Shawn Murphy

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is no priority to rights or freedoms expressed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These rights and freedoms are for all Canadians. There is no priority in it at all.

I will be the first to admit that Bill C-20 is not perfect. If we could do it, we as parliamentarians would like to enact legislation that would stamp out child pornography today, but unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. We are dealing with all sorts of technology, devices and difficulties in prosecution. I believe that Bill C-20 is effective and it is certainly a big improvement over what is presently there.

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very important motion. We have heard it during the debate and it goes without saying that the issue of child pornography is a concern for all members of the House and indeed for all Canadians.

All child pornography exploits children. Any defence that would allow for the further exploitation of children should not be tolerated. I believe that the House is unanimous on this issue. We as parliamentarians must do everything within our power to eliminate child pornography in our society.

We are also dealing with some very challenging and complex matters on the whole issue of child pornography. We are dealing with the Internet. We are dealing with emerging technologies. It takes tremendous resources just to keep up with what is going on in society. We are also dealing with the interjurisdictional transfer of pictures and images which makes law enforcement that much more difficult to deal with.

The priority of the government, as was reflected in the Speech from the Throne, is child pornography. Despite what sometimes appears to be a divergence of opinion, which the last speaker talked about and we are going to get that every day here, on the best way to protect children against sexual exploitation, I think all hon. members share the common concern and objective that we all want to better protect our children against this form of sexual exploitation.

The child is exploited when the picture or image is taken and the child is exploited each and every time that picture or image is transmitted wherever. There is no question this is of great harm to our children and it is of great harm to our society.

As I understand today's motion it seeks to respond to the issues that flow from the R. versus Sharpe decision. Similarly Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, which the Minister of Justice tabled on December 5 last year also responds directly to the issues flowing from the Sharpe decision.

It is my view that Bill C-20 directly responds to the issues raised by today's motion. It is appropriate to consider Bill C-20 and this motion together, which is being done. They are parallel situations.

We want to protect children against sexual exploitation. We are seeking sentence reforms. Bill C-20 facilitates the testimony of children and it creates a new offence of voyeurism.

As hon. members will recall, John Robin Sharpe was convicted. A lot of people forget that. He was convicted on two counts of possession of pornographic photographs of children. Unfortunately he was acquitted on charges of possessing written child pornography for the purpose of distribution or sale on the basis that these writings did not advocate or counsel unlawful sexual activity with children as required by the existing definition of written child pornography.

In the alternative, the court went on and found that Mr. Sharpe could avail himself of the defence of artistic merit. Quite correctly and quite rightly there was a public outcry over that decision. Like many of the members who have spoken on debate today, I found the decision disgusting. It certainly was not in accord with Canadian values as we know them.

Bill C-20 was introduced last December. It proposes a number of criminal law reforms that will provide children with increased protection against all forms of exploitation, including against sexual exploitation through child pornography. Two child pornography amendments are proposed that directly respond to concerns flowing from the Sharpe decision.

First, Bill C-20 proposes to broaden the existing definition of written child pornography to include not only material that advocates or counsels sexual crimes against children under 18 years, but also written material that describes prohibited sexual activity with a child where the written description of this activity is the dominant characteristic of the material and the description is written for a sexual purpose. In this way the proposed amendment to broaden the existing definition of written child pornography recognizes the very real risk of harm that such material can pose to children and to society by portraying children as a class of objects for sexual exploitation.

Second, Bill C-20 proposes to narrow the available defences. As has been stated here this afternoon, we currently have two defences, one for material that has artistic merit or serves an educational, scientific or medical purpose, and another for material that serves the public good.

I would suggest that there may be some misunderstanding of what the public good defence does, what it means and what it does not mean. Its meaning may not be immediately obvious to some, particularly for those less familiar with criminal law. It is nonetheless a defence that is known to courts in Canada. It is also a defence that has recently been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the specific context of child pornography.

This defence certainly does not mean that child pornography is good. I do not think any of us would ever say that. It does mean that in certain circumstances a person should not be convicted of a child pornography offence where the act or material in question serves the public good and, this is important, the benefit of that actual material to society outweighs any associated risk of harm.

