37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 145
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
|
 |
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Interparliamentary Delegations |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Scrutiny of Regulations |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Open Government Act |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Age of Consent |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Bill C-250 |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Supplementary Estimates (A) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day—Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Tabling of Document |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Don Deacon |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Rural Woman of the Year |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Assisted Human Reproduction |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Breast Cancer Awareness Month |
|
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) |
|
|
Landmines |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
William Kalleo |
|
|
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.) |
|
|
Réseau des organisateurs de spectacles de l'est du Québec |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ) |
|
|
The Homeless |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.) |
|
|
Greece |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
National Library Day |
|
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
|
Volunteers |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC) |
|
|
Liberal Government |
|
|
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ) |
|
|
Landmines |
|
|
Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) |
|
|
Acadian Community |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Landmines |
|
|
Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.) |
|
|
Member for LaSalle--Émard |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Liberal Government |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Arts and Culture |
|
|
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.) |
|
|
Budget Surplus |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Highway Infrastructure |
|
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Insurance Industry |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Quebec |
|
|
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Broadcasting |
|
|
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ind. BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Nuclear Industry |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Royal Canadian Mounted Police |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Business Development Bank |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Library and Archives of Canada Act |
|
|
Bill C-36. On the Order: Government Orders
|
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Bill, as amended, read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Child Pornography |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Allotted Day—Democratic Imbalance |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Sheila Copps |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Sheila Copps |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Herron |
|
|
(Division 255) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Supplementary Estimates (A) |
|
|
Concurrence in Vote 7a--Solicitor General |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
(Division 256) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Concurrence in Vote 8a—Solicitor General |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle |
|
|
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
|
|
(Division 257) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Concurrence in Vote 35a--Solicitor General |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
(Division 258) |
|
|
Concurrence in Vote 15a--Natural Resources |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
(Division 259) |
|
|
Concurrence in Vote 15a--Public Works and Government Services |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
(Division 262) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Concurrence in Vote 20a—Canadian Heritage |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne |
|
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle |
|
|
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
(Division 260) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Concurrence in Vote 1a—Agriculture and Agri-Food |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 261) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne |
|
|
(Division 263) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
|
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
|
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 264) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)
|
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
(On clause 2)
|
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
(Clause 2 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Clause 3 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Clause 4 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Clause 5 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Clause 6 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Clause 7 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Clause 1 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Preamble agreed to)
|
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
(Title agreed to)
|
|
|
(Bill reported)
|
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 265) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
|
(Division 266) |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Assisted Human Reproduction Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 267) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 268) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Canada Pension Plan |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 269) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Bankruptcy Legislation |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 270) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
The Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the 24th General Assembly of the ASEAN Interparliamentary Organization meetings held in Jakarta, Indonesia in September 2003.
* * *
Committees of the House
Scrutiny of Regulations
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as the co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, concerning broadcasting licence fees.
Notwithstanding Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, your committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report within 30 days.
* * *
Open Government Act
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-462, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and to make amendments to other Acts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a private member's bill that is the result of all party cooperation from backbench MPs extending over several years it will dramatically overhaul the current Access to Information Act and extend its reach to include all crown corporations and government agencies, government funded non-profit organizations, the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament, ministers and their exempt staffs, officers of Parliament, cabinet confidences and government opinion polling, among other things.
This bill I think is very much in order in the temper of the times and I think, Mr. Speaker, you will find that most members will support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Petitions
Age of Consent
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of citizens in and around the Drumheller region of Alberta and in my particular area of the riding, petitioners have signed a petition today calling on Parliament to immediately raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years of age. This petition will be joining the hundreds of thousands of requests already tabled for this.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to file, one with one hundred signatures from the province of Quebec and one from Saskatchewan. Both petitions call on Parliament to pass legislation making the legal definition of marriage to be that between a man and a woman.
* * *
Bill C-250
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present, all of which are signed by a number of Canadians, including citizens from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The first petition has to do with Bill C-250. The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that it is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation brought before the House and it must not be passed into law because it would threaten all those who oppose special rights for homosexuals, including same sex marriages, with prosecution on the basis of alleged hate.
* * *
(1010)
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with stem cell research. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that Canadians support ethical stem cell research which has already shown encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for the illnesses and diseases of Canadians. The petitioners also want to point out that non-embryonic stem cells, which are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find those cures and therapies.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The final petition, Mr. Speaker, is on the subject matter of the definition of marriage. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that on June 10 the Ontario Court of Appeal in fact said that the definition of marriage being the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others is unconstitutional. They also want to point out that the federal government has the opportunity under section 33 of the charter, also known as the notwithstanding clause, to overrule that judgment.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to invoke the notwithstanding clause and to pass a law so that only two persons of the opposite sex can be married.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 248 and 256.
[Text]
Question No. 248--Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
With respect to the following statements from page two
of the Government of Canada Regulatory Policy published by the Privy Council
Office “to ensure that use of the government’s regulatory powers results in
the greatest net benefit to society,” and “the government will weigh the
benefits of alternatives to regulation, and of alternative regulations, against
their cost, and focus resources where they can do the most good”: (a)
what are all the benefits of gun ownership in Canada; (b) what are all
the direct and indirect costs of regulating firearms ownership in Canada; and
(c) what were the benefits and costs for each of the alternatives to
regulating firearms ownership weighed by the government?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, hunting and other shooting sports do have a sizeable economic impact on Canada.
In response to (a), in 2000 the report “The Importance of Nature to Canadians: The Economic Significance of Nature-related Activities” published by Environment Canada indicated:
In 1996, residents of Canada reported spending $11.0 billion on a variety of nature related activities within Canada. They made trip related expenditures for transportation, accommodation and food. They also purchased equipment, supplies and other items needed to pursue nature related activities, such as camping gear, outdoor clothing, boats, trucks, hunting and fishing equipment and supplies, licence and entry fees, cameras and binoculars. Other examples of expenditures for nature related activities are membership fees or donations to nature related organizations, costs to maintain land for conservation and purchase of feeders and feed for wildlife.
Of that total, $828.3 million is estimated to have been spent by hunters. It is important to note that this estimate does not differentiate between those hunters who use firearms and those who use other means. The 1996 survey breaks down estimated expenditures by hunters in this way: Hunting equipment accounted for 46.5% of the $823.8 million spent within Canada. The remaining amount went for trip related expenses, including: transportation, 20.2%; food, 12.1%; and accommodation, 4.7%; or for other items, such as licence fees and ammunition, 16.5%.
Hunting is the overwhelming reason for firearm ownership in Canada. A study conducted in the fall 2000 by GPC Research found that 74% of Canadian firearms owners owned guns for hunting. Fourteen percent of Canadian owners are target shooters, with this the second most common activity reported in the survey.
With regard to the year preceding the GPC Research survey, it should be noted that more than half of Canadian firearm owners had used their firearms no more than once. In fact, 37% of Canadian firearm owners surveyed had not used their firearm in the previous 12 months.
In response to (b), a more fulsome report on costs will be provided in the chapter on the firearms program contained within the Department of Justice’s departmental performance report, DPR, for 2002-03 that will be tabled in Parliament this fall.
Direct costs incurred by the Canada Firearms Centre since the passage of the Firearms Act in fiscal year 1995-96 to the end of 2001-02 were approximately $668.3 million.
This amount includes funds reimbursed by the centre to its federal partners, such as CCRA, RCMP, HRDC and PWGSC, and contribution funding to the provinces, territories, aboriginal and other communities, and non-profit organizations.
In response to (c), it is impossible to determine the economic impact of firearms without considering the costs associated with firearm crime, violence and accidents. A study by Ted R. Miller published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 1995 indicated that the total estimated costs of gunshot wounds in Canada in 1991 was $6.6 billion in 1993 dollars.
That study looked only at incidents where an individual was shot. Clearly, there are also economic costs related to firearm crime where victims are not shot. This amount would be in addition to Dr. Miller’s $6.6 billion estimate.
The financial impact of not controlling firearms is evident. The economic impact of alternatives to universal licensing and registration can be seen, for example, in the United States. It was recently reported that Chicago public schools spend approximately $60 million U.S. on security. According to the chief executive of Chicago public schools, “That's the price we're paying for our society's appalling fascination with, and easy access to, guns”.
Question No. 256--Mr. John Duncan:
What was the total amount of money transferred to the Assembly of First Nations by the government, broken down by fiscal year from 1994-2003, and, without limiting the generality of “total amount”, what was the total amount in each fiscal year broken down by core funding, contracts, special funding, special advocacy issues, travel if distinct from core funding, salaries if distinct from core funding, and any other funding category usually distinguished by the government?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the breakdown is as follows:
| Year |
Core |
Projects |
Total
|
| 1993-94 |
$2,070,000 |
$607,060 |
$2,677,060 |
| 1994-95 |
$2,070,000 |
$1,505,500 |
$3,575,500
|
| 1995-96 |
$2,070,000 |
$1,160,000 |
$3,230,000
|
| 1996-97 |
$2,070,000 |
$1,619,740 |
$3,689,740 |
| 1997-98 |
$2,070,000 |
$4,742,195 |
$6,812,195 |
| 1998-99 |
$2,470,000 |
$12,532,549 |
$15,002,549 |
| 1999-2000 |
$2,070,000 |
$17,864,606 |
$19,934,606 |
| 2000-01 |
$2,070,000 |
$18,380,755 |
$20,450,755
|
| 2001-02 |
$2,070,000 |
$8,697,743 |
$10,767,743
|
| 2002-03 |
$2,070,000 |
$6,870,000 |
$8,940,000 |
The above amounts represent the funding categories used by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for funding agreements with the Assembly of First Nations.
[Translation]
Mr. Geoff Regan: I suggest that all other questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Supplementary Estimates (A)
The Deputy Speaker: Today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending December 10, 2003, the House will proceed as usual to the consideration and passage of the appropriation bill.
[English]
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Supply]
* * *
[English]
Supply
Allotted Day--Child Pornography
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) moved:
|
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children. |
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to speak on this particular issue. I have been trying to achieve this day for a long time and we are finally here. I hope this will be the day on which we will able to accomplish a real and true victory for the children of our country, because that is what this motion is all about. It is about our kids and the difficulties facing them regarding so many issues in our system that allow crimes against them to be committed.
I want to read the motion to the House. Once again, it states:
|
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children. |
There is a key word in this motion, which I want to point out to all members, a word that is so important because the arguments against such a motion would not reflect this key word. If people stop and think about it, they will understand why it is so essential that we have this kind of system in place. That word is “exploitation”.
The reason I say this is that when we have discussed child pornography in the past, a number of questions have arisen from members in the House who claimed that any laws that would tighten up this child pornography law to the extent which we are asking for today would mean that parents who had at home a picture of their small children taking their first bath could be prosecuted. I even heard in this House that if some student was carrying around Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, that could be interpreted as pornography. Or if doctors had nude pictures of a child in their offices for medical reasons, or if psychologists or psychiatrists wanted to do some research in this field and had in their possession certain items of child pornography, that could get them into trouble.
But all those examples do not exploit the child. This is why it is so important to remember that word.
The exploitation of our children has become of epidemic proportions throughout this country. We need only go to our neighbours in Toronto, to the Toronto police force and its sex crimes unit, where they will tell us, as Julian Fantino and other members of the sex crimes unit have stated time and time again, that this is becoming a very serious problem. It is jeopardizing the lives and the welfare of so many kids that it has to be addressed and it needs to be addressed immediately.
This is why I am pleased that we could do this today. I believe that October 28 ought to mark the day when every member in this House says to the people of this nation that October 28 is the day on which we decided, all 301 of us regardless of political stripe, because it is not a political issue, that today we are going to provide victory for the young kids of our country.
For 10 years I have been here and for 10 years many of us from all sides of the House have attempted to address this particular issue, to do something about it, because we do not want to hear about any more young children being abducted and sexually assaulted and then later found murdered.
I talked about Toronto. I think of the incident that happened to the Jones family and their little girl Holly. It absolutely sickens me to think that a young child had to face such a tragic ending to her life. I cannot even imagine what would be going through the hearts of the family of this young girl and those acquainted with her.
(1015)
We have very good evidence. All of us should have had the evidence presented to us at one time or another. I know my colleagues from Okanagan—Shuswap, Fraser Valley and Calgary Northeast, who have travelled the country and visited penitentiaries, will tell everyone that when we personally visited with those who were in prison for sexually assaulting or murdering a young child, nine out of ten of them said that the reason they got to that point was because they were absolutely hooked on child pornography, and that eventually pictures, images and stories no longer fulfilled their inner needs and they had to act out their fantasies. Their compulsion was overwhelming and it caused them to do what they did.
That has been proven through all kinds of studies. All kinds of people who are involved in the work of psychology or criminology will say that child pornography has played a major role in affecting those adult individuals who have and who will eventually attack our children. There is no doubt about that.
If there were any kind of chemical or substance of any kind, whether it be food or whatever, that would be dangerous to our health, we would react immediately and remove that item. We would get rid of it because we do not want to bring harm upon anyone. For the life of me I cannot understand how a nation can sit by and watch pornography, particularly child pornography, go to the extent it has where it has become a billion dollar industry.
For heaven's sake, people are making big bucks on selling some of the worst garbage anyone could ever imagine and we have allowed it to get to the point where the chiefs of police in various parts of the country are saying that it is getting out of control. They want to do something about it. They want to remove it just like we would remove rotten food from the menu of this place, but their hands are tied because we have not provided them with the ability to do so.
Why do we even want to take the chance of something like that being challenged. Why do the 301 of us not declare today, and today is the day to do it, that child pornography will no longer be part of this nation's environment and that we will eliminate it. The 301 of us from the highest court in the land should send the message to the judges throughout the country that this is the way it will be and that the people in the courts, whenever this kind of material is brought to their attention, will lay charges when it exploits our kids, because that is what it is all about. It is about our kids.
(1020)
We must not continue to tie the hands of the police. We must give them the tools and the ability to do their jobs so they can do what they want to do most, which is clean up this mess and provide real protection to our kids.
In Toronto, in the sex crimes units, particularly those sex crimes against children, they have confiscated over two million items of child pornography. It is because of the laws that we have on the books now and because of Bill C-20, which will be presented some time in the near future. I understand the justice minister wants it passed before Christmas. However that bill is not the answer. The police have to go through every one of the two million pieces to make absolutely certain that they do not have artistic merit or there is not some public good. Can anyone imagine those officers spending 10 to 12 hours a day only looking at material like that, material that displays a 14 month old baby in diapers being raped and tortured by two adult men, or one and two year old little girls being brutally treated by adult men?
I do not want to get into the graphics of what I have seen. I am sure a lot of members in here have seen what I have seen. It is available to us. We just need to examine what these people are having to do. Can anyone imagine what we would be like after a month or two of that? No one should have to be subjected to that kind of thing.
A law should be in place saying that this kind of material exploits our children and it is not allowed. It should state that people cannot have it in their possession, they cannot produce it, they cannot distribute it and, if they do, they will pay a heavy price through the laws of our land because it is no longer tolerated.
In answer to a question that I asked the justice minister yesterday, he made a statement that the member well knows that Bill C-20 addresses that problem and that the member well knows that the government will do something about this issue. The member for Provencher will address Bill C-20 at greater length than I will, but I can tell the minister that, no, I do not know that, the police do not know that, the courts do not know that and the prosecutors do not know that. It is only the justice minister who thinks he knows that but he has not convinced anyone. He certainly has not convinced the police who to me are the most important people in the land. They should at least be the ones who know that what they have in their hands will be sufficient to put an end to this tragic event that is going on day after day.
This stuff is not just confined to cities. It is now leaking into the rural communities. I have 16 RCMP detachments in my riding and I have contacted most of them. They have said, yes, they have had complaints brought to them regarding child pornography but that the only thing they can do is refer them to the city police for help because they do not have the training, the expertise or the knowledge on how to deal with it.
Let us give them the opportunity. Let us start a national strategy. Let us put some dollars into a worthwhile project. Do not tell me we cannot find the dollars, not when we brag about a $7 billion surplus. Let us put that money to good work by protecting our kids and providing them with some safety.
(1025)
Statistics have shown that in Canada one out of every two females and one out of every three males will be sexually assaulted in our land. Those are not very good odds. And, yes, it is true, a lot of it is within the family. It is not just strangers on the outside. It may be because mom or dad or both got hooked on some fantasy regarding child pornography and it developed into sexually assaulting their own children.
Some families may focus on the idea of the big bucks the industry brings in and decide to use their own kids and exploit the daylights out of them to get certain things in some material, whether it be a film or picture, and make money through distributing and selling it.
However the reasons do not matter. The point is that we have thousands of families who are victims of severe, horrendous, heinous sexual crimes against kids. What a life they must lead from that point on. What a tragedy and a tragedy that could be prevented.
Chief Fantino said “if only we had the courage, the conviction and the will the problem could be addressed”. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that Chief Fantino and my colleagues have the courage and the will and we want it done today.
I know for a fact that many members throughout the House on all sides have the same feeling. Today is the day to put our feelings aside and put them into action by supporting the motion and passing it in the House of Commons. All of us have kids in our lives, whether we are moms, dads, grandfathers, grandmothers, aunts, uncles or just friends. We all have a connection to some young kids and we want them protected.
