this right for the protection of our most vulnerable, our most valued citizens, our children.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, in that vein, acknowledges the spirit and intent of the legislation. My colleague made reference of Rose Dyson, a very distinguished Canadian who has taken upon herself the role of championing the protection of children and Canadians generally from images and acts of sexual violence and violence.

In our last election platform my party brought forward a national strategy to combat child pornography and child abuse. The package included references to Internet safety education for children as well as measures to ensure adequate training for police involved in the tracking of pornography. Extraordinary efforts are underway today throughout the land on behalf of municipalities, provinces and the RCMP to address this ever expanding and very harmful issue that takes place within many communities.

The legislation today deals with a number of elements for protecting society. It also has references to protecting and expanding the sentence range for those who stalk individuals or disarm a police officer.

There is also a very important amendment which touches upon the subject matter of the wrongfully convicted and those who have an opportunity then to bring forward their case when new evidence comes to light or when there has been a miscarriage of justice.

On a number of occasions we have seen instances where new science, such as the use of DNA particularly, has exonerated individuals who were convicted. There is one case that I would suggest has long been a festering sore on the Canadian justice system. That is the case involving Steven Truscott. A book has been written quite recently by a very renowned author, Julian Sher, entitled Until You are Dead , which references the sentence which was handed down to Mr. Truscott as a 14 year old upon being convicted of a murder.

There is a 690 application that has been brought forward on his behalf by a well-known lawyer and defender of the wrongfully accused, James Lockyer. This is before the justice minister as it currently stands. However this new legislation will not impact on that. We implore the justice minister to act with haste, with prudence and with diligence to ensure that the miscarriage of justice is corrected in the very near future.

The way this legislation currently reads, there are concerns particularly given the creation of this loophole that comes from the Sharpe decision that many members have already enunciated. There are a number of ways in which we can improve the child protection measures within the criminal code but many of those efforts and amendments will be in vain if police are not given the support and the necessary tools and resources to address the issue.

There is very much a fiduciary duty on not only the law enforcement community but also on members of parliament, members of the defence bar and members of children's aid to do everything within their means to respond to the issues of child pornography and images and to the written word being used to disparage and degrade children within communities.

The legislation is a step and a move in the right direction. It is very much aimed at expanding the current efforts that are available and the current elements of the criminal code which reference child pornography. Yet the act itself is something that is not directly addressed in such a way that would allow for the eradication of such and allow for police officers to go to the lengths needed to direct all of their attention and resources to the issue itself.

Much of this issue is one of common sense. In terms of clarifying, the amendment of the legislation itself should put greater emphasis on the protection of children. The bill, as it is brought forward, groups a number of criminal code amendments in one and this suggests to me that the proper emphasis is not there. This legislation aimed at child pornography should be standalone, particularly underscored by the decision in Sharpe. I would suggest that there is now an opportunity on the part of the Minister of Justice and the legion of lawyers that he has in his department to pick up this issue and come back with legislation that defines narrowly and strictly when artistic merit might be brought into play as a defence for using and proliferating child pornography.

There is also an important timeline to keep in mind. The clock is running with respect to the appeal itself in British Columbia. That time period expires this week. We are yet to hear a public commitment from the Minister of Justice to put pressure on the attorney general of British Columbia to clearly state that not only will the Government of Canada be pushing for this appeal to be taken but will also join in that appeal as an intervener. As has happened in the past, this should clearly happen and should happen immediately. It is surprising and disheartening I think for most Canadians to know that the government has responded in a very lackadaisical way.

Individuals who are convicted of the heinous crime of pornography against children should be punished and should definitely receive the full extent of the law. There has to be a higher element of deterrent and public example of those who engage in this sort of activity.

The other day there was a private member's bill which looked directly at increasing the sentence for those convicted under sections 152, 153 and 151 of the criminal code. The Progressive Conservative Party certainly agrees and supports the intent of those bills, but recognizes, as most Canadians would recognize, the need for very clear definitions when dealing with the law.

Amendments that are put forward at any time are meant to strip away some of the confusion. My grandfather used to speak about how confusing the law could be. He said “If you are putting a new roof on your house, you do not put the shingles on top. You have to strip some of the old shingles away”. That metaphor is very true of how we draft and craft law in this place.