The last speaker talked about being at a meeting with police officers and I understand there was another meeting held in the House and there was obviously possession of child pornography. Pictures were shown which were repulsive and disgusting, but it was obviously in the public good. They were just trying to show how disgusting this material was and how we as parliamentarians should do something. If the public good defence were not available, I submit that the police officers could have been charged and put in jail, as could the members who were present at the meeting. It would create a strict liability offence. Hon. members should think about it. What is their defence?

It will benefit Canadian society to enable police to possess the child pornography for these purposes which, and I come back to my second test, clearly outweigh the risk of harm that such possession possesses. The law must take into account all possibilities. Bill C-20 does exactly that.

While this again has been debated this afternoon, it still may be possible, although I cannot visualize it myself, for art to be considered under Bill C-20's public good defence. Bill C-20 proposes a different test from the existing test for artistic merit which was talked about in the Sharpe case. Under the existing artistic merit defence, material that is objectively shown to have artistic merit benefits from the defence of artistic merit. That is under the existing Sharpe decision. Nothing further must be shown.

However, under Bill C-20 such material must also undergo a second level of analysis such that even if the material in question can objectively be shown to have some artistic value, it will not have a defence where the risk of harm that such material poses to society outweighs any potential benefit that it offers. I cannot visualize how anyone like Robin Sharpe or a similar offender would benefit from this defence. No defence will be available for any material or act that does not satisfy both branches of the public good defence.

Bill C-20 is not perfect. We do not live in a perfect world, but I submit that it responds effectively to real concerns about child pornography. There appears to be no dispute in the House about the need to deal with this issue and Bill C-20 is a vehicle to make the necessary reforms.

Bill C-20's proposed child pornography reforms directly respond to concerns that were expressed following the Sharpe decision. As I said at the outset of my remarks, I believe this is what today's motion seeks to do. As well, like the other speakers, I want to congratulate the member for Wild Rose for bringing this motion forward and having this debate today because this is a very important and significant issue for all Canadians.

The timing of this motion is opportune as I understand that Bill C-20 is presently before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In closing, I want to suggest that our support for Bill C-20 will in effect help us realize our support for today's motion.

[Don Deacon, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour and pay tribute to a well-known Charlottetown resident, Don Deacon, who died in Charlottetown on September 16.

Don Deacon embodied the concept of service to this country and the people who live here. He gave freely of his time and resources without thought of his own benefit.

After returning from serving his country during the second world war, Don Deacon volunteered for a variety of organizations, of which I will name only a few. He was national commissioner of Scouts Canada, the founding co-chair of the Katimavik youth program, director of the Trans Canada Trail Foundation, founding president of Island Trails, and president of the Prince Edward Island Region of the Red Cross. He received the Order of Canada for his service and was named P.E.I. Red Cross Humanitarian of the year last March.

After a successful career in business and politics in Ontario, he relocated to Prince Edward Island about 20 years ago and quickly became one of our most cherished citizens.

His warmth and caring were legendary and he will be sorely missed. On behalf of this House, we offer our sympathy to his wife Florence and to his family.

[Citation for Citizenship Award, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, each year Citizenship and Immigration Canada awards the Citation for Citizenship Award to 20 persons or organizations who, through tireless work and generosity of spirit, have helped in the successful integration of newcomers to this country.

Last Friday I had the honour of representing our minister in presenting the Citation for Citizenship Award to Joe Byrne of Charlottetown.

Joe started working with newcomers 20 years ago when he was a volunteer for World University of Canada at the University of Prince Edward Island. He has never stopped since. He lived and worked in the Dominican Republic between 1987 and 1993 and upon returning to Prince Edward Island with his wife Rosa, began working tirelessly in helping newcomers to Canada integrate into Prince Edward Island society. They truly made each and every one of them feel at home.

On behalf of the House and on behalf of all Canadians, I want to thank both Joe and Rosa for their dedication and their commitment and congratulate Joe on receiving this well-deserved award.

[Hurricane Juan, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday September 29, at 3 a.m., the most devastating storm to hit Prince Edward Island in 40 years slammed into the central part of the province uprooting trees and cutting off power to most residents.

I rise today to express the gratitude of this House and the gratitude of all Islanders to the emergency workers whose tireless effort restored power and order to the province after hurricane Juan.

Within a short time, Charlottetown city employees, Maritime Electric staff and other emergency workers began the difficult task of cleaning up the mess. They worked so efficiently, despite the fact that many roads had been blocked by trees in the early morning, that 83% of island residents were able to get to the polls and cast their vote in the provincial election held that day.