Let us not leave here today cheering that we have done this and then nothing happens for awhile. Let us get at it and make it happen. I have seen too many motions passed in the House. I saw a motion on the rights of victims pass in the House but it never went anywhere. The sex registry motion was passed by the House and almost two years later we are still waiting for something to happen.
We cannot wait. Lives are at stake. The safety of the children you know, Mr. Speaker, is at stake. It is time we took some serious action for the sake of our kids. We know the story behind all this and how it has got out of hand. Why do we want to be part of the problem? Let us be the solution today.
Let us put it to the nation that as of October 28, 2003 child pornography and the exploitation of children will no longer be an acceptable activity in this country and that people who engage in it will be in a lot of trouble. Let us stamp it out once and for all. It am not talking about a crime or even something that is bad. I am talking about something that is downright evil, evil that is happening to our children, and it has to stop.
I plead with every mother, grandmother and every other person who feels the way I feel on this issue to contact their MPs and let them know they want action, not just words or a friendly vote at the end of the day, but that something be put in place today. If we have to stay here until 6 o'clock tomorrow morning to get it done I will be here because it is worth doing. Let us get it done before Christmas. I ask the Justice Minister to join the parade. Let us really mean it. We do not need more phony legislation that will not deal with it. If we are going to do it, let us do it right and do it right now.
(1030)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to the member for Wild Rose for his leadership on this particular subject as well as many other subjects which have to do with the health and well-being of children and families in Canada.
I want to ask the member a question of clarification about the wording of the motion, but I would like to make a brief comment about a concern that I have. It has to do with judicial activism and the insensitivity of the courts to the social and moral values of Canadians. I have seen it even in our own justice committee where many of the members who are in the legal profession are arguing in a sanitized environment in which there does not seem to be the sensitivity to what is right. It is almost mechanical.
The difficulty that I have is, how can we deal with a social injustice like the existence of child pornography, and the possession and the distribution, et cetera, in a sterile, mechanical environment? I hope that one day we will get a better balance on the justice committee so that we can start talking about the underpinning social values that the laws of this country should be reflecting.
I certainly agree with the motion and I will support it. My question is in regard to the motion and I am sure the hon. member will be able to elaborate. It has to do with the last part where it says that it wants to eliminate “from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children”.
We all know that the very existence of child pornography means that a child must have been abused. I suspect, and maybe the member would like to clarify, that he is referring to those cases where someone may be in possession of child pornography. It might be, for instance, police officers or special workers who are working on resolving a problem, and those who have had this tragic experience. Does he agree that child pornography in all its forms and the possession of child pornography in itself is an abuse of children?
(1035)
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the member has brought up an important point. It is the very issue that I started my speech off with concerning the key word in the motion which is exploitation.
We know that the police have possession of child pornography. We know that many psychologists and psychiatrists throughout the country might be doing research in this area and will have possession of it. However, we know that they are not the exploiters of child pornography. There would be no reason to bring a charge against these people because they are not exploiting children through this material.
I do not believe there is a police officer or a crown prosecutor or even a judge in this country who would entertain the idea of bringing any of those people to court. Somewhere along the line some common sense has to enter into the picture. If individuals were to have this material in their possession for reasons other than the exploitation of our children, then the police should examine those reasons. The police will know what to do with it. The point is that the seriousness of the exploitation that is going on is completely out of control. If there is a better way to word that, then I would like to know what it would be.
From the articles that I have read, many lawyers and bar associations around the country are saying that Bill C-20 will never meet the charter test. This might possibly be challenged under the charter. If the huge majority of people who run this country make the decision that, regardless of what challenges may be brought forward, this particular material must cease to exist, that decision must be made loud and clear to the courts. They must tell our courts that this material must be removed from the face of the earth and will not be allowed.
If it comes to the point where the charter interferes with that decision, then maybe it is time to consider the notwithstanding clause. I do not believe that the people who created the charter of rights ever dreamed for a moment that it would protect child pornographers. Possibly, some of the things in the charter may not agree with what Canadians believe in, and so there is an out. If we are worried about this, the notwithstanding clause is our out.
Mr. Trudeau and all the fellows who put the charter together were wise enough to know that there may be conflicts so they put the notwithstanding clause in to be used. However, I understand that a large number of people on the government side absolutely refuse to ever use that clause. When it comes to this kind of issue, this is the time to use the notwithstanding clause.
We must put an end to this evil. That is what we are attempting to do today. I believe that through the collective wisdom of the House we can do it and do it right. If it comes to a point, because of judicial activism, that this is declared unconstitutional, then we have an out. We need to consider that out, and we should think about it right from the get go.
The kind of country that we want to live in should not be determined by the judges of our land. That should be determined by the people, either through direct or indirect democracy. They must decide what kind of country they want to live in.
I am sure the member will agree with me that probably 99% of the people of this land do not want to live in a country where child pornography is a major industry. We must end it. However we do it, we must do it and do it quickly.
(1040)
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is a cop-out in a simple phrase. First it was artistic value and now it is for the public good.
I would like to ask my colleague or anyone else who is going to speak today, what part of pornography is acceptable and for the public good?. That phrase is a misnomer. That phrase should never be in the courts. It should never be uttered. What part of pornography could possibly be for the public good?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything nor possibly imagine what kind of idea the courts could come up with regarding the public good.
Another thing that has been brought up is that people should have the freedom of expression. We have all heard that expression. God knows, Mr. Speaker, you have known me for 10 years and you know I would like to express myself in different ways in this House, but I cannot because I am not allowed. You would shut me down in a hurry because it is not allowed.
We do not dare yell “fire” in a theatre or “bomb” in an airport. Freedom of expression is not just wide open. So, no one can tell me that exploitation of a child through child pornography is freedom of expression. That is totally unacceptable and there is no public good when it comes to exploiting our children. It must end.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I notice the motion is worded very carefully. I would like the member to clarify that he associates child pornography with pictures, writings or whatever that actually have a real victim rather than the meanderings of some people writing or drawing in their own private home. There has to be a real victim.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is simply the statement of a cop-out.
As far as I am concerned and most Canadians are concerned, any time we dwell on that, whether we are writing, sketching or whatever, even the activity itself is dangerous to our kids. It is an activity that must absolutely not be done.
I am not saying that we should bring a charge against a man and throw him in jail. I am saying that there is a man who has a problem. If he is 64 years old and cannot do anything except draw dirty pictures and write silly stories regarding the exploitation of children, he needs help.
I am sure a good legal system would recognize the difference between an individual like that and a person who is actually making a victim of a real child. Believe me, we know that over 10,000 kids in the City of Toronto have been identified as real victims in this industry, and that is a shame.
(1045)
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on a subject the government holds to be fundamental, that is, ensuring that we, as a society, can provide all the protection our young people deserve against people who commit the hideous crime of child pornography. It is a crime that has no place in Canadian society. And when I look at our relationships with the G-8 countries, I can say it is a crime that has no place in the world.
I am looking at the motion put forward by our colleagues in the Canadian Alliance. Essentially, this motion asks the government to eliminate all possible defences for possession of child pornography, which allow for the exploitation of children.
The basic motivation behind this motion is the desire to protect our children from all forms of sexual exploitation. I believe, when I look at all the parties and all the hon. members of this House, that each one of us has the same desire and that is that we want to take whatever action is possible to make sure that we can provide young Canadians with this kind of protection.
As I said before, this objective is at the heart of the government's ongoing commitment to protecting children from exploitation and all forms of mistreatment. This commitment was recently expressed in Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, which I introduced myself on December 5, 2002.
[English]
The preamble to Bill C-20 echoes the importance of the issues addressed by the motion. In particular, the preamble notes:
|
--the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns regarding the vulnerability of children to all forms of exploitation, including child pornography, sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect; |
As hon. members know, there are five key components of Bill C-20: first, strengthening the child pornography provisions; second, providing better protection to young persons against sexual exploitation; third, strengthening sentencing provisions related to offences against children; fourth, facilitating testimony by child victims and witnesses and other vulnerable witnesses; and fifth, modernizing the criminal law by creating a new voyeurism offence.
I welcome this motion because I believe Bill C-20 delivers what is proposed by the motion.
Currently, the Criminal Code provides a defence for material that has artistic merit or serves an educational, scientific or medical purpose. It also makes the public good defence available for all child pornography offences.
Hon. members will recall that the constitutionality of the offence of possession of child pornography was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001 in the Sharpe case. In its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed Parliament's goal of protecting children from sexual exploitation through child pornography.
A key element in the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the overall child pornography scheme was the existence of the current child pornography defences.
(1050)
[Translation]
Bill C-20 is consistent with the Supreme Court decision. It is intended to simplify and reduce the number of defences that now exist, merging them into one defence based on the public good. In each case, the validity of this defence will be determined in two stages.
[English]
First, does the material or act in question serve the public good? If it does not, then there will be no defence. Second, even if it does serve the public good, does it go beyond what serves the public good? If it goes beyond, then there will be no defence. In other words, does the risk of harm posed by an act or material in question outweigh any potential benefit to society? If it does, no defence will be available. This is what today's motion proposes.
Let me explain what is meant by public good because this concept has been misunderstood by some.
In the recent Sharpe case, the Supreme Court of Canada considered a public good defence specifically in the context of child pornography, including the meaning of public good. The Supreme Court noted that the public good had been interpreted as including matters that were necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice, the pursuit of science, literature, art or other objects of general interest.
This interpretation is perhaps more clearly understood if one considers how it might operate at a practical level. For example, the administration of justice would include the possession of child pornography as part of a police investigation of a child pornography offence, the possession of child pornography by crown prosecutors for the purpose of prosecuting a child pornography offence and the possession of child pornography by police and prosecutors for the purpose of providing training to police and prosecutors on the conduct of child pornography investigations and prosecutions or even for the purpose of providing educational session to parliamentarians on the harms of child pornography.
All these purposes fall within the administration of justice and all of them necessarily require police and prosecutors to possess child pornography to do their job, a job which the government recognizes as serving the public good.
Bill C-20 recognizes that law enforcement officials must be able to track down child pornographers and protect victims. They are performing a difficult job which serves the public interest and, therefore, they should have the protection of the law.
Consider another example: a journalist who is doing an investigative news story on a child pornography ring. In the course of exposing the child porn ring, this journalist may come into contact with material that constitutes child porn. Again, this expose serves the public good and, as a society, we value this kind of work. Again I believe that this approach is consistent with today's motion.
[Translation]
The proposal in Bill C-20 of a single defence of public good also adds another criterion that is not currently provided for in the artistic merit defence.
Under the current artistic merit defence, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, any objectively established artistic value provides a complete defence. From that perspective, there is no requirement to balance this merit, or good, against any potential harm to society.
Under Bill C-20, the courts must also take into account a second criterion, namely whether the “good” served by an act or any material related to an act offsets potential harm.
Just because there is only one defence, based on public good, does not mean that the legislator is suggesting that child pornography is acceptable. Clearly this is not the case. The government has taken very tangible steps, which denounce child pornography in no uncertain terms.
Bill C-20 proposes another reform with respect to child pornography. It proposes broadening the definition of written child pornography to include materials that advocate or counsel prohibited sexual activity with children, and also materials that describe prohibited sexual activity with children where the written descriptions of that activity are the dominant characteristic of the material and the material was written for a sexual purpose.
The bill includes this proposal because the government recognizes the harm this type of material can cause to children and to Canadian society by describing children as objects of sexual exploitation.
(1055)
[English]
As well, I want to emphasize that the proposals in Bill C-20 seek better protection against sexual exploitation through child pornography in a manner that will withstand charter scrutiny.
The government takes very seriously its responsibility to protect children against all forms of sexual exploitation, including child pornography, as well as its responsibility to uphold the charter. I repeat that it is not a question of doing one or the other. Bill C-20 does both.
[Translation]
The purpose of Bill C-20 is to refine all the prohibitions already in place in Canada with respect to child pornography, prohibitions which are among the strictest in the world.
Since 1993, it has been an offence under the Criminal Code to make, print, publish or possess for the purpose of publication any child pornography, to import, distribute, sell or possess for the purpose of distribution or sale any child pornography, or to possess any child pornography.
Since July 2002, and as a result of Bill C-15A, it has also been an offence under the Criminal Code to transmit, make available or export child pornography or possess child pornography for the purpose of transmission, making available or exporting, as well as to access child pornography.
The same set of reforms also allowed the courts to order child pornography deleted from computer systems, including websites in Canada, and created the new offence of using a computer system in a way, such as through the Internet, to communicate with a child for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against that child.
In addition to these important legislative measures, the government continues to work with its G-8 partners in developing a common strategy to counter the exploitation of children via the Internet. This strategy is comprised of measures to improve international cooperation, prevention, public awareness and local actions in other countries.
There is one extremely important point to be made here. We in Canada have one of the toughest laws in the world, born of our desire to fight tenaciously against this crime, which is so fundamentally heinous and has no place whatsoever in our society, or indeed in any other.
We are well aware, however, that this crime is now taking on a new dimension, a new form because of the variety of means of communication now available, including the Internet. Because of these new technologies, crime is no longer limited by borders.
It goes without saying that perhaps what is required first and foremost to remedy this situation properly is good international cooperation. At the last G-8 meeting in Paris, we had an opportunity to discuss stepping up cooperation and to examine certain studies carried out, precisely with a view to determining solid bases for that cooperation.
We also had the opportunity at that time to hear the views of others involved in international investigations. Once again, they demonstrated the importance of working together internationally in order to ensure that we are able to seek and destroy these networks wherever they are established, even if they work out of countries that may be somewhat less vigilant as far as their legislation or police intervention is concerned.
(1100)
[English]
As Minister of Justice it is my responsibility to ensure that our criminal laws, our policies and indeed the criminal justice system itself reflect evolving Canadian values and emerging justice issues.
The government recognizes the importance of ensuring a strong and effective criminal law response to child pornography. Our children represent our future. We will not allow the most vulnerable in our society to be victimized by pornography. That is what Canadians expect us to do.
The protection of children bill is currently before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I call on hon. members to protect our children by supporting Bill C-20 and to ensure its swift passage. This will enable Canada to continue to be a world leader in the fight against child pornography and the protection of our children.
An hon. member: It will never happen.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: I cannot believe what I just heard from the other side. I am counting on members to support me and pass Bill C-20 in order to ensure that as a country we keep giving our young the best protection in the world. The member just said that the passing of Bill C-20 will never happen. This is a disgusting comment.
We believe that Canada as a society needs Bill C-20 in order to increase the protection of children. As well we need Bill C-20 in order to answer the Sharpe decision.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand what the government is doing. We are working for the future of our nation. Listen to what was just said. He said no to the passing of Bill C-20. He should be ashamed.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that the justice minister would go on with that rhetoric.
Since 1993 the government has been in charge of this issue. It is now 2003. For the member's information, it is a lot worse in 2003 than it has ever been. That is what the police departments told the committee. I know the minister knows it. He has heard it time and time again. He has heard it from the lawyers throughout the country time and time again. Bill C-20 does not cut it. The rhetoric goes on. It is not the answer. We need more than that.
The minister talked about public good. Of course if a journalist wants to investigate a pornography ring to break it up and bring it to light, that is for the good of the public. Nobody denies that. All the hours of hard work the police are doing and having all of what they confiscate in their possession, of course that is for the good of the public. One does not have to be very smart to figure that out. People who try to figure out why people do these things against our kids, the psychologists, psychiatrists, or whatever they are, and they have the material in their possession for research and whatever, of course that is for the good of the public. Nobody argues that.
At the present time it sounds to me that the police departments that have this material in their possession once again will have to spend hours going through the material to make absolutely certain that it is not for the public good, piece by piece, like they do now for artistic merit. That has not been taken care of.
I find it strange that the justice minister would jump up, point a finger over here and say we are saying it will never happen. It is the police and the lawyers who are saying that the bill is not good enough. The only ones who are saying it is good enough are the justice minister and others in that front row. If they cannot get it right, they should redo it. They have the opportunity by supporting a motion like this one.
The exploitation of children must come to an end. Bill C-20 will not accomplish that, as testified to by all the experts. I am no expert. I am repeating their words. And by George, the minister is no expert either. He ought to listen to them. Why will he not listen to them?
(1105)
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I am going to go through a few items that I have here and after that, I am going to ask one very simple question.
The aim and goal of the government, and it is a top priority, is to offer the best protection we can to our children and to do everything we can as a government and as a society to protect our children. They are our future.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Ten years and you have not done anything.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: It is true for this government and even though sometimes they make comments, I believe that members on the other side of the House have exactly the same aim and goal.
Look at what we have done as a country over the past few years. First, I said in my remarks that we have one of the best pieces of legislation in the world nationally speaking. We have to be proud of that.
Also, look at what took place in the United States. About a year ago they were discussing the question of virtual child pornography which was maybe or maybe not covered by existing legislation following a judgment of the U. S. supreme court. With the existing legislation that Canada has, virtual child pornography is strictly criminal. As I said, there is no place for such an offence in Canada or anywhere else in the world.
As well we have proceeded as a government with Bill C-15A which created the new offence of Internet luring. It has been used successfully in order to charge people using new technologies. Bill C-15A is quite a nice piece of legislation which ensures that those people committing such an offence will not be able to use new technology in order to exploit the children of our nation.
