House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 71% of the vote.
Child Protection April 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been talking and consulting for nine years and still nothing has been done. Their repeated promises on the sex offender registry has led to nothing.
Yesterday even the Prime Minister tried to stand up and blow smoke into the eyes of Canadians on this issue. What has happened? Nothing has happened.
Why will the Prime Minister not stop embarrassing himself and Canadians and take action to protect children?
Child Protection April 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a great day for the Canadien horse but Canadian children were not so fortunate. This Liberal government voted unanimously to give Canada a national horse but voted against two motions to protect our children against sexual abuse.
Why does this Liberal government continue to put the interests of sexual predators, and now horses, above the interests of children?
Age of Consent April 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, we know how Liberals protect children. First they block the creation of an effective sex offender registry. To date no legislation has been introduced.
Yesterday the parliamentary secretary suggested that Canada's children do not deserve additional protection from sexual abuse.
Why is the government content to do nothing while Canadian children fall victim to sexual predators?
Age of Consent April 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice misled Canadians by mistakenly suggesting that today's Canadian Alliance motion to protect children would in fact decrease their protection.
The Liberals are desperately trying to find a technical way not to vote for this motion. Indeed, moments earlier we saw the Prime Minister trying to do the same thing.
Will the minister explain why he and his parliamentary secretary spend so much energy trying to avoid helping children? Why do they not just say yes and help children?
Supply April 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on some of the hon. member's comments and ask him what his understanding of the motion is.
The motion, as I understand it, is not an exclusive document. It simply gives the government a policy direction to take a look at this issue. The House believes that the age of consent should be raised from 14 to 16 and that the exploitation of children, as demonstrated in cases like Sharpe and others, should simply not be tolerated.
The motion does not exclude further discussion. In fact it gives an imperative to government to act in this respect. I do not know of anyone on this side of the House who opposes that continuing discussion.
Supply April 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lethbridge.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of our opposition motion. The motion addresses one of the gravest concerns Canadians face today, the sexual exploitation and abuse of children.
One of the points I wish to make is that the motion itself is not a legal document. Some people are overly concerned that the motion has to be interpreted the same way someone would interpret a statute. That is not the intent of a motion at all.
The purpose of a motion is to provide policy direction to the executive, asking them, the cabinet members, the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister, to take action and introduce appropriate legislation. This is a political document. It is not a legal document.
I noted the suggested amendment that was brought forward. I looked at that amendment and I do not see anything inconsistent with what is already stated in the motion. The motion does not deny the amendment brought forward by the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough.
It says that the government immediately introduce legislation to protect children from sexual predators including, and then it talks about two specific issues. One is to raise the legal age of consent and the other is to prohibit the creation and use of sexually explicit material. I am just summarizing. That is not exclusive. It establishes a minimum. The suggestions that are put into the motion that was made previously are already contemplated or within the purview of the contemplation of the government if it wishes to proceed in that direction.
Certainly I agree with many of the comments made by the member who introduced that amendment .
Our motion, if adopted and passed into law, would extend badly needed protections to our children who are at risk of exploitation by child pornographers and pedophiles. We must not be afraid to show leadership in providing the policies and the legislation that our children need.
It is a sad fact that Canada is becoming a safe haven for child pornographers and pedophiles from all over the world. In listening to the police the other night, I believe it was April 16, the police said that back in 1993 Canada's legislation was praised as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in dealing with this issue. Yet subsequent court decisions have whittled away the effectiveness of that legislation.
In Toronto alone there are at least 400 reported cases involving child pornography that need to be investigated. The police simply do not have the resources to do it. A lack of resources and a lack of appropriate legal tools will prevent the bulk of these cases from being investigated.
In one case where the investigation is under way, there are 400,000 pictures involving the depictions of the abuse of thousands of children. It has literally bogged down the Toronto police. The police need our help. Resources are a significant issue. On the other hand, we here should also be providing them with the appropriate legal tools. We are here today to implore the government to take those steps.
As my colleagues have stated, some of the legal changes we are supporting include raising the age of sexual consent from 14 years to at least 16 years. We are saying at least. We are establishing a floor. We are not establishing a ceiling.
The other day the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice was up to some mischief in question period suggesting that this motion in some way advocated the lowering of that age. The Liberals are casting around looking for a technical reason not to do what every Canadian believes they ought to do. They are looking for technical excuses. When we interpret these types of motions as purely legal documents, we can find millions of excuses not to do what we are supposed to do.