It seems that far too often we are piling legislation on top of legislation, instead of in some instances removing some of the provisions that simply muddy the waters. Particularly when it deals with issues so fundamental, so clear I think in the minds of Canadians, we certainly should draft legislation that mirrors that and reflects the same clarity of thought and clarity of purpose.

The bill as it stands currently, which deals with the numerous issues I have talked about including the miscarriage of justice, is still in my view somewhat unclear. The one amendment which we support wholeheartedly deals with the miscarriages of justice and calls upon the minister to put certain criteria in place for those who would be involved in the panel and the review of those miscarriages. They have some basic understanding of the criminal justice system and the system itself, be they retired judges, lawyers, defence or crown lawyers in good standing with their provincial bar, or they have had some experience that would lend credibility and a greater understanding to the hearing process. This we see as a very good step toward ensuring that there is no further miscarriage of justice when that panel undertakes its review of the evidence itself.

Again I very much associate myself with the remarks made by previous members that legislation which is clear and which responds to this gaping hole left by the Sharpe decision is necessary. There were old sections in place that dealt with this nefarious activity, but because of changes in technology, changes in the way in which we can communicate images and the written word, this is a modernization attempt. It is an attempt by legislators, by parliament, to respond. Certainly the spreading of pornographic material of children, exploiting children, is perhaps that issue which is most offensive and which most binds Canadians together against some common enemy or some purpose in which we can all agree that there has to be more.

What on earth could be more fundamental than that issue and more fundamental to the role of parliamentarians to respond? Certainly heightened awareness itself is not enough. Families recognize that their children have to be protected. They recognize that the world has changed, that there are in fact greater dangers afoot around every corner. This type of legislation with which we have been charged, to improve and examine, gives us that opportunity.

Two of the three amendments come up short in terms of reaching that standard of clarity and standard of purpose. The average Canadian would expect more and we cannot shy away from it. We should take every opportunity to get it right on an issue such as this.

The transmitting and the making available of this type of material, whether it be to sell or exploit, should be a criminal offence. There should be an effort made to ensure that no person is wrongfully convicted. There is some irony that we find elements of the wrongfully convicted in this very same bill. It is certainly something that undermines the justice system further when a person is wrongfully convicted.

I will close on that note. The Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation generally, but not the amendments which we feel work contrary to the express purpose of this legislation.

[Pension Savings, April 19th, 2002]

And student loans. My friend from St. John's quite rightly mentions the issue of student loans.

Many students graduating from an undergraduate degree today are leaving their studies with the equivalent of a mortgage to pay back with no house in which to live. For future generations and for the current generation, this is a huge and often insurmountable hurdle to get over. Many declare personal bankruptcy as they start out in life. As they start on their new careers, they face that very daunting prospect of forfeiting their credit rating by declaring personal bankruptcy for investing in their own future by furthering their education and pursuing a degree.

The people who are tempting to leave do so with very heavy hearts. We in the maritimes in particular have faced this for 100 years or more. The very best, the talented young people who have educated themselves and have a great sense of tradition and attachment to their communities and towns and villages face this very gut-wrenching decision of having to leave to work. Contrary to the opinions of many, the people of the Atlantic provinces are not unlike any other region in the country. They simply want to have an opportunity to work, live and contribute in their communities.

Taxing income discourages people from earning, saving and investing, all of which are crucial to economic growth in Canada. If we continue down this path and this philosophy of punishing those who are more productive then we will see that the productivity continue to wane.

According to Jack Mintz, a professional on taxation at the University of Toronto's J.L. Rotman School of Management , the costs in terms of lost output are $15 billion to $140 billion a year or from $500 to $4,500 per person annually.

We should also target capital taxes, high sales taxes on business outputs and high personal taxes on business owners. A more progressive step would be for the government to shift from investment and savings taxes to consumption based taxes. Dare I say it, the GST, the much hated tax, was introduced with that very much in mind, a consumption tax that was fair and that was meant to be attached to the deficit. Canada could adopt a personal expenditure tax and more taxes on the user pay principle.