Look at what we did within the G-8. Canada is actually one of the leaders in trying to increase cooperation to create and develop new tools in order to make sure we deter people from getting involved in such a crime anywhere in the world. We have been working over the past few years and we are going to keep working hard.
Opposition members know very well that we have also established a pilot project with the government of Manitoba and my counterpart the justice minister, Gordon Mackintosh. We have been working together in order to establish Cybertip.ca, which is a tip line for people to get in touch with Cybertip. Let me say that when we look at the stats, it is amazing what they have been able to do working together, working with the population.
From September 2002 to July 2003, 324 reports were made to Cybertip.ca. Ninety per cent of these concerned child pornography on the Internet and 9% dealt with the question of the new offence of Internet luring. Of the total, 152, or 42%, were forwarded to law enforcement agencies for action and resulted in four arrests. Thirty-five other cases are under active investigation.
We on this side of the House, the Liberal government, are working hard in order to take concrete action, concrete measures. Now we are facing a new step which is Bill C-20, an answer to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sharpe decision, making sure that we will increase the protection of our children, making sure that we will have better legislation as well.
Today I am asking as justice minister those people on the other side of the House to support Bill C-20. What I am asking is that they stand today and say that yes, they will support Bill C-20 because they believe in the future of this nation.
(1110)
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister rattle on and on about Bill C-20 as the placebo, as the answer to all our ill will here.
The problem with Bill C-20 is that we have had a majority government for 10 years and it has not moved on it. If child protection is a priority, I would hate to see something that is not a priority. This is a snail's pace, even worse. We are going backwards according to police associations and the justice community. They are saying that Bill C-20 does not do it.
The big thing the minister goes on and on about, and I have to reply to a petition I have here on child pornography, is the increase in maximum sentencing. It is not the maximum that needs to be increased. It is the minimum that needs to be increased. That is not addressed at all.
I have a short question for the minister. Where is the truth in sentencing in Bill C-20? Where is the consecutive sentencing for perpetrators of child pornography in Bill C-20?
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 touches on the question of child pornography. It has new measures as well with regard to the protection of the most vulnerable in our society.
First, we are touching on the question of the sentencing. As a government, we respect the process in place. The member knows very well that the bill is before the justice committee and members are hearing witnesses.
Mr. Myron Thompson: That doesn't mean anything to you.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Please let me finish.
People are hearing from witnesses. People will have their say as well and the chance to propose some amendments. We do not pretend that the bill is perfect. As I said, we believe it is a fantastic piece of legislation. If we can improve it, we will. I would be more than pleased to have very positive proposals.
However, what I cannot accept and I will never accept is an opposition party that says “no” to passing an important bill such as Bill C-20, when a minister of the crown has asked for it to be passed. Today the opposition members will have to stand up and tell Canadians that they will support Bill C-20. They will do their jobs at the justice committee and if they do not, they will have to explain to Canadians why they have refused to offer the best protection possible for them.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on this final allotted day on the business of supply. It is worth noting that last year the final opposition day was in early December. This indicates the government's firm intention to avoid the embarrassing situation that would arise if the member for LaSalle—Émard were to return to the House after his coronation on November 14 as de facto head of the federal government.
The Canadian Alliance motion reads as follows:
|
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children. |
The wording of this motion could give rise to a number of questions. I will start by addressing its intent, and will move on to the wording later on. It is rather a rare occurrence for the Bloc Quebecois to be so strongly in agreement with the Canadian Alliance, whose repressive and regressive approach generally does not correspond with the vision of Quebec.
Nevertheless, no one could oppose the highly sensitive subject we are addressing today, for the simple reason that it is a basic matter of protecting those who are fundamental to the continuation of our society: our future, that is our children.
In my opinion, the sexual exploitation of children is the most vile and perverse form of pornography. Parliamentarians have a moral duty to protect the must vulnerable members of our society, our children, who also constitute our greatest treasure. In my opinion, of all deviant behaviours, sexually deviant behaviours that is, the exploitation of children is the one that is evidence of the most vile and profound psychological disturbance.
It may be astounding to some of us that certain individuals entertain sexual fantasies involving children, the same sort of angry shock we feel when cases of pedophilia and child pornography are made public. Unfortunately, this is the sad reality, and the advent of new communications technologies has made possible a dramatic increase in this phenomenon, in the more anonymous, as it were, setting of the Internet.
There is no doubt whatsoever in the minds of any of us who have had the misfortune to see just what horrors, what disgusting material, can be found on the Internet, that action must be taken, action that must be as firm and immediate as possible.
Bound children, tortured children, exploited children, wounded children who will remain damaged all their lives, that is what we can find much too easily today, on the Internet and elsewhere. As parliamentarians it is our duty to say, “Enough. Stop it now,” and to put into place all the necessary legislative measures to protect our children and provide the police with the tools they need to fight this plague.
Pornographers and pedophiles often succeed in infiltrating what are called “e-circles”, clandestine, transient, electronic networks, which grow up and die off quickly, making it more difficult for the police to infiltrate them.
Of course, some perverted people will inevitably make a mistake that gives away their identity, but too often, many more get away.
(1115)
According to Cpl. François Doré of the Sûreté du Québec, the Ottawa Interpol office dealt with more than 500 cases of juvenile pornography on the Web during 2001, which was double the previous year's total.
In an article on January 21, 2002 in La Presse, the same Cpl. Doré quite rightly observed:
|
That is not just an increase; it is an explosion. |
He calls upon us to act. That is one more reason why governments, with all the means at their disposal, must fight to eliminate this plague that attacks the most vulnerable and most fragile among us, our children.
Internet chat rooms are also favourite places for sexual predators, who often lure young people into virtual conversations, or chats. In these virtual forums it is all too easy for a 50-year-old to pass for a 13 year-old boy and strike up erotic or sexual conversations with girls or boys the same age.
The purpose of the Canadian Alliance motion is to eliminate all possible forms and means of defence in the legislation on child pornography, for anyone possessing the material targeted by the law. Here we must be very careful.
As we know, the House is considering Bill C-20, which deals specifically with amendments to the Criminal Code. This legislation has been debated and studied for some time in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The Bloc Quebecois has developed the best approach to the issue, in my view, because we have taken into account specific situations that could prevent the spread of this scourge. We also listened carefully to all the experts, particularly the police experts, who appeared before the committee and shared their point of view.
As we have said, we are in favour of Bill C-20 because we feel that this bill touches on several important aspects of criminal law and introduces new provisions that have become necessary because of the technology around us.
However, obviously some of the provisions raise questions, doubts and reservations in our minds, particularly with respect to the sensitive issue of possession of child pornography.
I cannot emphasis strongly enough the profound perversion associated with child pornography. However, it is important for parliamentarians to question the need, for a therapist for instance, to possess a certain amount of this material for the purpose of clinically treating sexual deviances.
To encompass some possible defences, the government introduced the concept of public good. We have not expressed any reservations with respect to the concept of public good in Bill C-20, but we will have many reservations if the concept is not defined better. We are going to present many amendments in committee in order to establish a clear definition of public good, if it is to stay in the bill.
I have examples of clarifications to be made to the concept of public good. We all agree that the possession of pornographic videos involving children would be considered a criminal offence. However, a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of pedophiles could justify having such videos in his possession for treatment purposes because his possessing such tapes serves the public good. In this case, the possession of videos is more helpful than harmful.
(1120)
Another example which I find justified or justifiable concerns the law enforcement agencies specialized in cracking down on child pornography. It seems normal to me that these agencies should have access to a certain amount of material in order to track sexual predators on the web, or Internet, and convict them.
The next example concerns medical research or teaching, police officers for instance, those called on to fight this scourge, what child pornography is all about and how it can be detected, or teaching future psychiatrists and psychologists in university possible treatments for the sexual deviances or perversions affecting child pornographers.
Without going as far as proposing an amendment to the motion of our colleagues from the Canadian Alliance, I would encourage all hon. members to give some thought to what I have said as they reflect on the motion. I encourage them to consider in an open yet in-depth manner this bill, which the justice minister himself described as subject to improvement.
In addition, I encourage the government to be open to constructive amendments from all sides of the House, because we must all work hand in hand, as parliamentarians, in order to eradicate this scourge in our society.
Finally, while the wording may not be the most appropriate, I urge my hon. colleagues to support the motion anyway, because its basic intent is clearly to protect our children. This intent of protecting our children could be acted on by improving the bill brought before us through constructive amendments to ensure that our children, the most precious and vulnerable members of our society, are protected as much as possible, because they represent our future.
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech given by the hon. member from the Bloc. I know where he is coming from in terms of the motivation behind the support for the motion.
I believe it is this member who has twin boys who are about five years of age. I can understand why he is so adamant about making sure that whatever we do in the House we get it right. I think that is the message he tried to deliver in his speech: whatever we do, let us get it right. I certainly thank him for his support on this motion, because I think that is what we all want to do. I think that is what you want to see, Mr. Speaker, and I know that is what I want to see accomplished. I think even the justice minister wants to see it and is attempting to do it through Bill C-20.
However, the word is out fairly strongly from the experts. I have not listened to the witnesses at the committee, but I have talked to the same individuals in person when doing my research. They simply say that Bill C-20 needs a powerful lot of improvement and is ineffective in its present form.
Would the member comment on what needs to happen to Bill C-20 to make it effective such that it would have the same intent that I have with this motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for Wild Rose for his question. One of the first things that must be done if we are to retain the idea of public good in this bill is to make it more specific. A number of witnesses, some who were more liberal in their interpretation of child pornography and some from the other side, said it was too broad. No one is sure what it means.
Police officers appeared before us, saying that from their front line position, they did not know how they should interpret such a broad concept as “public good”. We need more direction. The Toronto police were among those who told us that, and it affected me deeply.
Another example of what could be done would be to permit the introduction in evidence of a certain number of images of child pornography, rather than the thousands of images that can be found in a computer. When someone is prosecuted for drug possession—say, a tonne of cocaine—the entire tonne of cocaine is not brought into court. Samples are brought in. The same thing could be done with the pornographic pictures.
Something else that is essential to help the police is to know what happens to an encrypted file, that is, supposing someone has encrypted their pictures. The police are unable to open them. We should include in C-20 a specific infraction that if the owner or user of the computer does not give the encryption key for the file, he may be charged with another criminal offence. All of this would be to help police track everything to do with child pornography, using electronic means among others.
For these three examples, I will be moving a number of amendments in committee. This is a bill that we in the Bloc Quebecois take very seriously. As a father of young children, as the hon. member for Wild Rose pointed out, I am particularly sensitive to this issue. Having seen what can be found on the Internet, I think we must deal very severely with these child pornographers.
(1130)
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the justice minister claims, Bill C-20 simply will not provide adequate provisions to protect our children against those who would exploit our children through the use of child pornography.
Why does the Minister of Justice refuse to listen and remove the artistic merit defence under the public good clause of Bill C-20?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, you will have some idea how odd it is for me to be asked a question on the intentions of the minister of justice. I am not one of his confidants, far from it.
The best way to respond is to invite members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and then the members of this House, to be constructive in their criticism. Some of the criticism of the bill has been justified. I said that again today in committee. I believe that, with good will, we can complete consideration of a bill in the House before November 7, since we are probably going to stop sitting on November 7.
Instead of saying that this is no good, must be scrapped, set aside, I think we have a duty to bring in amendments, in committee or here in the House, that will allow it to achieve its purpose. I would like the Alliance members—the hon. member for Wild Rose in particular, who has been working on this issue for years—the members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP, as well as the Liberals, who also have some questions and reservations on Bill C-20, to work together on this.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is working very hard on this already. We are sitting endlessly. Let us improve this bill along with the justice minister, whom I invite, beg even, to be open to any amendments we might suggest. Let us ensure that, after November 7, thanks to this bill from this House, our children will be better protected than before. That is my goal.
I will not come to the defence of my colleague, the justice minister. If, however, he accepts the amendments the Bloc Quebecois proposes, the bill will be more solid, will be a better bill, and will protect our children better. That is the objective of all members of this House.
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning in the House to take part in this very important debate on the supply motion of the official opposition. I will be dividing my time with the member for New Brunswick Southwest. Let me begin by reiterating the motion:
|
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children. |
They key element of the supply motion is about protecting our children. I am sure that Canadians have been waiting intensely for years for the government to put in legislation that in fact will protect our children.
I have just come from the justice committee where we were doing amendments this morning, clause by clause, for Bill C-23, on the sex offender registry. Already we find that there is one weak point. There is no retroactivity element in the bill. In other words, if the bill passes it will be applicable only to those who are in the process of judicial activity, but there will be no retroactivity. In other words, convicted sex offenders in this country will not have to register anywhere in this country unless they reoffend.
I also want to take my time to give some balance in terms of the debate. Again, I have been fortunate to take part in a lot of the hearings with Bill C-20, which is about child pornography. We have heard from many witnesses. We need to get a balanced presentation on this debate today. I would like to begin by quoting from some of the documents. One witness from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada submitted a presentation that stated:
|
In conclusion, we are pleased that this legislation [Bill C-20] takes steps to improve the protection of children in Canada and to reduce exploitation of them. We support the amendments that strengthen the child pornography provisions by adding a new broader definition of written pornography and a more narrow defence of public good. |
The presentation goes on to state that the increase in maximum sentences for child-related offences is commendable, although the fellowship believes that minimum sentences “would be more effective”. It concludes by saying:
|
Any reasonable initiative that will make courtroom experiences less traumatic for child victims and witnesses is commendable, as well. We support this provision of Bill C-20. |
The presentation then states:
|
However, we note that Bill C-20's new category of sexual exploitation necessarily places child victims in a courtroom experience and requires them to provide details of their intimate relationships in order to ascertain whether exploitation has taken place. We are concerned that this provision will either further victimize exploited children or be ineffective. A far more effective way to protect young Canadians from sexual exploitation would be to raise the age of consent to sexual activity to 18 years of age. |
That is from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
Let me proceed to make some statements about what the CBC had to say. Again, members of the artistic community are concerned as well how legislation on pornography will affect them. The recommendation of the CBC is that both specific journalistic defence and in defence of the public interest be included as defences for the offence of voyeurism. It suggests the following wording:
|
No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence serve the public good, are in the public interest or the acts were those of a person engaged in journalistic activities for |
|
(i) any newspaper or other paper containing public news, or |
|
(ii) for a broadcaster or internet web news provider licensed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to carry on a broadcasting transmitting undertaking or benefiting from an exemption order of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. |
(1135)
Most people in Ontario have heard of Project Guardian. Carrie Kohan appeared before the committee and she had many interesting things to share as she has firsthand experience with sexual predators. In her presentation to the standing committee, she said:
|
Because we all share in this plight, it is our societal responsibility to put children's rights first. It is our duty to focus our efforts not only on the protection of the child, but also to provide, at the very least, the same level of rehabilitation as that provided today to the child rapist while incarcerated. |
She went on to say that:
|
It is our conclusion that our legislation needs to become tough on this crime. Yes, removing the rights to freedom of the convicted pedophile may seem harsh to the vocal minority, but to the emerging majority it is a logical and necessary step. We need penalties worthy of second thought in Canada, or more specifically we need penalties that will cause pedophiles to have second thoughts about child abuse in Canada, because child rape is a most heinous crime and is deserving of the most severe penalties. |
She concluded by saying that if a child victim who had experienced this crime had the opportunity to sit before the committee today, she was sure that he or she would agree with her as well.
The Canadian Conference of the Arts also submitted a brief to the standing committee. Its concern was in relation to the elimination of the artistic merit defence and that it would create confusion and punish artists. It stated in its presentation:
|
The CCA opposes the elimination of the artistic merit defence in s.163.1. Eight years after s.163.1 was inserted in the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court in Sharpe gave an extensive definition of the artistic merit defence. The CCA was greatly relieved by this development because the definition is broad enough to ensure that young artists or artists working with novel or transgressive subject matter would not suffer the ignominy of being prosecuted in the criminal courts. Although the Court also went on to carve out two exceptions to the offences of possessing or making child pornography, it did so in order to avoid having to strike down the entire law on the ground that it was an overbroad infringement of the freedom of expression. As a result, the child pornography law has largely been “saved” and is wide enough to capture virtually all situations in which expressive material could lead to harm to children. |
Let me close by quoting the Writers' Union of Canada. It had great concerns about defences for child pornography. Its summary stated:
|
We believe that the proposed changes to the child pornography provisions of the Criminal Code set out in Bill C-20 are overbroad and infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They will greatly increase the likelihood of the arbitrary exercise of prosecutorial discretion to lay charges against creators of written and visual material falling within a broadened definition of child pornography, particularly without the existing defence of artistic merit. Our greatest concern is that the sole remaining defence of the public good will not be interpreted by courts to encompass a defence of artistic merit or purpose because Parliament has deliberately chosen to remove this defence from the existing legislation. We submit that the proposed changes to the law will lead to increased self-censorship by writers and other artists and cast a chill on expression of ideas. |
In closing, Canadians look forward to legislation that will certainly protect the children of this country.