I implore the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary to stop looking for legal technicalities. We can hire lawyers to find legal technicalities. We need parliamentarians to stand up and voice clearly the policy direction. The policy direction here is clear. At least the floor should be 16 years. We do not support lowering the age of consent where that consent is already established at 18 years.
Why did the parliamentary secretary come into the House yesterday to play that kind of mischief? Why does he spend his resources and his time in trying to pass off that kind of mischievous argument? Given the gravity of the issue we are dealing with, why would he even suggest that, when he knows that the policy direction given here if the motion is passed by the House is seen as an inclusive and expansive, not a restrictive motion?
Some of the points the member from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough made are good ones. We do not need to turn the motion into a legal document. We need to stand and say that this motion already encompasses that and let the government have the moral fortitude to do what is right.
Even the former Minister of Justice in response to a question I asked her in the justice committee on October 3, 2001 said “I think we will see that a consensus is emerging that with certain safeguards we should probably be moving on the age of consent from 14 to 16”.
Elected officials from all political stripes recognize the importance of implementing these legal tools so that our law enforcement officials can better protect our children. This provision plays a significant role in defining the scope of available offences to try to stop child pornographers.
Finally, I want to comment on the case of John Robin Sharpe. Public outrage over this case indicates that writings depicting violent sexual exploitation of children run far beyond what Canadians are prepared to accept. Canadians clearly believe that the law should never permit such material to be distributed or circulated or even created. This material is used, as the police say, to groom children, to break down inhibitions so that those children can be used as sexual objects.
I implore members of the House to support the motion, to stop thinking like lawyers and to start thinking about the future of this country and about doing the right thing.
Supply April 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the mover of the amendment about what exactly he means by a loophole. Second, how would the motion as presently drafted prevent the government from taking any legal action in order to address any so-called loopholes?
An act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act April 22nd, 2002
Madam Speaker, the amendment deals with moving the bill back to committee and returning it by a specified date. This motion is required in order to give credence to the comments of the former minister of justice, that what is legitimate today will be lawful tomorrow under the bill.
A number of issues have been pointed out that have caused concern. First is the breadth of the offence and the elimination of very specific defences under the act. I have heard people say time and again that the defences under section 8 are now applicable and the defences under section 429 are not needed. The point is that the defences under section 8 were always applicable. In respect of those specific property offences, section 429 set up certain specific defences. They were put there for a reason.
If we eliminate those defences in respect of animal offences, there is clearly a substantive change that has taken place. In order to ensure that does not occur, and as the former minister herself indicated some time ago that what is legitimate today will be lawful tomorrow, we need to specifically have those defences put into the new part where these offences are going.
The other point is that when someone is charged under a criminal code offence, there is an issue of clarity. The offence itself must be clear. If someone is going to be charged under the criminal code and the offence is not clear, it does the principles and administration of justice a disservice. This particular offence is not clear nor is it clear in respect of the defences that are applicable.
I want to reiterate that the Canadian Alliance supports the increased penalties for animal cruelty but we are certainly very concerned about creating criminal liability where no criminal liability exists. It has been a feature of the government to bring in legislation that minimizes the amount of mens rea required before there can be a conviction. Mens rea is the Latin term relating to guilty mind. In our parliamentary system and our justice system, mens rea is an essential element of every criminal offence. That needs to be clear.
The final point I will make is that people as prominent as Pierre Berton have indicated very strongly that the bill will impact negatively on our scientific research community. The progress we have made in health care has come at some expense and has involved the use of animals. We want to ensure that continues for the health of the people of Canada. We do not want the use of animals done in any cruel or inappropriate way. Health care professionals and scientific researchers need that assurance of protection under the law.
Privilege April 22nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The allegation was made that members of the Canadian Alliance jeered down a bill. The member should specify exactly who did that because it reflects on me as a member and the order of the House.
Correctional Service Canada April 22nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, we know there is no control in prisons but that does not mean we can turn them loose in the streets.
At the Frontenac Institution, figures show that historically 66% of escapes from that prison have been drug related. Drugs are an issue in most of the escapes there.
If rehabilitation is such an issue for the solicitor general, could he explain why there are only two prisoners there who receive methadone treatment and why there is no detoxification program for those who need it? If he cares about rehabilitation in prisons why does he not do something about it?