On behalf of all Islanders, I want to thank all emergency crew workers for their tireless and dedicated service in the hours, days and weeks following hurricane Juan.

[Income Tax Act, October 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-210, a private member's bill that proposes changes to the Income Tax Act that would allow individuals to claim a tax credit for fees paid for their participation or the participation of a dependant in amateur sports.

At first blush it is hard to disagree with the intent or the objectives of the bill. Any time we can get more people involved in amateur sports it is good for society. It goes into the health envelope: it increases participation and it decreases health expenses, as the learned member has indicated.

However it is my view that we need to review this proposal in light of what it tries to achieve and how it tries to achieve it.

First, it would appear that the hon. member's proposal has a clear and honourable intent: to encourage Canadians to participate in amateur sports. The government shares that goal with the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. We too recognize the importance of amateur sports and the importance of participation in sports and physical fitness activities.

Each year we contribute $77 million to Sport Canada. Let me tell members of the House some of the great things that Sport Canada does. It provides funds to amateur sports organizations to increase sports participation, support the development of young athletes and improve access to sport by underrepresented groups. It provides financial support to Canada's elite athletes to help them with their training and competition needs. It backs a wide range of sporting events held in Canada, both at the national and international levels.

We strengthened our commitment to sport and fitness in the most recent budget. We are now providing a further $70 million over five years for amateur sports. That includes $45 million to increase Canadians' participation in sports and other fitness activities and $25 million to support high performance athletes.

While we may share the member's objectives, we do not agree with the approach. The member's proposal suggests changing the tax system. I would contend that using the tax system for this is neither cost effective nor is it fair.

At this point let us take a closer look at how ineffective the hon. member's proposal would be.

The government is committed to encouraging Canadians to include physical activity in their daily lives and to help them reduce the barriers that prevent them from being active.

There are many such barriers. Statistics Canada reports several reasons that Canadians do not participate in physical activity. We all personally know many of these reasons: lack of time, lack of interest and health, injury or age concerns.

In fact, we have to look down the list somewhat to the barriers to participation before we get to the cost. I am not for a minute downplaying the cost because cost is a very real factor, especially when we are speaking about children from low income families, but many activities that are part of a healthy lifestyle cost very little. Swimming, walking and cycling are very good examples.

It is my view that the hon. member's proposal would do very little to encourage inactive Canadians to become active in amateur sports or increase their level of physical activity. In other words, this proposal would be ineffective. Even though this proposal would be ineffective, it is important to note that it would come at a very high cost.

According to Statistics Canada, the average Canadian household spends approximately $275 per year on recreational facilities and membership fees. Providing a 16% tax credit on these expenditures would cost the federal government almost half a billion dollars in lost tax revenue. And this money would be spent without having a significant impact on the level of physical activity of all Canadians.

In fact, almost all this tax money would end up, I submit, subsidizing the 8.3 million Canadian adults already participating in amateur sport. I believe the intent of the learned member's bill is to encourage people to get off the couch and into the gym, not to subsidize the people who are already participating in amateur sport.

Therefore, at a great cost, the hon. member's proposal would produce very little benefit in terms of increasing participation in amateur sport and fitness activities.

I certainly would look at other areas, certainly the subsidizing of children from low income families. I have seen it in my own community with soccer, baseball, and especially hockey. I think hockey is the worst example. Kids in low income families just cannot afford to participate in these sports. The sport has moved beyond them with these elite teams; it has moved beyond the original intent and certainly there is ample room for governments to move in that area, but again, this is not the answer.

As a general rule, under the current tax system tax deductions or credits are generally provided for one of two things. They either apply to expenses to earn income, things like employment insurance premiums, union dues and child care expenses, with which we are all familiar, or they apply to non-discretionary expenses that significantly reduce a taxpayer's ability to pay tax, such as above average medical expenses. Tax relief is not normally provided with respect to specific personal expenses that are incurred at an individual's discretion.

What message would the federal government be sending if, as the hon. member proposes, we did use the tax system to subsidize those consumers who choose to pay fees to participate in amateur sport? That such fees are more important than other personal expenditures, like sending a child to a theatre or to singing lessons? These are examples.