(1140)
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on a very good speech. I also want to congratulate the member who proposed the motion for taking leadership on this issue.
Canadians watching this debate today would be inclined to ask, why are we even debating the issue? Surely no one could be against protecting our children from sexual exploitation?
Should we not be looking at other areas of sexual exploitation as well? Maybe we should zero in on the CRTC, since we see on its airwaves at any time of the day or evening sexual exploitation taking place. The airwaves are filled with the kinds of images that sexually exploit children, and it is all done in the name of freedom of speech and artistic merit.
Would the member care to comment on whether or not we need to look at these kinds of things, such as the CRTC, to see what kind of shows and presentations the CRTC is allowing on the air these days? We see children being exploited by these kinds of images when we look at television at any hour of the day or evening. Surely the CRTC has some responsibility in that regard. Is it living up to its mandate?
(1145)
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, all we need to do is turn on a computer today and we are faced with the element of spam, which is also a huge challenge not only to this country, but to the rest of the world. Other countries are looking at the same problem in terms of dealing with spam and pornography.
We all know that pornography is rampant in this country and the rest of the world as well. We know that pornography can lead to other activities. There is the market trade and exchange of pornographic pictures. In this instance, we are talking not only about children but infants as well.
This past week the committee had the opportunity to listen to the RCMP on how it deals with the whole business of child pornography, both photographic and on the Internet. This is a huge challenge before us.
I understand there are plans to introduce legislation dealing with Internet trafficking of pornographic material. I encourage the government to continue to deal with that matter. It is a huge challenge and we will continue to work on it.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the two justice critics in the House for the work they did on the bill. Our own justice critic, who is the leader of the PC Party, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the Canadian Alliance member for Provencher did a tremendous job on the bill to improve it.
The fundamental question in terms of protecting our children goes right back to the inability of the government to do anything. It is a habit it has developed over the 10 years it has been in power. There is no question that because of some of the things that previous governments did--and I was a member and sat on the government side on some of the big initiatives that we took to get the economic house in order--the current government has coasted on those over the years. I am talking about such things as free trade and the GST. In fact, it did have money to do things but did not have to pay any attention to detail.
Assuming and accepting that argument, we would expect that. It is what most governments do when the economy is sorrowfully chugging along and going fairly nicely without any major initiatives, in other words, when it is not taking up a lot of its time. I challenge any member on that side of the House to get up and tell me any big economic initiative, trade or taxation policy that the government had to bring in to deal with fiscal difficulties it was facing. The fact of the matter is that it had to do nothing, just keep house and allow the machinery of government to run. And run it did.
The fact is the government had time to pay attention to social and justice issues and it has not done that. In fact, Bill C-20 has practically no support anywhere on this side of the House and very little support on that side of the House. Bill C-20 will never be passed in the life of this Parliament.
When the new leader comes in, the Martinites will take over. I hate to use the term Martinites. I would like to call them termites because they have secretly eroded the foundation of government for the last year and a half to two years.
Now we have a government that is moribund. It does not know how to do anything and there are many examples of that. It is not just Bill C-20. We can look at the fiasco that is taking place with the $700 million announced for rail service on the trade corridor between Windsor and Montreal. There is no clear indication that it will ever happen because the termites, the Martinites, are secretly undermining the government. In fact, we have a justice minister who has been caught up in that as well.
How would you like to have a record like his coming to the House, Mr. Speaker? He is sitting on a bill that could do something, but will do absolutely nothing. He will be sitting there for a long time before that bill is passed in this House simply because there is no will on the part of the government to pass it. In the meantime our children will suffer.
We saw last night the police chief of the City of Toronto, and the pain and hurt that police officers see every day of their lives. How the Government of Canada could miss that message is beyond my belief.
Mr. Roy Bailey: The government handcuffed him.
Mr. Greg Thompson: He has been simply handcuffed by his own people.
We have a government that is moribund. In fact, we will be voting on the principle of lack of leadership or the lack of government, or the duality of government that exists on that side of the House.
This House will rise in about a week or so and will not be back until the new king is crowned. That is pathetic. It means that this bill will die on the Order Paper.
In the meantime, what toll will that take on our young Canadians? The government is in a position to do something, but is doing nothing with guys like Mr. Sharpe, the serial pedophile. It is doing nothing with a bill that could eliminate those people from doing those horrible deeds against our children. We could do something in the House. That bill could pass very quickly if there is a willingness on the part of government to do something.
(1150)
The faint hope clause could be eliminated, so when these people go before the courts, they could be sentenced appropriately and they would not be given the ability to do it again. They would be locked up behind bars, where they deserve to be.
We have to tighten up those loopholes in the Criminal Code. We can do that with Bill C-20. That is something the justice minister has been very reluctant to do.
If the members remember, one of the defences in the Sharpe case was the idea of artistic merit, believe it or not, because the pornography he was displaying or the personal pornography he had was for his own enjoyment. That is a pretty weak defence when a guy can go loose or be on the streets simply because of artistic merit.
The minister does not even address that loophole in the bill. In fact in some of the testimony provided by the minister himself at the committee hearings, he basically admitted that it would not close that loophole. In fact that loophole of artistic merit will still exist in the bill as presently written.
The question is, why would the minister not address that point? Why would he allow a bill like this to go forward if it does not close those loopholes? Why does he fail to stand up for the families that deserve to have their children protected? That is as simple as the argument can get and as basic as the argument has to get. Why would he not do that? He is victimizing our children.
When the justice minister, the one person in Canada who can make a difference, just simply sits there and does not address the needs of Canadians and the protection of young Canadians why should he be there? He is there because he will coast to office I guess on the Martinite train and that is the only reason.
The ministers are not simply there because of their ability to get the job done. They are simply coasting through office. It is time that Canadians take them to task for this and I believe they will in the next election.
Maybe it is time for the limousine Liberals to be derailed. Maybe it is time for Canadians to examine their record very carefully in terms of social justice over the last 10 years. What have they accomplished? We know they have coasted on the economy but they cannot coast forever. This legislation deserves to be passed and should be passed. However some of the recommendations that we have suggested should be in the bill.
At that, I rest my case and look forward to questions and comments from my colleagues.
(1155)
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by commending the member for the motion. He talked about the issues related to children and their welfare, which is very important. I believe the government has neglected these issues.
As well as the other opposition parties, I want to start by reading a letter I received from a constituent regarding a motion that I put forward in the House which dealt with children's issues and the way they were being exploited through some of our environmental conditions. It states:
|
Our daughter was misdiagnosed four and a half years ago with Arthritis. She died four months later of leukemia. We can prove negligence but she died from bleeding internally due to a liver biopsy before treatment could begin. |
|
Now the boy across the street from us is in London fighting for his life with cancer. I find it strange that this is happening in such a close proximity of each other. I think that our children are getting cancer in the Windsor area in far too great a number compared to other areas. They are also being sent to London too late. |
The government has done little in terms protecting our children.
The member, in his speech, talked about the things that the government could be doing. Why are we not doing those things, for example, ending child poverty?
My motion interestingly enough was amended by the Bloc member who supported it unanimously and the members of the PC Party at supported it. The amendment was passed, but then when the main motion was voted on a number Alliance members and Liberals switched their votes and it lost narrowly. All the motion did was address the terrible conditions that children find themselves in.
Why do we not have a comprehensive vision of how to protect our children, not only from pornography and from predators, but in the ways in which we go about fashioning laws without providing accountability, when we know these types of things in society are hurting and killing them?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the member for Windsor West. He is dead on in his analysis of the government. On some of the social issues, the Liberal Party truly took a lot of pride in them and I think it was generally well accepted by Canadians over the years. We could look at the electoral results of that party over the years. However, I suggest that it has lost any sense of responsibility for social issues.
One thing I will point out, aside from the education issue and the difficulty that our young people have in terms of affordability of post-secondary education, is the government is sitting on a $45 billion surplus created in the EI account. In other words, it has taken $45 billion more from Canadians in terms of their EI premiums. That is what we pay in every week. After paying out all the benefits, the government has collected $45 billion extra.
The question is what is the government going to do with it? The Liberals could do a number of things. One would be to beef up the justice system in terms of more crown prosecutors and enforcement.
Let us look at one of the other boondoggles. A thousand million dollars, that would be a billion dollars, was wasted on the long gun registry. What could that have done? What could police officers do with an extra billion dollars?
The government has simply lost all sense of responsibility in terms of young people, justice issues and social issues. That used to be the cornerstone of that party. However, it has certainly lost its way and it has to have a reality check. We hope the Canadian public will do that the next time it goes to the polls.
(1200)
The Deputy Speaker: There is approximately one minute left, so I caution members to be somewhat brief if they do anticipate a response. The hon. member for Prince Albert.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think one of the cornerstones of freedom of expression is that individuals should have the right to realize their full potential. However, I think we all understand that this is not an absolute right. The Criminal Code defines the limits of that right. That is why we have offences dealing with stealing, assault, murder, fraud and numerous other offences, which I guess to the criminal is their freedom of expression. However, we draw the line on these sorts of things.
I am really puzzled why the government does not deal with exploitive child pornography in the same way it deals with other criminal behaviours and put it squarely in the Criminal Code so that our children are protected from this sort of thing.
I think the member has some legal experience and I would be curious what his comments might be on that, because I cannot for the life of me see the distinction between other types of criminal behaviour and criminal behaviour in respect to child pornography matters.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret, but the time has lapsed and we will now return to debate. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too want to say a few words on the opposition motion tabled by the member for Wild Rose.
The whole issue of child pornography is an extremely important issue. First, I want to begin by thanking the justice committee. A few minutes ago in the justice committee, members dealt with Bill C-23, the national sex registry. The committee agreed to an amendment I made to have a review of the registry in two years.
I am pleased that the chairman of the justice committee broke the tie. There were opposition members and some government members in support of the amendment and some opposed. The amendment as passed will provide for a review of the national sex registry in two years time. That is a good thing to do. It will make the role of parliamentarians more meaningful in terms of our political system.
The debate before the House today is one that is very important. We are dealing with Bill C-20 in our justice committee. The minister and his officials have been before the committee. We are trying to find an effective way to ensure that we are tough with people who are involved in child pornography and the abuse of children.
I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for people who abuse children in the way that they do. I know the minister feels exactly the same way.
We saw some very moving video from the RCMP on some of the most horrific child pornography and the abuse of children that could possibly be imagined. It is the kind of abuse that brings tears to people's eyes. There is no doubt whatsoever that we have to deal with this in the toughest and most effective way possible.
The problem we have with the legislation before the House, and one which people are wrestling with, is clause 7, the public good, the definition of the public good and the whole question of freedom of expression, artistic merit, what a museum can display, what researchers can research and so on. There is a differing legal opinion, as the minister knows, as to clause 7 and the public good.
I want to begin by saying that there is a serious difference of opinion. The Canadian Bar Association, for example, believes that the public good test is too vague and too broad to give this legislation any real effect.
In other words, the Canadian Bar Association is saying that it is not really sure what the public good test really is. It could be too broad or it could be too narrow. It could be too narrow in terms of dealing with child pornography and those who abuse children. It could be too broad and catch in the sweeping definition in the courts genuine artists and researchers, museums or medical research in the country. We do not know what will happen. The jurisprudence will evolve through the courts. In effect what Parliament is doing here is giving the authority to the courts to define what is the public good.
I wish the member for Wild Rose was here. I wonder if he would agree that what we should is remove clause 7 from Bill C-20, with instructions that Parliament define what is the public good. Then the intent of parliamentarians would be clearly signalled to the courts. If we do not do that, the courts will make the definition of public good.
I am one who is very much in favour of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution. However, I am also one who has been a bit nervous about the evolution of more and more power to the courts, where the courts and not legislatures make more and more decisions in our country about public policy.
I respect the courts and judges. However, they are not elected. It should be us as parliamentarians and provincial legislatures that determine policy in terms of what direction our society wants to go.
This is really the whole debate that we are now having in the justice committee. The debate is what is freedom of expression. I see the member for Dauphin—Swan River who is a decent parliamentarian and human being. He believes in freedom of expression. If he went to a movie theatre tonight at nine o'clock and there was a very popular movie on, if he jumped on the stage half way through the movie to make a big long speech about how wonderful such and such was, he would be in contempt because freedom of expression has certain limitations. He could not do that because it would be a limitation on freedom of expression.
(1205)
Section 1 of the charter is the limitation clause. It shows there are limitations, but it has to be demonstrated that these are in the public good or the common good. It has to be demonstrated. The whole debate in the justice committee is what is artistic merit, what is the public good?
We want to make sure we have tough child pornography laws that deal in a very tough way with people who abuse children in this country. Some of this stuff is horrendously offensive and is almost beyond imagination. We have to deal with it in an extremely tough way. However, in the sweep of the law we have to make sure that genuine artistic merit and expression does not become a criminal offence. That is a concern many have.
The Canadian Bar Association is about as credible an organization as possible in terms of expressing an opinion on a certain law before the House. Its concern, as I said before, is that the use of the public good test is much too vague and broad to give the legislation any real effect.
We should be instructing the government, instructing the justice committee, instructing Parliament, to make sure that we say what is the public good and what we mean in terms of the law and how it will be carried out.
I see in the House the member from Edmonton, the former Alliance House leader. I am sure she would agree that we often leave too much power with the courts, with unelected judges, when parliamentarians should make the decisions.
The scope of the public good, as I said, is too broad according to some lawyers, and too narrow according to other lawyers. We should clarify what we mean. The police will do a better job and make more sound decisions in their investigations of suspected child pornographers to protect children if there is a very clear definition of what we mean in terms of how we want to protect the children. On the other side, if we have a clear definition of what the public good means, then artists, museums, researchers and others will not be prosecuted for legitimate artistic expression or legitimate research in their field of endeavour.
One of my colleagues on the government side, who is on the justice committee has just walked in. He knows the debate that has been raging in the committee as to what those fine lines are.
We need clarity in what we mean by the definition of the public good. We have to give some guidance to the courts as to what we mean as a parliament by the public good. We have to stop delegating that power to an unelected judiciary. We parliamentarians should write the law and clearly signal to the courts what we mean when we tighten the law against those who commit pornography and abuse children, what we mean by the freedom of expression, what we mean by artistic merit and the right of museums to display certain pieces of art, what the fine line is and what the message is that we want to send to the court.
The bill before the justice committee, which I understand will be dealt with again tomorrow afternoon, is simply too vague on too many fronts on that particular point. We have seen that by the clash of interpretation among different witnesses and the clash of interpretation among different lawyers.
My main reason for intervening today is to say that it is extremely important that we are not derelict in our responsibilities. We as parliamentarians must make sure that we take clause 7 out of the bill as it stands.
(1210)
We would be better off getting rid of the clause altogether than to have a vague clause which no one can guarantee what it means in the end and leave that power to the unelected courts. Once the jurisprudence and the precedents are built up by our legal system, we may have a very good law. On the other hand, we may have a law that one way or the other does not have the intent of what Parliament means. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to make sure that is done. I think this is an issue on which Parliament can unite, that it should be us and not the courts who define what we mean by the public good.
Artists should have the freedom to express what they want to express and not be fearful of being charged under the Criminal Code in terms of legitimate artistic expression. People should be able to do legitimate research and museums should be able to exhibit legitimately without fear of being prosecuted and convicted under the Criminal Code. At the same time the Criminal Code must have more power to prosecute and put away those people who abuse children or those people who are involved in child pornography that is so offensive to any kind of civilized society.
I hope we can come to that consensus, that it should be Parliament and not the courts that makes that determination. We can debate what the fine lines are and signal clearly to the courts what the House means.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks and his contribution in the justice committee as well. He has been here many years and has seen legislation seemingly take forever. If we look at the street level, some of these horrifying things are still happening year after year, decade after decade.
I would like to ask him a question with regard to his comments that he just made about the court system. Who in the world can determine such a subjective thing as artistic merit and what is in the public good? I have a difficult time doing this because of course it is a sliding scale. Everybody has his or her own definition of what that might be.
It seems to me that where young children are being forced into nudity and sexual acts with adults, there is no way on God's green earth I would ever be convinced nor surely would anyone else in this chamber nor anyone in the Supreme Court of Canada nor any of the legal people that this somehow falls under artistic merit. If we look at the devastating ramifications and implications this has on children as they grow up to be adults, I think we are seeing something rampant here that in the next generation we will only know the devastation it has caused.
What is the member's feeling and what are his thoughts on the justice minister coming here this morning and ranting about how Bill C-20 will actually solve everything? In fact a press conference is going on right now in the press room with police and law enforcers saying that this is not going to cut it.
What does he think we could do to convince the justice minister that it is not just us on a political basis here saying we do not think that Bill C-20 will be the answer to all the ills, but the police themselves are saying it just will not hold up? What could we do about that?
(1215)
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I agree with the member for Edmonton North that any adult who forces a child is obviously not artistic merit. It obviously should be a violation of our Criminal Code and the criminal laws. I want to make that very clear. We saw scenes provided by the RCMP, as the member for Edmonton North said, of 18 month old baby girls being violated by adult men. Obviously that is horrific and we have to come down extremely hard on that type of issue.
My answer to the member's question is that either we as parliamentarians define what the public good is or the courts define what the public good is. It is one or the other. My appeal today is that we as parliamentarians should make the definition. It is going to be tricky in many cases, we all know that, but I would sooner have parliamentarians do it because we are elected and accountable to the people. We should write the legislation without the determination of the courts. If we do not, the courts will do it. As I said, the Canadian Bar Association has said that the use of the term public good as a test is too vague and too broad to give the legislation any real effect.
The answer to the question is that we should do it, not the courts.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague could comment on one of the concerns that I have, as well as many other members on this side of the House and on the other side too. It is about pornography being considered a gateway, something that will lead to, contribute to eventually and condition people to make the next step to pedophilia, child molestation. We are all concerned with the explosion on the Internet of pornography as it is today and that could lead catastrophically to an explosion in child molestation too, if this is considered to be the first step toward it.
I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that and to reinforce to the government the absolute urgency that this be attended to firmly and squarely with the laws that we do bring down, to prevent this explosion from carrying forward into the everyday world.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to reinforce that.
We are dealing here not just with a magazine one may pick up and pictures one may look at. We are dealing here with videos. We are dealing here with the Internet. We are dealing here with violation against children. We are dealing here with the abuse of children. We are dealing here with the whole gambit of violation and degradation of the crassest kind one would ever want to imagine. We have to deal with it in a very tough way and that is what I want to do.
I commend the member for Wild Rose for putting this motion on the Order Paper. I go back to my central point. It comes down to the definition of the public good. Who defines the public good? Is it the courts or is it Parliament? My plea is that Parliament, and not the unelected judiciary, define the public good. That is where we have to start. Then we can have the arguments as to what is the public good, what is artistic merit, what is legitimate research, what is legitimate in terms of museums, where the two clash and where the fine lines are. Those are not easy questions to answer, but we start with Parliament defining it and not the courts.
* * *
(1220)
Business of the House
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that if you seek it among all parties, you will find consent for the following regarding private members' business:
|
That Bill C-452 in the name of the member for Lakeland, the item that is to be debated on Thursday, October 30, 2003, be switched with Bill C-338 in the name of the member for Surrey North, the item that is to be debated on November 27, 2003. |
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Supply
Allotted Day—Child Pornography
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, once again, as members of the Canadian Alliance, we find ourselves in a position where we have to defend the rights of the most vulnerable group of people in our society, our children, against a Liberal cabinet fixated on protecting the interests of dangerous sexual offenders.
Past experience should tell us that this need not be much of a challenge, given the fact that Liberals tend to govern by opinion polls, and the evidence is clear that Canadians overwhelmingly support giving children the most effective legal protection possible against sexual predators.
Nevertheless, to this point the legislation put forward by the minister continues to defend the interests of sexual predators rather than Canadian children.
However it appears that some of the concerns that have been consistently raised by the Canadian Alliance, members of child advocacy organizations and the police may finally be catching the attention of the government.
Recently we heard the Solicitor General admit that he may have erred in his opinion that including convicted sex offenders in a national registry would violate their charter rights. Perhaps it is not too late to hope that the Liberals will also eventually admit that there is no justification for the criminal possession of child pornography and amend the laws accordingly.
Over the course of parliamentary debate on this issue I have often been struck by the contrast between the fact that Canada's Criminal Code provides no defences against certain types of hate propaganda, yet the defences for the possession of child pornography are alive and well and broader than ever. There is zero tolerance for hate propaganda against vulnerable minorities, and rightly so, yet the most vulnerable minority of all, our children, are not similarly protected.
By now most Canadians are familiar with the case of the notorious child pornographer, John Robin Sharpe, and the material that originally sparked this debate on our child pornography laws. After being caught with material glorifying violent sexual acts between adults and children, Sharpe began a court challenge in the mid-1990s arguing that his charter rights were being violated by Canada's legal prohibition on child pornography. Eventually the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the law but said that artistic merit should be interpreted as broadly as possible. A British Columbia superior court judge later did just that and let Sharpe off the hook for two possession with intent to distribute charges on the basis that the material had artistic merit.
Let us be clear about what kind of material we are talking about, the kind of material that allowed this judge to apply artistic merit to acquit Mr. Sharpe of those charges. We are not talking about literature, art or anything that could reasonably be described as such. Seventeen stories that Sharpe had written were given as evidence. Detective Noreen Waters of the Vancouver police department characterized those stories as follows:
|
They're extremely violent stories, the majority of them, with sexual acts involving very young children, in most cases, under the age of 10 engaged in sado-masochistic and violent sex acts.... And the theme is often that the child enjoys the beatings and the sexual violence.... |
John Robin Sharpe was acquitted of those charges. Clearly, after the Sharpe cases, there was a legislative gap that required immediate attention. Canadians were outraged but it took some time and considerable pressure to convince the justice minister to bring forward legislation.
Last December, when Bill C-20 was finally tabled, the minister was proud to declare that the existing defences for child pornography had been narrowed, implying that the artistic merit defence was no longer there. No one was fooled. In fact, instead of eliminating all legal loopholes that justify the criminal possession of child pornography in Bill C-20, the minister simply combined these defences and hid them in the broadly interpreted defence of public good.
(1225)
However, despite the minister's attempt to sell Bill C-20 on the basis that the artistic merit defence no longer applies, he admitted on September 25 in the justice committee that it was still included under the now broader public good defence.
The Supreme Court briefly commented on the public good defence in the Sharpe decision stating:
|
It might be argued that the public good is served by possession of materials that promote expressive or psychological well-being or enhance one's sexual identity in ways that do not involve harm to others. |
If this commentary is any indication of how the public good defence will apply in the courts, it clearly will not fulfil the aim of protecting our children.
The Supreme Court of Canada does not make comments like that idly. It is signalling what it may well do in the future. It is too big a risk for Parliament to leave that particular phrase as open as it now is in the bill. It has become clear that the public good defence has not been precisely defined and will be subject to broad interpretations by the courts.
Mr. David Matas, a well-known lawyer and a member of the board of directors of the child advocacy group, Beyond Borders, said the following during committee hearings on October 7 in reference to the public good defence:
|
The practical problems of putting a very vague defence into the law is this: |
He was referring to this public good defence. The quote continues:
|
It doesn't serve as a deterrent. If you read what child abusers say, they think what they're doing is in the public good. They promote sexual activity of children. It also is going to lead to a lot of not-guilty pleas. We're going to get the courts clogged up with defendants saying that they're not guilty because they think there's a defence of public good. The defence, of course, will be defined over time, but differently in different provinces until it gets to the Supreme Court of Canada. So we'll have many years of uncertainty about the law. |
Given what the Supreme Court of Canada has said, I think know where this court is going to take this particular definition.
The same day, detective sergeant Paul Gillespie of the Toronto police also said:
|
--trying to, as a front-line officer, determine what the public good is will prove to be impossible. |
We are putting evidentiary burdens on the police in addition to those they already have that they simply will not be able to meet.
The representative from the Canadian Bar Association also expressed doubt that the public good defence would be effective stating:
|
The issue is one of how the courts are going to interpret for public good. This is not an easy concept and it is one that does incorporate the community standard that the court rejected in their interpretation of artistic merit in Sharpe, but there's a real issue of whether or not it's indeed going to solve the problem. |
That is exactly what I have said on earlier occasions. The Supreme Court of Canada has already emasculated this particular defence. Why does it think that by resurrecting it in this new bill it will do any better?
From the side of the spectrum that tends to favour freedom of speech over all other social objectives, Mr. Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association also expressed serious misgivings about the public good defence. He said:
|
Then they talk about the defence of public good, Bora Laskin described it as anomalous, the Supreme Court of Canada has expressed misgivings and the same court has also held that the comparable term “public interest” is constitutionally vague. That's what we would be left with if those amendments were enacted. |
What we essentially have is almost every witness, other than the justice minister, coming before the committee and telling us that the law will not work, it will not be effective and, more important, it will not accomplish its objective of effectively prosecuting child pornographers.
(1230)
In a further complication of the child pornography defences, the Supreme Court carved out two exemptions to the child pornography law in the Sharpe case: that materials, such as diaries and drawings, created privately and kept by that person for personal use; and visual recordings of a person by that person engaged in lawful sexual activity, again kept by the person for personal use.
Although at first blush those types of defences for personal use appear to be reasonable, the latter exemption has the potential to expose children age 14 to 18 to further exploitation by child pornographers since they would be engaging in a legal activity.
What that means is that a 40, 50 or 60 year old man can have sex with a 14 year old girl as long as she consents to the activity, and that man can legally make a visual recording of that activity. Of course it still remains illegal to distribute it but then there is a permanent record of that child that no doubt will eventually be put out into the public domain.
Our age of consent laws also enable child sexual predators to legally use the Internet to lure children over 14 who are online.
One of the more dubious objections to raising the age of consent from 14 was provided by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the member for Northumberland, who stated in the House of Commons on November 5, 2002 that there were “many social and cultural differences that have to be reflected in the law”.
That certainly was news to many Canadians. Many members of Canadian ethnic groups were offended and angry that the government was trying to hide behind so-called social or cultural considerations on the age of consent issue, and never have the members opposite ever asked which cultural group consented to the exploitation of their children. No such cultural group exists in Canada, and that activity should clearly be against the law.
As Liberal ministers keep making weak excuses for not moving to raise the age of consent, they will continue to be discredited by Canadians who have common sense ideas and are committed to the protection of their children even if this government is not.
Under our current laws, children and teenagers easily become targets of pornographers, Internet sex scams, pedophiles and sexual abuse, and parents have no legal recourse with which to shield their children from these dangers.
So far the committee has heard strong recommendations from several witnesses to ignore any excuse from the government in its refusal to raise the age of consent; particularly from police representatives Detective Sergeant Gillespie from the sex crimes unit of the Toronto police service, who has done such a fine job trying to make the children of this country safer, and Mr. Tony Cannavino of the Canadian Professional Police Association. They continue to come to Parliament to remind us that we are failing our children and that Bill C-20 certainly fails our children.
Instead of raising the age of consent, the bill creates the category of “exploitive relationships” aimed at protecting people between the age of 14 and 18. Overwhelmingly, child advocates have urged committee members to reject the provisions of Bill C-20. This new category is a vague provision that fails to create the certainty of protection that children require. It will not serve as a real deterrent. It will simply result in longer trials and more litigation by putting unnecessary, undue prosecutorial burdens and evidentiary burdens on our crown attorneys and our police.
(1235)
Mr. Normand Boudreau, also a member of the board of directors for Beyond Borders, urged members to reject excuses against raising the age of consent. He reminded us of the story of the little aboriginal girl in Saskatchewan. This case occurred in Melfort, Saskatchewan.
A 12 year old aboriginal girl was preyed upon sexually after being made drunk by three adult males. A 26 year old man sexually assaulted the 12 year old girl with his two friends outside his truck on a gravel road. The 26 year old man received a conditional sentence. The other two, however, were found not guilty. In the case of those two, the jury found that the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain that the girl was at least 14 years of age. In effect, in this particular case, the age of consent was 12 years old. These individuals were acquitted because they took all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the individual may in fact be 14 years old. That is shameful and disgusting.
A side issue on this particular debate that is nevertheless an important one is what is to be done with sex offenders once they are convicted. Currently, Canada's methods serve as little more than a weak reprimand. The list of dangerous sexual offenders who receive no jail time is long. I can quote a number of cases where serious sexual offenders won. For example, the Toronto Sun reported that a Mr. Oswold, who had a record of sexual assault, sexual interference and had attempted to obtain the services of a 10 year old boy, received a conditional sentence for breach of a probation order.
These are the kinds of laws the government has passed. They are not only weak laws in terms of sentencing, but to add final insult to the injury is to try to pass a law such as Bill C-20. The list goes on.
Those who suggest that mandatory prison sentences do not deter crime are mistaken. We know that as long as they are secure behind bars, they will not reoffend.
One witness, I believe it was the Civil Liberties Association, said “What do you expect child pornographers to do, collect stamps?” I say they can collect stamps if they want to as long as they are doing it behind prison bars. They should not be released to be able to exploit our children on the Internet or otherwise.
Only a Liberal would suggest that society should take a chance with its children by releasing those individuals into society without first requiring a period of incarceration. A strong message from Parliament to the courts and from the courts to the offenders that the abuse of children will not be tolerated will have the appropriate effect. Unfortunately, Bill C-20 and the Liberal government fail to send that message.
The lack of funding also continues to be a vital problem for those who are tasked with enforcing the laws. In March 2003 Chief Julian Fantino of the Toronto Police Service said that he was:
|
--deeply disappointed by the recent comments by [the] Solicitor General that police are adequately resourced in the area of child pornography. The Toronto Police Service has received no funding or resources from the federal government in this area. We have, however, managed to move forward thanks to a $2 million grant from the provincial government. |
It was the former conservative government in Ontario that showed concern when the federal Liberal government did not.
That will conclude my comments. I would be prepared to answer questions.
(1240)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the speech that we have just heard should be mandatory listening for every person in Canada.
The fact that the Liberal government continues to create ways in which sexual predators, those who prey on children, can hide behind a defence as provided by the Liberals is unconscionable. I would like the hon. member to comment on that defence. The new defence, the public good, in my view greatly broadens the defence that can be used. Instead of just restricting it to artistic merit as it was before, public good could probably be construed to include all of those issues, freedom of speech, artistic merit, all of these other things.
Who among us is not going to say that freedom of speech is a good thing? The courts will certainly see it that way. This one catch-all in my view adds all of these others to it and thereby even broadens the defence.
I would like to castigate the government for creating this defence which is such a huge error. I would appreciate the comments of my colleague on what I have just said. Does he agree with this?
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, if I were to stand here and say that I agree with the hon. member, people would simply see that as being self-serving as we are in the same political party. I do in fact agree with the hon. member not simply because it is my opinion but because it is the opinion of reputable child advocacy organizations across the country.
I want to specifically refer the member to some of the comments of Mr. David Matas of Winnipeg. Mr. David Matas is a very well respected legal counsel in Manitoba and in Canada. He has often fought for civil liberties, for immigrants and others. It was his concern, exactly as expressed by the member for Elk Island, that this broadened the defence of artistic merit and that we were not moving forward, we were not standing still, but we were moving backward.
The member for Elk Island should find some comfort that eminent legal scholars have agreed with his interpretation of what the Liberal bill does and that it in no way protects our children. It needs to go back to the drawing board to be redrafted so that the priority of children is the first consideration of Parliament.
(1245)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. He was right on. He has done an excellent job on this particular issue of Bill C-20.
I will ask him a question that I know he probably cannot answer which is in regard to raising the age of consent. I heard the same message from the Liberals that it was not raised to the age of 16 because of certain cultural groups in our country who prefer to keep it at 14 yet no such group can be found.
Can the member possibly give me any reason why the Liberal government refuses to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16? Is there any possible reason that he could name?
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Wild Rose who sponsored the motion. He has been a tireless advocate of ensuring that we have effective laws to protect our children.
In respect of the age of consent issue that the member raised, why is it that the government simply tries to avoid the most direct and effective mechanism of protecting children by at least raising the age of sexual consent between children and adults? I am not talking about children close in age. We all accept that there needs to be an exemption for that kind of activity. That is essentially a social issue rather than a criminal issue. I think what the member for Wild Rose is talking about is the exploitation by adults of children.
Why is it that the government has consistently refused to address that issue? I know one of the reasons. The government consistently puts the cart before the horse. The government keeps on thinking of what the courts are going to do with the legislation if it makes it effective and tough to protect children.
The government tries to think of every single excuse that a judge would come up with, rather than focusing on the legislation, saying what is the most effective way of protecting children, drafting the law in that way and then defending the law before the courts. If the courts want to jeopardize the safety of our children, let it be on their heads, but it should not be on the heads of parliamentarians and those who care about children.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my colleague speaks with a great deal of knowledge being the former attorney general of the province of Manitoba.
I want to ask the member a specific legal question with regard to what the Supreme Court said in the Sharpe case. The Supreme Court said with regard to the public good clause that while the public good defence might prevent troubling applications of the law in certain cases, it would not do so in all.
My colleague mentioned that in his speech. I would like him to elaborate on that. I was chagrined and dismayed when the justice minister earlier today seemed to say that the fact the Alliance has brought the motion forward was a bad thing. I say it is a good thing. We need to discuss the problems with the government and its Bill C-20.
I would appreciate my colleague's comments on the public good defence as referenced in the Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to it being a bad thing that the member for Wild Rose brought forward the motion, if that is a bad thing, I am happy to stand with the member for Wild Rose and to stand with those who want to protect children, as opposed to the minister who is only concerned about advancing the interests of dangerous offenders over the rights of our children.
With respect to the issue of public good, this is clearly a vague defence on which many of the witnesses have already commented. This defence effectively hides all of the existing defences, including that of artistic merit.
The minister can now stand up in the House and say that he has gotten rid of the defence of artistic merit. He can say that nowhere does it read in the legislation that artistic merit is there. However, all members in the House and any thinking Canadian knows that it has simply been subsumed into that broader, more vague phrase.
I would like to point out that it is not only those who are advocating on behalf of children who are concerned, but civil libertarians also say that this is too vague. Clearly, the minister has got it wrong from any direction one comes at it.