We would be asking those Canadians who choose not to pay such fees to subsidize those Canadians who do. We would be asking Canadians who choose to take part in physical activities such as jogging or cycling, which generally do not require a payment of fees, or who choose to spend their spare time in other non-sport related hobbies or activities, to subsidize those Canadians who choose to participate in sports that do require a payment of fees, such as golf and downhill skiing.

Let us talk about golf. Golf is the most popular participation sport for Canadians. More than 1.8 million Canadians regularly head to the links for some exercise and friendly competition. Under the hon. member's proposal, we would be asking Canadians to subsidize initiation fees, membership fees and greens fees. A lot of these courses are exclusive courses and the fees range up to $10,000 a year. I do not think the Canadian taxpayer would be that enthusiastic if we, the government, allowed a tax credit for those types of fees.

I want to make this clear: The government considers physical activity and sport to be very important to Canadian society. They, as the learned member has already adequately explained, have a very positive effect on individuals and communities. However, there are other personal activities that also lead to the personal betterment of individuals and to the development of healthy, cohesive communities. In engaging in these personal activities, Canadians also face substantial costs.

Let me provide two examples to illustrate that it would not be fair to Canadian consumers to subsidize amateur sport fees. A typical parent with a young daughter wants to encourage that child to be physically active by registering her in a local hockey league. That parent at the same time may also choose to register the same daughter in singing lessons because the child enjoys singing and appears to be talented. Both decisions would support the development of that child and with both decisions the parent would incur costs, but it would not be fair to subsidize one and not the other.

For these reasons and for the reasons I have already alluded to, I hope that the hon. members present would agree that this private member's bill does not fulfill the criteria of effectiveness and fairness, and I would ask all members to think very carefully before supporting the bill.

[Labour, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister recently travelled to Salvador, Brazil to attend the 13th Inter-American Conference of Ministers of Labour. Could the minister please inform the House of the outcome of this meeting?

[Fisheries, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization held its annual meeting in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Conservation and compliance were the major points of discussion, and Canada made progress in a number of key areas.

NAFO parties agreed to a multi-year conservation plan for turbot that includes an overall reduction of 60% in the total allowable catch. Canada is pleased with this move away from a year to year management regime toward a comprehensive, long term rebuilding strategy. This plan will save millions of fish. There will be an immediate and significant reduction of the total allowable catch, with the 2004 quota being reduced to 20,000 tonnes from 42,000 tonnes in 2003, and further annual reductions leading to a quota of 16,000 tonnes in 2007.

This reduction is significant and demonstrates political will among NAFO parties to focus on conservation of such an important stock.

[Environment Week, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Environmental Awareness Week. The theme of this week is “Give Earth A Chance”. The objective of this week is to focus public attention on environmental issues to increase awareness and stimulate action at the local level.

There is an organization on Prince Edward Island which indeed has taken action this week. This Sunday afternoon, June 8, the Prince Edward Island Environmental Health Co-op is sponsoring the first annual Dandelion Festival. The event will be held at Victoria Park in the city of Charlottetown, and will be a family fun day with games and crafts for the kids, music, displays and informal workshops.

The Prince Edward Island Environmental Health Co-op is concerned about the unnecessary use of domestic pesticides and decided that the Dandelion Festival would be a fun way to encourage people to think a little differently about this little yellow flower that most people consider to be a weed. It promises to be a great event.

I would like to congratulate this group on its positive efforts as well as encourage as many people as possible to participate in this event.

[Youth Science Foundation, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Catherine Colodey of Bannockburn Road and Jackie Sharkey of Kingston, Prince Edward Island. Catherine and Jackie are both seniors at Bluefield High School and recently participated in the annual Canada-wide Science Fair, an exhibition and competition that occurs annually in a selected city during the month of May each year. This year's fair was held in Calgary from May 10 to May 18.

The Youth Science Foundation is the parent body for this event and oversees the establishment of regional and local fairs across Canada, where the best projects are selected to compete at the national level.

This year, Catherine and Jackie's project took home the gold medal for their project on whether the location of bovine hair whorls had any bearing on temperament. In addition to their medals, Catherine and Jackie each received $1,500 in cash as well as scholarships to the University of Western Ontario and the University of Saskatchewan. They also received two special awards: the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Award and the Statistical Society of Canada Award.

On behalf of everyone in the House, I would like to congratulate both Catherine and Jackie on their outstanding achievements and wish them all the best in the future.