(1250)
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I constantly hear the minister talk about the leadership that Canada is taking on all these judicial issues and how his government is leading the rest of the world. I find that to be a strange comment as I understand Canada is the only country of all free democracies that has the age of consent at 14, when the rest have the age of consent at least at 16 or older. Is that leadership? We are the bottom of the heap.
I would like to ask the member, from his experience if this particular motion were to pass through the House and most members found it acceptable, how difficult would it be to immediately incorporate the motion into Bill C-20?
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, there are number of issues. The biggest concern that I have with the suggestion made by the member for Wild Rose is not the legal issue. We can do that. Good legislative draughtsmen can put together the effective legislation that would prevent this criminal exploitation of our children. The biggest impediment that the people of Canada face is the government and its refusal to take the necessary steps.
What do I need to add? Child pornographers are advertising Canada as a good place to do business because of our present laws.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the official opposition for moving this motion in the House.
[English]
As already stated, the motion from the opposition proposes to eliminate all defences for the possession of child pornography which allows for the exploitation of children.
We on this side of the House believe that this is what we are proposing to do with Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act which was introduced by the Minister of Justice on December 5, 2002.
I am pleased that the hon. member from the opposite side chose to raise this very important issue because it allows me an opportunity to inform Parliament and Canadians of the important work that the government is doing to protect our most vulnerable citizens, our children. We agree with the opposition that our children are our most vulnerable citizens and require the most protection.
I would like to build on a few of the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Justice relating to some of the efforts that the government has undertaken to combat the sexual exploitation of children, particularly on the Internet.
I realize the motion in question relates specifically to Bill C-20 and the public good defence, but now is a perfect opportunity for me to highlight the collective work that we are doing to address the troubling problem of child pornography.
I would like to take issue with statements made by the member for Provencher where he claimed that Canada is wild, open country for child pornographers and that the message going out internationally is that people can do business in child pornography here in Canada.
Most of the studies that I have read and most of the statements that I have either read or heard from law enforcement agencies is that the United States is the source of much more child pornography than Canada.
I am sure we are all aware that the sexual exploitation of children is sadly not a new crime. We have been working for many years on this issue. Canada has some of the toughest legislation and policies in place dealing with the sexual exploitation of children. We are challenged with keeping pace with the rapidly evolving technologies, including the Internet, that make it easier for people to sexually exploit our children.
We are all aware of the benefits of the Internet and the increased access to educational resources. However, the Internet also makes collecting, distributing, accessing and making child pornography easy to do. It is extremely difficult and complicated to investigate, according to our law enforcement experts.
Despite the complexities of these crimes, we have been active nationally and internationally on this issue. In fact, this year the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice, along with their G-8 counterparts, endorsed the G-8 strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. This strategy has provided a framework for action by all member states. I am pleased to report that we are taking this initiative seriously and we are working to develop Canadian initiatives that meet the broader G-8 objectives.
On the law enforcement front, for example, the Solicitor General of Canada in the spring of this year asked the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police to create the national steering committee on Internet based child sexual exploitation. The committee has representation from law enforcement across Canada as well as representation from the federal departments of Solicitor General and Justice.
The steering committee is providing direction to law enforcement efforts to better address this problem and is working closely with many specialized units, and many other integrated teams in the provinces and municipalities.
(1255)
Building on the work of the steering committee and the various provincial initiatives,--because there are provincial initiatives that are to be lauded in the area of prohibiting and investigating sexual exploitation of our children--I am happy to report that we have taken the first steps toward the creation of a national coordination centre at the RCMP.
While it is still in its infancy, this centre is currently in operation, and is coordinating national investigations and liaising with international partners. We are hoping to build the capacity of the centre so it can provide even greater national leadership in this area.
The Canadian government has also been active in the establishment of cybertip.ca, an online reporting centre for reports of Internet based child sexual exploitation. Run by Child Find Manitoba, this pilot project provides a valuable service to law enforcement by forwarding reports of child pornography and also providing educational materials to the public.
The Solicitor General of Canada had the pleasure of announcing $55,000 in funding from his department for the initiative in August of this year and along with other federal departments, including Justice and Industry, we are actively working to find ways to provide cybertip.ca with sustainable funding to build on the current pilot project to make cybertip.ca a national resource.
Children are our greatest asset and Canadians can be assured that we are doing everything in our power to better protect them. Canadians can be assured that law enforcement in Canada is working to complement our strong criminal law framework, which we are hoping to strengthen with Bill C-20. Canadians can also be assured that the government takes the protection of children seriously and is ensuring we keep pace with technological advances.
I would like to address some of the government initiatives to protect our children from sexual exploitation. If we look at Bill C-20, among the various provisions, it proposes to limit the existing defences for child pornography. It proposes to strengthen the Criminal Code by expanding the current definition of written child pornography. It also proposes to increase the maximum penalty for sexual exploitation of children from 5 years to 10.
It maintains Canada's status as having some of the toughest child pornography legislation in the world, but we have done other things. Members who are sitting in the House now may remember that on December 11, 2002, the government tabled Bill C-23, the sex offender information registration act. It is before the committee on justice. I am pleased that we dealt with it this morning and hopefully it will be reported back to the House either today or shortly.
Bill C-23 proposes to establish a national sex offender database. The database would contain information on convicted sex offenders and would assist police across the country who investigate crimes of a sexual nature by providing them with rapid access to vital current information of convicted sex offenders.
We have Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, which received royal assent on June 4, 2002. What are some of its provisions? It created a new offence to target criminals who use the Internet to lure and exploit children for sexual purposes. It made it a crime to transmit, make available, export and intentionally access child pornography on the Internet. It also allowed judges to order the deletion of child pornography posted on computer systems in Canada.
This was a power or an authority that the judges did not have prior to the royal assent of Bill C-15A. It allowed judges to order forfeiture of materials or equipment used in the commission of a child pornography offence. Here again, this provided new authority to judges which they did not have before.
(1300)
It also enhanced the ability of judges to keep known sex offenders away from children by making prohibition orders, long term offender designations and one year peace bonds available for offences relating to child pornography and the Internet.
Finally, another of the provisions amended the child sex tourism act, which had been enacted in 1997, to simplify the process of prosecuting Canadians who sexually assault children in other countries. I think that is testimony to the gravity and the seriousness with which the government takes its responsibility to protect our most vulnerable citizens, our children.
That is not all. Since 1993, we have introduced other changes designed to protect our children or to enhance the protections that we have for our children, such as, for instance, amending the Criminal Code to toughen the laws on child prostitution and child sex tourism, which I just mentioned. We strengthened it again under Bill C-15A. We amended the Criminal Code to ensure that peace bonds keep abusers away from women and children. We passed legislation to enable criminal records of pardoned sex offenders to be available for background checks. We passed legislation to change the parole and corrections systems so that sex offenders serve until the end of their sentence.
Those are just a couple of example of provisions, measures, steps and legislative changes that the government has taken to strengthen the protections that we have for our children in order to ensure that we do everything we can to eliminate sexual exploitation of our children, and that when we do uncover it and find it, it is properly addressed and those who commit it are properly punished.
It is so important for us to look at and deal seriously with this issue. I honestly believe that our government has done so. I have not listened to all the speeches or the participation in the debate of all members of the opposition and members on the government side who have participated; I have only been able to listen to that of the member for Provencher. I found some of the issues he raised to be very pertinent, but I disagree with him when he says that they are not addressed by Bill C-20. I believe they are addressed.
There is one issue that I think most if not all of the witnesses who came before the justice committee spoke to. I am a member of the justice committee and I have had the privilege of participating in these sessions where we have conducted consultations on Bill C-20. It is the issue of the public good defence. There has been some confusion on the part of some witnesses, but there has been clarity on the part of other witnesses. It is clear that the clarity brought forward by what I would say is a consensus of witnesses is that the government may do well to look again at the dispositions or the sections in Bill C-20 that talk about public good and bring more clarity to them to ensure that the bill does in fact ensure protection of our children from sexual exploitation. On that, I think the member for Provencher gave an accurate accounting of what we heard from a large majority of witnesses. I think the government would do well to look at that piece of it.
However, on the rest of Bill C-20, I think that the overall majority of the witnesses who came before us, if not all, said that this is needed legislation. They commended the government in going forward on the legislation. They were in agreement that the legislation is needed, that it is a positive measure and that they wanted to see Bill C-20 adopted. However, they wanted to see clarity brought to the public defence issue. On that issue, there was agreement among a lot of the witnesses.
(1305)
I will conclude now. I still have five minutes but will not repeat what I have said as I think the statements and points I have made are very clear. I think that any member in the House who listened to what I had to say would understand very clearly where I am coming from and what issues I feel are important and are being addressed by Bill C-20. As well, they would understand the measures and the steps that the government has taken since 1993 to continually strengthen the protection of our most vulnerable citizens, our children, and to strengthen Criminal Code provisions to ensure that those who would sexually exploit our children are properly caught, properly charged, have a fair hearing before the proper courts and, when convicted, receive the proper sentencing.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in my comment I want to reflect on a situation that occurred in our province of Saskatchewan this past year. A 12 year old girl was sexually assaulted. Three men in their twenties were charged. The trial took place in Melfort. One man was convicted and two were acquitted.
The decision to acquit those two individuals was very controversial in Saskatchewan. The public backlash was massive and it united aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.
In the trial, the defence used by the accused and the instructions to the jury on the matter referred to the matter of the age of the victim. The argument used was that they believed she was 14 or older when she was in fact 12 years of age.
I recall the Minister of Justice saying on that particular issue, when we had a motion before the House on it, that it was far too complicated to be dealt with here, that it was a very complicated issue. I would suggest that the inaction of this government caused a huge injustice in that trial and that perhaps two individuals are walking free in our society today who should not be.
Does the member now see the merit in looking at this age of consent and moving it up to a reasonable level, to at least 16, for one purpose, that of protecting our children from abuse and from sexual assaults like that in the case to which I have just referred?
(1310)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the privilege of actually following the case the member is talking about. When I say following the case, I mean actually following all the testimony during the trial itself and then the verdict and the reasons for the verdict.
However, on that issue, obviously it is horrendous for any child to be taken advantage of sexually, but putting that particular case aside and simply dealing with the question of age of consent, I am a mother. I have a daughter who will be 11 years old next year. As a mother, and I do not mean to trivialize the question, I would love to have the age of consent at 25. For me personally as a mother, I do find that the age of consent at 14 is too low. I would be more than prepared to look at raising the age of consent, possibly to 16.
However, I do not think at this point in time that this is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with Bill C-20. We are dealing with sexual exploitation of children. I think that age of consent has to be dealt with in another debate. The reason I say it would need to be dealt with in another debate is that I am aware that depending on which province one is in there is a different age requirement for marriage, for instance. I think we have to look at all of that issue.
I would not at this time address the age of consent, as the member opposite would like, in Bill C-20. I would say that we as Parliament and as a society should begin a debate on the issue of age of consent, making it separate from Bill C-20. If there develops a real consensus among Canadians that the age of consent should be changed from where it now stands, then we would take in the appropriate legislative changes. The legislative changes would not just be those that are addressed by Bill C-20. There would be a whole host of legislation. In some cases that legislation may actually be civil legislation and come under provincial jurisdiction.
So on the issue of whether or not there should be a debate on age of consent for sexual activity, yes, it is a debate that we certainly could have in our society and in this House, but I do not think that now is the time. I think we need to support Bill C-20 and get it adopted so that the criminal dispositions that will protect our children will be reinforced.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to the speech. One thing rather amazed me. The member is a person of some authority, I suppose, as she is a member of the justice committee and she has been studying these issues, but in that whole speech I was not able to find out whether or not she would be supporting this motion today.
She spoke on both sides of the issue at various times. Every once in a while I thought, “Yes, she will be supporting this motion today”. This is a really good motion today. We are talking about stopping the sexual exploitation of children. I thought, “Wow, she is going to vote for it. She is going to support it”. Then a few minutes later, there was all that equivocation.
If she will be voting against this, I would really like her to explain whether she in fact condones the use of children in depictions of sexual acts, either with other children or with adults, and whether somehow in our society it is in the public interest and the public good if that is done.
Therefore, I would urge her to vote in favour of this motion today and I would like her to state that she will be doing so in order to give leadership to all those other colleagues of hers over there who may be similarly vacillating.
(1315)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made myself clear but obviously I did not. I think the motion is a good motion and that it should be supported, as Bill C-20 should be supported. The motion reads:
|
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children. |
I agree with that and I think Bill C-20 does exactly that. Now I understand that the members in the official opposition do not agree that Bill C-20 does in fact do what their motion calls for but I disagree with them. I think Bill C-20 does do what the motion calls for.
Therefore I think the motion is a good one. I support it and I support Bill C-20.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member directly whether she will be voting yes to the motion tonight. She said that she supports it but that she also supports Bill C-20. Some of us have been left with the impression that perhaps that may be an out; that supporting Bill C-20, the government's bill on this issue, would then allow for her to take an out on this.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is ascribing Machiavellian characteristics to me that simply are not there. Anyone who has seen me and listened to me in the House since 1997 knows that I am very direct. If I say I support the motion, it means I support the motion, which means that when the vote is called I vote in favour.
I am amazed that it was not clear to members of the opposite side. The only thing I can believe is that they are ascribing to me characteristics that they themselves have, which is non-clarity and Machiavellian philosophy and characteristics. I am very direct. If I say I support something I support it.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for those who are listening, we are having one of those but discussions in the House of Commons; that is, I agree but something else is changing my mind.
It is a wonder Canadians can listen to this. It must be frustrating for them. What is wrong with this philosophy is that members on both sides agree and yet the government stands up and says that it agrees but that it cannot do that right now for some reason. The difference between this side and that side is that we want to see some action, not just words.
I have long felt that the country is into a moral and ethical crisis on a number of issues, some of which were mentioned. Even on the issue of prostitution, which the government says should not be legalized, the Liberals have a bill in the House right now that would anticipate legalizing prostitution under the name of harm reduction. We have heard that before on drugs.
I am here to say that prostitution is not a form of harm reduction. It is a form of abuse of women. The difficulty I have is that on that side the members say that they do not feel that prostitution should be put into legislation, and yet they are working on it. That is one of those but discussions.
It is the same with the age of sexual consent. I just heard the parliamentary secretary say that the age of sexual consent was too low and that she was more than prepared to raise it but that we could not do it right now because we have to work on that one. The Liberals have had 10 years in government. If they are prepared to raise it, why can they not raise it?
I could give a litany of the issues I have dealt with concerning younger kids under the age of sexual consent who are living with four or five men over the age of 30 and 40 who are using them to sell drugs, using them for sex and using them to sell themselves. Does the House know why they do it? They do it because 14, 15 and 16 year olds are young offenders.
The government says that the age of 14 and over is the age of sexual consent. That is the problem with it. We have been explaining that for 10 years. Yes, the Liberals agree with it but they will not change it.
We have seen a litany of other issues in the House. Drugs is one of the issues in which I have been involved from day one. The government says that it does not agree with drugs and that it does not want to promote that idea, and yet it promotes the idea of an injection site, not just in Vancouver but in Toronto and Montreal as well.
What the government is saying is that it disagrees with people using drugs but then it promotes the idea of having a place to shoot up in a bubble zone around that place. What kind of contradiction of terms is the Government of Canada presenting to us? These are contradictions.
I want to talk about pornography but I also want to mention the sex offender registry, the legislation that I actually wrote three and a half years ago. When we as an opposition party introduced it in the House of Commons all we heard was that we do not need it because we already have it. Guess what the Liberals did? They created a sex offender registry, after being dragged through the knot hole by every victim's rights groups, police associations and the Canadian Alliance. It is unbelievable that they can stand there and say that we can have this, but.
I want to talk about pornography which is the topic of the motion introduced by my colleague. One of the interesting things in Bill C-20, the bill on pornography, is the issuance of maximum sentencing. The government did the very same thing with the marijuana legislation; maximum sentencing.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
(1320)
Maximum sentences are okay. However it is minimum sentences that are the problem. When we bring up issues in child pornography legislation and say that we will toughen it up and give maximum sentences, that is the upper limit.
I want to bring forward a case, and although I do not like reading it I ask the House to consider it. If the government were to give maximum sentences for child pornography and not minimum sentences, then why on earth would a judge hand out such a sentence. Let me read this case to the House.
Members of the OPP child pornography unit are outraged that the Ontario Court of Appeal shot down the crown's attempt to appeal a house arrest given to a Newmarket man convicted of possession and distribution of vile and disgusting child pornography.
Randy Weber, the man who had the pornography, was convicted last February of possession and distribution of images of little children being bound, gagged and forced to have sex with men. He was given a conditional sentence of 14 months, otherwise known as house arrest. He was basically told to go home and think about what he had done.
The government has been telling us that it is going to give maximum sentences. What is the good of a maximum sentence if the judge will not apply it? A conditional sentence for something of this nature is unacceptable.
To continue on, among the images viewed in court by the justice was one that revealed a four year old child, weeping and struggling, with her hands bound and her neck leashed with a dog collar while an adult male sexually assaulted her. Another image revealed an eight year old girl, tied, gagged, blindfolded and hung upside down. The video clip with sound revealed a toddler who could be heard weeping and yelling “stop, stop, stop”. The judge on that case gave the minimum sentence: a conditional sentence. The man was told to go home and think about what he had done.
If the government really believes that child pornography is a bad thing, then it must do something constructive about it. It should not talk about giving maximum sentences if the courtrooms of Canada are only giving minimums.
What I just read to the House is totally unacceptable. The government should be doing something about this. It should raise the floor on the sentences. People with this kind of disgusting behaviour should not be let off with conditional sentences.
What is wrong is that there are many of these cases. The government has said that Bill C-20 would provide maximum sentences but that is not good enough. That is just a charade.
The government has talked about providing maximum sentences in drug cases. The Prime Minister has agreed to maximum sentences but that an individual can have a joint in one hand, a fine in the other and pay that fine any time he wants and nobody will pay any attention to the drugs. Maximum sentences are not good enough. Minimums are the order of the day.
A control room operator at the Bruce nuclear plant was sentenced to one year in jail yesterday for possession and distribution of disgusting, degrading and haunting computer images of child pornography and nude women who appear to have been hideously murdered. The court heard that computer images showing children being raped by adults were among some of the things that had actually happened. The fellow received a year in jail and will be out within six to seven months. That is all the time he has received for that crime, and yet the government has said it is looking after this issue and will give maximum sentences.
The problem is that our society has a moral and an ethical crisis on its hands and the legislation being delivered into the House of Commons is not adequate.
I will give members one last situation.
(1325)
I visit prisons on fairly frequent occasions. I walked into a maximum security prison the other day where sex offenders are imprisoned. On the floors, the ceilings and the walls of these cells were very explicit pictures of women and children. I asked the warden why this was so. After all, they have rules that say they cannot have these on the cell walls. He apologized and said that they would be taken down. Where are the rules from the government?
I know my time is over. I can only say, that these bills, which come through the House, are so much drivel unless they actually mean something to the average Canadian and victims on the street, and they do not.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech very intensely. I too have travelled quite extensively to prisons, normally with the member for Wild Rose, the member who introduced this motion. I have seen what the other member described on prison walls and on ceilings. I also agree in regard to the sentencing.
Does the member recall when the laws were changed? We could go right back to capital punishment when people were supposed to get 25 years or life imprisonment. The problem with Canada today is there is no such thing as truth in sentencing. When the government says that it will put the maximum sentence in force, it absolutely gives no confidence to the Canadian public as a whole.
After sitting through some of the police evidence, as the member has done, and having seen some of the sickening details that were presented to us, I do not know how a government with any conscience could allow this to keep on going. To say that it will be addressed by the courts and not by us in the House is wrong.
What is the member's outlook on truth in sentencing?
(1330)
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague brought that up because truth in sentencing is exactly what most of the victims of crime see as a big problem. The government comes in and says that it will give a maximum, let us say nine years, for some of the things that I read in the House. An individual would get nine years but he is guaranteed to be out in six years. He is very likely to be out walking the streets on escorted temporary absences or unescorted temporary absences within two years, and so on and so forth.
The further difficulty with that is sex offenders, who have about a 40% recidivism rate, are put into facilities based on nine year sentences, knowing the offenders will get out in likely three or four years. They are cascaded down so fast that they do not get enough rehabilitation to prepare for the street again.
What we are doing is turning sex offenders back out in the street unprepared for society because the sentence that society thought the offenders had in the first place was a lot less than what they actually got.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today I speak in favour of the Canadian Alliance brought forward by the member for Wild Rose, a motion to address the growing problem surrounding child pornography.
I have spoken in the House many times on issues that frustrate me, bother me and annoy me, but this one sickens me. I do not think it is because I am a mother or a grandmother, or even a female. I believe the idea of child pornography sickens most Canadians.
I attended a briefing sponsored by the member for Wild Rose where we met frontline police officers from Toronto who must track down and prosecute the makers and distributors of child pornography. These officers must view every picture, number it and catalogue it. The stress that this causes was indescribable. We saw some of those pictures, which they see on a daily basis, and I have not been able to drive those disturbing images from my memory ever since. They are truly sickening. They are extremely unsettling.
These are the same officers who must spend hours and hours a day viewing these disturbing images. Their commitment to our children is the only comfort that they get from their task. The Government of Canada must respond to their appeals for more law enforcement resources. We need to change Canada's laws to ensure that those who distribute and use child pornography are prosecuted.
Despite the empty arguments of those who support child pornography, it is not possible to make this material without causing harm. It is no different than any other form of child abuse.
One female victim of child pornography wrote:
|
When I was 8 years old my father made me look at pictures that showed girls doing sexual things to men in books. I went along with him, not knowing any better. He continued to rape me and use me for 4 years while using these books. Now at 16 I have found that I have a serious STD that has no cure. I have been with no one but my father. What will I tell my husband someday? I may die from this disease. Pornography has ruined my life. |
She is 16 years old. How people who engage in this behaviour can believe they are normal is beyond me. How can a father give his 12 year old daughter a sexually transmitted disease not get her to a doctor for help? These actions harm the affected children for many years to come.
Another young victim wrote:
|
I am 13 years old. You could say that I am an average teenager, except for one fact. I am a victim of pornography. When I was very small, my real Dad sexually abused me while he was watching a pornographic video. I lost my innocence to my real Dad when he chose to use me for his own self-fulfilling needs. The things he did to me happened while he watched pornography. What did I do to deserve this? I go through times of depression, confusion, anorexia and guilt. My Mom says it was not my fault, but I still wonder--wasn't I good enough or perfect enough. I am finding that there are many others like me. People say there is no harm to pornography. I say they are wrong. |
Victims of this sexual abuse do their best to avoid repeating the cycle, but the statistics tell us they are not as successful as one would hope. Most victims are saddled with a lifetime of insecurity, mistrust, sexual dysfunction, sexual addictions, intimacy issues and all the related stress and health disorders.
One victim wrote:
|
When I was six years old my Great Uncle started showing me pictures of men and women in all kinds of pornographic situations. As a child of divorced and busy parents I was so eager for any kind of attention I could get--even his kind. He started out teaching me to masturbate (so I wouldn't be physically damaged when he started to molest me). I only saw him every other week or so but by the time I was seven when we (my mom, my grandmother and I) moved in with him, I knew everything that was in those magazines and how to do them. |
(1335)
|
He started molesting me soon after we moved in and of course he wanted to do everything that those people did. I just tried to pretend I wasn't there. This knowledge damaged me for most of my life. We lived there for a year and I finally told a friend what was happening and she convinced me it wasn't my fault and that I should tell my father. Well my Dad got the abuse stopped by threatening to go to court with it but then finally had to take over my custody because my Mom didn't believe me and let my uncle come over to the house around me again. |
|
Through me teenage years I abused alcohol and was very promiscuous. My view of myself was very warped. I married my husband at 17 and because of this degrading view of myself I continued to abuse alcohol and started a long string of affairs. I felt I was nothing more than a hooker so I acted like one. |
|
Well to make a long story short 7 years ago I found I was pregnant and I didn't know if it was my husband's or the other man I was seeing at the time. I called my husband to ask him what to do (we were only a signature away from divorce) and God was in control. This man who had seen me cheat and lie to him still didn't want a divorce. He wanted to reconcile and raise the child together as a family. Well being responsible for someone other than myself woke me up and I was determined to be a better parent to my child than mine were. |
What should we do as a society and a government to stop this? We can crack down on the people who produce and distribute child pornography as a first step.
In fact in a recent survey of my constituents, when asked if those caught with child pornography should be included in a national sex offender registry, 98% said, yes. Support for raising the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years was almost unanimous, at 96%. Many even suggested raising it to 18.
When asked if pornography increased the likelihood of child sexual exploitation, 88% agreed and of my constituents who responded to the survey, 100% wanted child pornography banned in Canada.
I would like to go back to the issue of the national sex offender registry and the inclusion of producers and distributors of child pornography.
The Canadian Alliance has called for such a registry for a long time. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has responded with a pathetic, watered down version. It is unbelievable that the John Robin Sharpes of this world will not be placed on the list.
Every living person who has been convicted of a sex crime should be included in the registry for life. I am looking forward to hearing the Liberal reasoning why they should not be.
How we deal with the issue of child pornography is not a measure of our freedoms of expression, but it is a measure of how much importance we place on the protection of our children.
While not everyone who looks at pornography is a rapist or pedophile, virtually every single rapist and pedophile is caught with pornography and often it includes child pornography. We know that viewing large quantities of pornography provides its reader with a distorted view of the real world around them. It skews their normal social relations. Why would we not take the opportunity to prevent this when given the chance?
Many of those who view large quantities of pornography do not even know they are in trouble.
Here is Tom's story:
|
As a former addict, there is no question in my mind that pornography has a profound impact on a person viewing the material. It is subtle and has a latency period, not always an immediate impact, on the individual. My sexual addiction reached its height when I finally decided to act out all those images I had been taking in over the years...I was arrested for attempted rape. The attack was my responsibility, but there is no doubt that pornography was the fuel, the drug I used to prepare for my crime. I do not think the crime would ever have occurred without it. |
We have a chance today to do something good for both the victims and the perpetrators of child pornography. We have a chance to make our communities safer, our children safer.
I encourage my colleagues to stand up in support of the motion and make a very positive difference today for all Canadians.
(1340)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave some heart wrenching stories.
The real issue at heart in our debate today is that we are not dealing with only another bill or law. It is at a completely different level than when we debate whether or not taxes should be at 16% or 17%. Today we are dealing with the very heart and life of individuals.
When I think of the implications of the outcome of the vote today, I cannot think of any reason why anyone on the other side would hesitate to vote in favour of the motion and then do everything possible to implement the terms of the motion.
Does my colleague have any comment on the fact that the Liberal members at this stage seem to have dropped out of the debate? There has been nothing but speeches from the Canadian Alliance for the last number of hours. The Liberals have had nothing to say. Obviously they are caught in a quandary. They cannot defend Bill C-20, yet for some reason they are hesitant to participate and say that this is a good motion and let us go for it.
I would appreciate my colleague's comments on the lack of participation by the Liberals on this very important issue.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is a lack of leadership by the Liberal government. We are looking at their inability to stand up and say to Canadians that they will do something right for a change. The Liberals are taking the lamb position and saying that they will follow what the minister is telling them to do. They will not do what is right for Canadian children.
The hon. member for Wild Rose brought the police officers from Toronto and all that was needed was to see the pictures of those beautiful little children being abused so badly. I will never get that little girl's blue eyes out of my mind for as long as I live. I will never forget the beautiful little girl with the blonde curly hair being abused so badly.
That the Liberal members do not stand up for our children I think is indefensible. For them to state that Bill C-20 will handle these atrocities is a disgusting display of what the Liberal members believe in.
(1345)
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was quite impressed with the speech of my colleague. I was particularly impressed with the graphic description and stories that some people tell about their lives.
I cannot help but recall the provision in Bill C-20 that amends the Criminal Code to actually agree that there shall be a defence of the possession of child pornography if it is in the public good.
I ask every colleague in the House, having listened to the kind of stories that my hon. colleague has expressed to us, how could anyone in their right mind ever consider anything like that to be in the public good? How could that somehow lift the moral feelings of people? How could that somehow encourage ethical behaviour? How could it somehow create greater commitment to family life, greater love and appreciation for members of the family? How could anything like that ever be in the public good?
Would my colleague speak to that? It seems to me there is something extremely warped in making that kind of a comment.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, there should not be any provision for artistic merit in child pornography. I believe that every child is very valuable. Child pornography is not anything that I would ever want any artist to bring forward or show Canadians. What I saw from the police officers in Toronto was absolutely disgusting and vile. The people who do that are sex offenders from the very start.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last week I asked a question in question period of the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification and he responded by sending me a letter which he tabled in the House in both official languages. I have responded to the secretary of state and I would therefore like to table my response in the House in both official languages.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for St. Albert to table his response?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a very important one. We have discussed this subject matter on a couple of occasions. Bill C-20 brought substantial debate to this place with regard to matters such as artistic merit, public good, exploitation, et cetera.
The essence of the motion is that all defences for the possession of child pornography be eliminated. It is an excellent idea and we should do it. We understand that law enforcement officers and others who are working to resolve or deal with the issue would be authorized to have possession, but it is those who would exploit children through that possession who are the targets.
I am told that a total crackdown on child pornography is happening in other jurisdictions, for example, in the U.K. From the type of responses it is getting, it is sending out a strong message of deterrence and a message that embraces public protection. It is probably the biggest change from what I can see in the Canadian experience. That is why I believe that in itself it is what we should be doing in Canada.
In our justice system sentences available to judges should send a message of deterrence, keeping in mind the balance necessary at least to try to rehabilitate. In this case, with regard to the issues of child pornography and individuals who engage in the manufacture, production and proliferation of child pornography, just as those involved in pedophilia and sexual assaults, the chances for rehabilitation are very small.
Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention I am going to split my time with the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
If there is very little chance of rehabilitation, then clearly the emphasis has to be put on public protection. I think that is what the member for Wild Rose has been telling this place for years. It is about time we listened to him.
There was a question posed during the debate on Bill C-30, which I think in itself was a very good debate. The question was what possible public good or merit could be found in something that exploits children? How is it that lawyers actually come up with this terminology? How do they think the public would respond when someone is trying to play both sides of the fence rather than taking a position? What ever happened to a proactive legislative system that addressed problems in a proactive way, rather than trying to be all things to all people at all times? It means that we more often fail than we pass the test of whether or not our legislation is effective.
* * *
(1350)
Points of Order
Tabling of Document
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a point of order, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent among the parties now for me to table the letter, my response to the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification, in both official languages.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Does the hon. member for St. Albert have unanimous consent to table his response?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Supply
Allotted Day--Child Pornography
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in looking back at some of that debate, another statement caught my attention and it probably is reflective of the attitude of the House. That is that the public good, whatever that nebulous concept is, can never be served where there is a tolerance for child pornography. The existence of that tolerance is really at issue.
I do not think there is any more important issue we could address when it comes to the protection of children, those who are unable to protect themselves, those who would be the victims of exploitation. We have to be their voice. Where is the leadership? Have we shown leadership? How can we show leadership? We have to ask those questions.
I asked a question earlier of the member for Wild Rose. In my experience it appears that lawyers look at these questions in a very sterile environment and a very mechanical way. They do not seem to be very reflective of social and moral values. They do not seem to be sensitive to the victim. They seem to continue to look for ways to argue how to balance the interests of the victim and the perpetrator because of the charter of rights.
Where exactly does the charter of rights say that it is more important to balance the interests of a criminal and a victim? I thought the charter was there to protect the affirmative rights of Canadians, the rights to be protected. How did the paradigm shift and all of a sudden the charter has been interpreted in so many different ways? How is it that we are now seized with the issue of judicial activism?
On same sex marriage issues, what happened in the Ontario Court of Appeal that after hearing the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Canada three judges could say that the traditional definition of marriage being the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others is unconstitutional? Marriage existed before the Constitution. How could something be unconstitutional?
We are in a spiral. When these issues come forward where charter arguments have been made, it is clear that we are losing the battle unless we seize the day. We need to seize the day. We need to express ourselves in a manner which reflects not only the founding principles of justice, but also which fairly reflects the social, moral and family values of Canadians.
Who in this place is not going to put the interests of a child ahead of the interests of a perpetrator or someone who possesses child pornography? Who is going to balance that?
When the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the abortion issue, it made a decision to put the rights of the mother ahead of the rights of the unborn child. It was not a matter of when life begins. It was not a matter of was there a child or were there rights for that child. The judges did not decide. They did not opine on that. They made a decision that they would put the rights of one party ahead of another.
If we can do that, if the courts can do that, why can we not put the rights of children ahead of the rights of those who possess child pornography? Why do we have to balance it? We did not balance the interests of the unborn. We do not have to.
If that is the way it works, let us apply the laws consistently. Let us make sure that the rights of children are put ahead of the rights of those who believe there is some artistic merit, who somehow believe there is some public good in what they do. The very existence of child pornography necessarily means that a child has been abused. I do not know if there is a member in this place who would not agree with that.
Why is it then that we cannot embrace a motion like this one which effectively reflects that commitment, that understanding and that support? We all have to support this motion to send a message to those in the justice system, to send a message to the courts so that Parliament, the supreme court of the land will have its views known. Then we can effectively deal with the erosion of the rights of Canadians because of judicial activism.
(1355)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): We will now move on to members' statements. The hon. member for Mississauga South will have five minutes remaining in questions and comments after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Don Deacon
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): 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.
* * *
Rural Woman of the Year
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to a constituent of mine: Anthea Archer. Anthea, along with her husband Darrel, was caught up in the unfortunate consequences of mad cow disease when a reported case in Denmark meant the destruction of their water buffalo herd by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency a couple of years ago.
This scenario sounds all too familiar to beef producers across the country, who are still waiting for the government to persuade the Americans to open the border, and to alpaca and llama farmers in my riding, who, amazingly, have also had their wool exports curtailed because of this mess.
Despite an uncaring federal government and little help from traditional financial institutions, Anthea has been tenacious in her desire to stick to the original plan and, with her husband, build the first water buffalo herd in Canada. This innovative entrepreneurial business will provide cheese and meat, low in fat and rich in protein.
Anthea recently received the Rural Woman of the Year award from the South Vancouver Island Women's Institute. I salute her as a Canadian who has shown much grace under fire and the ability to move on in spite of the challenges she has faced. I say well done, Anthea. We in the Cowichan Valley are proud of her work.
* * *
(1400)
Assisted Human Reproduction
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for too long Canadian women and their children have waited for Parliament to pass legislation on assisted human reproduction and genetic technologies.
Bill C-13 is the result of more than a decade of careful consideration and consultation that is designed to protect the health and safety of women and the children born to them through assisted human reproduction.
This legislation is all about hope: hope for couples struggling with infertility and hope for Canadians with disabilities such as Parkinson's, MS and leukemia. And let us not forget the children born with juvenile diabetes, who would benefit from research into the use of stem cells to treat these diseases. An open letter released on October 25 by 65 leading health care experts calls on Parliament to pass Bill C-13.
As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to put in place a framework to regulate aspects of reproductive technology and to act now in the best interests of hundreds of Canadian families who have waited so long for this to happen.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when nine year old Cecilia Zhang was abducted from her bedroom last week, it seemed as if not only her family and her community but also our entire country started holding our breath. We are all praying for her safe return, but Canada's children need more than prayers. They need good laws to protect them from abuse. Instead, this Liberal government has put forward Bill C-20, which still allows the defence of “public good” for child pornographers.
We need to give our police the tools they need to catch child abusers. Instead, Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino recently told an international group that he was ashamed of Canada's weak efforts to protect our children.
Finally, we need judges to sentence child abusers to maximum penalties instead of some actually getting house arrest.
This Liberal government is totally out of step with the concerns of Canadians in its disgustingly weak efforts to protect what we all hold dearest: our children.
* * *
Breast Cancer Awareness Month
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and an opportunity for me to thank a Burlington constituent for his work in raising money to fight this disease.
Seven years ago, Paul DeKort founded Clothing for Charity, whose bins collect used clothing donations. Clothes are distributed free of charge to women's shelters or sold to textile recyclers, with a substantial portion of the proceeds donated to the Breast Cancer Health Fund of Canada.
Clothing for Charity has donated over $100,000 to Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington for it to buy a breast cancer diagnostic machine.
Mr. DeKort has also provided substantial assistance to an awesome Burlington organization: Breast Cancer Support Services. His recent donation of $175,000 enabled BCSS to purchase a secure and welcoming home from which to operate.
I ask colleagues to please join me in thanking Mr. DeKort for his outstanding efforts to make a real difference in the fight against breast cancer.
* * *
Landmines
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last night I attended a very special dinner, the first of many of “The Night of a Thousand Dinners” to raise money for the removal of landmines.
Every year the Canadian Landmine Foundation and Adopt-a-Minefield ask individuals to host an event around the first Thursday in November. Guests bring donations toward landmine removal projects in six countries.
While it only costs $3 to plant a landmine, it requires $1,000 to remove one. Canada took the lead in the Ottawa treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, but there are still 45 million to 50 million landmines in the ground in at least 70 countries. They kill or maim over 15,000 people every year. The true tragedy of landmines is that they continue to destroy lives, often those of innocent children, long after the conflict has ended.
We as Canadians are all too personally familiar with the terrible effects of landmines, as just a few weeks ago we saw two of our own brave soldiers become victims.
I encourage my fellow parliamentarians and all Canadians to follow the lead of our colleagues in the other place and sponsor a landmine dinner this year.
* * *
(1405)
William Kalleo
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise to pay respects to William Kalleo of Nain, Labrador.
William was a pioneer broadcaster who was devoted to serving the Labrador Inuit. He was forceful as an interviewer, excelled as a translator, and was an eloquent advocate for his people and language.
Whenever I was in Nain I looked forward to coffee and conversation not only with William the journalist but also with William the community leader. He was always generous with his time and his spirit.
While he fought and lost the battle with cancer, his spirit will live on. To his family and his colleagues at the OKalaKatiget Society, I wish to express the condolences of the people of Labrador.
Atsunai ilannâk. Goodbye, old friend.
* * *
[Translation]
Réseau des organisateurs de spectacles de l'est du Québec
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this year, the Réseau des organisateurs de spectacles de l'est du Québec, or ROSEQ for short, is celebrating its 25th anniversary.
Many vocal artists gathered in Rimouski for the occasion to show the solidarity of this network, which, since 1978, has brought distributors out of their isolation and ensured quality performances throughout the eastern Quebec region. ROSEQ, the oldest and largest such network in Quebec, which began with 4 distributors and now has 32, has uncovered talented artists year after year.
Bravo to this collaboration of artists and those behind the scenes, who have blended their structural differences and their means of expression with creativity and talent and who seem to be here for a long time.
Bravo to ROSEQ and our thanks to arts promoters in eastern Quebec.
* * *
The Homeless
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada launched the National Homelessness Initiative in December 1999 to support communities in their activities to help homeless people. Building on the successes achieved by communities, the government announced $405 million over three years to continue its commitment to addressing homelessness
On October 23, 2003, the Minister of Labour and Federal Coordinator on Homelessness, went to Thetford Mines to announce $135,000 in funding for the Réseaux d'entraide Amiante organization.
The funding will help the organization purchase and renovate a building to meet the basic needs of the youth, including six supportive housing units as well as support and crisis intervention services.
Réseaux d'entraide Amiante will also organize activities that will stimulate the youth and will motivate them to take an active part in the community.
The Société d’habitation du Québec and the City of Thetford Mines are also providing funding. I have a great deal of respect for this type of partnership, which makes a difference in our communities.
* * *
[English]
Greece
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on October 28, 1940, the Greek government refused demands from Nazi Germany to occupy Greece.
On October 28, 1940, Greece said no to Nazi Germany.
On October 28, 1940, Greece, this small country in the Mediterranean, entered World War II. Greece joined the Allied forces.
On behalf of the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, I would like to commend all those who gave their lives for peace, justice and equality. Greeks fought in this terrible war alongside many Canadian troops.
Canadians of Greek origin remember this day as the day of Ohi. I would like to pay tribute to all the brave young soldiers who put their country ahead of everything else. Greece and Canada will always remember their fight for freedom.
* * *
National Library Day
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the summit on school libraries held in Ottawa last June, Roch Carrier, National Librarian of Canada, proclaimed National Library Day as the fourth Monday in October to coincide with International Library School Day.
[Translation]
This year, the theme of International School Library Day is “Breaking Down Barriers”. This day highlights the importance of school libraries in overcoming the barriers that often prevent students from achieving their full potential.
School libraries give our young people an opportunity to become familiar with the process of seeking information through reading and research. They represent a investment that pays lifetime dividends for our youth.
[English]
The Government of Canada is proud to recognize the importance of school libraries in the education of our children.
* * *
(1410)
Volunteers
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I rose to support Bill C-325, a private member's bill that would have allowed volunteer emergency service workers, such as firefighters, to claim a much deserved tax credit in recognition of the tireless service they provide the community.
After spending 14 years as a volunteer fireman, I have a firsthand appreciation for the tremendous work these groups contribute to our society and know all too well how poorly these volunteers are compensated financially.
The Liberal government has greatly reduced services offered to Canadians and volunteers are being called upon to pick up the slack. It can be easy to forget just how many Canadians, especially in rural Canada, benefit from the service of volunteers.
I want to thank volunteer firefighters right across Canada who give of themselves in order that others may be helped. This was a good bill and should have been passed. I say shame on the government for voting against it.
* * *
[Translation]
Liberal Government
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, ever since the Prime Minister announced his departure date, we have witnessed the total paralysis of the government. It is obvious that the reason for this paralysis is the existence of a parallel government working outside this House.
Ministers no longer even dare to take positions on the subjects addressed in the House for fear of displeasing the member for LaSalle—Émard. It goes without saying that this situation is totally unacceptable.
The democratic balance must be restored as quickly as possible. That is why we are asking all hon. members to vote in favour of our motion calling upon the Prime Minister to leave office as soon as possible after November 14, 2003.
That is the only way to restore real democracy for Quebeckers and all Canadians and in particular, the only way for the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard to shoulder all his responsibilities and, at last, become accountable to the people.
He must stop pulling the strings from behind the curtain and show his true face.
* * *
[English]
Landmines
Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House is well aware, the threat of landmines throughout the world is still causing great injury not only to military personnel but also to the civilian population.
Canada has always taken a lead role in the elimination of the use of landmines. Last night was one example of our efforts with the 3rd annual Senators Against Landmines: Night of a Thousand Dinners.
Cape Breton is also playing a role in eliminating the use of landmines with our own Canadian International Demining Corps under the leadership of Irving Schwartz. I would like to commend the Senators and the participants in last night's event for their contributions to this worthy cause.
I am also proud to recognize two fellow Cape Bretoners whose music is known nationally and internationally. In Ottawa today are fiddler Jerry Holland and piano player Robert Devaux who participated in the success of last night's event. These gentlemen have demonstrated how we can use our talents to make an impact on such a noble cause.
* * *
[Translation]
Acadian Community
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with the 400th anniversary of the founding of Acadia and the third Congrès mondial acadien fast approaching, we have a duty to draw attention to the important contribution made by Acadians to the founding of Canada.
The Acadians' ancestors from France, the mother country, were among the first European colonists in Canada. As a result, the Acadian culture has made an important contribution to Canadian history and is most definitely an important part of the cultural mosaic of this country.
Because of the importance of this 400th anniversary, the Acadian people want to share this major event with all of Canada.
I am therefore joining my voice with the Acadian people and the Société nationale de l'Acadie in calling upon the Canadian government to officially recognize 2004 as the Year of Acadia.
* * *
Landmines
Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, November 6 will be the Night of a Thousand Dinners.
This is an international event to increase public awareness of the dangers of landmines and to raise funds for their removal and for assistance to survivors.
The idea is a simple one. A person hosts a dinner for family or friends. Instead of bringing wine or flowers, each guest makes a donation to mine action.
I would like to congratulate Senator Hubley, who hosted one such dinner last night. The Night of a Thousand Dinners gives us an opportunity to do something that will produce results.
Landmines are a very important world issue. On behalf of the Canadian government, I invite everyone to get involved in this cause. The Night of a Thousand Dinners is an enjoyable way to do something useful.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Member for LaSalle--Émard
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are unsure if they should support a government led by the former finance minister, they are right to ask themselves some questions.
If he does not support the proposed changes to aboriginal governance, what changes does he support? If he does not like the way the Kyoto agreement was foisted on the provinces and Canadian industry, what is his alternative? If he does not like the recent announcement of $700 million for VIA Rail, what exactly are his transportation priorities? If he is unhappy with the results of the same sex marriage debate, why does he say he will do whatever the courts tell him? Why does he promise cuts to all government departments one day, but assure people that there will be no cuts to programs the next? Why does he hold first ministers conferences, promise disaster relief money, chastise the current Prime Minister over foreign policy decisions, and generally usurp the authority of the current government, yet he is not available to the House to be accountable for his parallel government?
Canadians ask themselves these questions and others because they cannot ask them of the former finance minister. That is simply wrong, and that is why all members of Parliament should vote in favour of the motion to transfer authority and, more important, accountability as soon as possible.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Ethics
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister was out of town, he will know that the labour minister apologized for unethical behaviour, the environment minister has apologized, and the industry minister has apologized and asked the ethics counsellor to revisit his actions. However, the Prime Minister floats into town today and says apparently that he thinks he has the right to go to the Irving lodge whenever he feels like it.
Is the Prime Minister reneging on the apologies? Is he actually saying that his ministers' behaviour is acceptable?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said that I put in place a process that did not exist. Ministers, as members of Parliament, have the right to accept an invitation to dinner or to sleep at a place. If they have doubts, they go to the ethics counsellor who gives them advice on whether it is the right thing, yes or no. The system did not exist before.
What I asked was, is that type of problem the biggest problem of the nation? They have all done the right thing; they went to the ethics counsellor and reported publicly.
I have been around the world and on returning to Canada I realize that the only thing that the opposition has in mind is to try to destroy the reputations of all the politicians. I think that the government--
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants us to deal with bigger issues, then give us the leader who has the mandate to deal with them, which is the new leader.
[Translation]
I invite the Prime Minister to take a look at section 20 of his code of conduct. I will read it for the Prime Minister:
|
Gifts...including those described in section 21 that could influence public office holders...shall be declined. |
This refers to gifts of over $200.
Does the Prime Minister have trouble understanding his own code of ethics?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just said that there is a code that everyone follows. If a person has doubts, they should consult the ethics counsellor, who will indicate whether the situation is acceptable or not.
When I hear that the interim leader of the official opposition revealed the source of only 13% of the contributions he received when he ran for leader of his party, I think he has some nerve standing in this House and pointing the finger at people on this side.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the industry minister apparently was given guidelines by the ethics counsellor. He chose to ignore them anyway and now he is going back to him. I guess that is how it works over there.
The Prime Minister seems okay with these ethical lapses. There is a code of conduct. There are clear guidelines. There are not supposed to be any gifts over $200.
I ask the Prime Minister, could he tell the House what undeclared gifts over $200 he has accepted?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a process. Every gift is reported and listed. The staff does that. When I travel, I am offered gifts and they are reported dutifully and truthfully.
The leader of the other party gets up, but it was the members of his party that went to the people of Canada for three elections telling Canadians that they will never accept pensions. After that they turned around and took the money, and they talk about ethics.
(1420)
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister returned to quite a mess from his final farewell--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are on to the next question and the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has the floor.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has returned to quite a mess from his final farewell tour.
As health minister at the time, the industry minister clearly violated the rules by accepting an invitation from Paul Zed, an Irving family member, who was lobbying Health Canada on the very file that the then minister of health was handling, the tobacco labelling law which was part of the government's tobacco strategy.
I say to the Prime Minister, the facts are now proven. The jury is in; the minister is guilty. When will the Prime Minister finally do the right thing and fire his industry minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member, who is up on his feet on ethics, what David Orchard would say about the hon. member's ethics after he signed a document in writing making a promise and double-crossed him, and after that getting up in the House of Commons and talking about ethics. He should be ashamed of himself.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, what an absolutely pathetic answer. It is what we have come to expect. I can say this, it did not cost the Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars like some of the ethical breaches on that side of the House.
The Prime Minister must wish that he had stayed away. The industry minister, the fisheries minister, the labour minister and now the environment minister, practically his entire front bench are mired in scandal, placing themselves in breach of the rules of ethics and withholding key information from the ethics counsellor who is a joke, and we all know it.
In light of this onslaught--
The Speaker: The time for the question has expired. The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for a person to get up from his seat and admit clearly that he double-crossed Mr. Orchard, after making a solemn promise on TV in front of all the nation that he would never make a deal with the opposition, even saying at one time that he would rather run for the separatist party of Nova Scotia than join that gang in front of him; and yet he has the gall to get up today and talk about ethics.
The Speaker: Order, please. I remind all hon. members that this is question period with answers or responses. The Chair has to be able to hear the questions and the answers. The answers and the questions now are causing severe disorder. Think how much worse it would be if something out of order was said that I could not hear.
I urge hon. members to show a little restraint so that we can hear the questions and the answers. Everyone wants to hear them.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie will have the next question.
* * *
Liberal Government
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, because of the behind-the-scenes games the future Liberal leader is playing, the Prime Minister can claim all he wants that he is governing, but he is not the one leading the government any more. His successor has confirmed that his government will be reviewing all the decisions made by the current administration.
So that the government does not spin its tires for another four months, will the Prime Minister, for reasons of state, leave office as quickly as possible, so that the man who is really leading can finally be held accountable to the House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reason of state is this: three years ago, the people of Canada gave the member for Saint-Maurice a mandate to be Prime Minister of Canada for the next five years. That is the reason. Nevertheless, I indicated that I would be leaving in February, and that is what I intend to do. It is clear to everyone.
The successor to the President of the United States is chosen in November and sworn in only at the end of January. So, there is nothing so strange. We are able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
(1425)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the system here is not the same as that in the United States. The reality is that the Prime Minister wanted another mandate. It was his own troops that said no, and it was the member for LaSalle—Émard who pushed him out. That is the reality. What is happening now is that we have a virtual prime minister, but the real decisions are being made by the member for LaSalle—Émard.
In the name of democracy, can he let the true leader of the party come into the House and be accountable for his actions, and let democracy rule here again?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the hon. member is nervous. It is because in the next election, his party will not even have official party status in the House of Commons.
And speaking of leaders, they have had three since I have been leader. We have no lessons to learn from them. Other parties have had eight leaders. We have one until he decides to leave.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if there is one important step for a government, it is the preparation of the budget. Yet the Minister of Finance himself admits he does not control everything in the current budget preparation process.
Will the Prime Minister admit that budget preparations are going on in the parallel government, and that his remaining on the job is creating problems for everyone, because the real policies are coming from outside the government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary committee is meeting. Meetings are being held all across Canada to gather people's opinions on the next budget.
There will certainly be a new finance minister come next February. The budget will again be a good one. Once again, the budget will be a balanced one. The budget for the coming year will make Canada the only country still capable of balancing its books.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may try to justify staying on, despite the actions of the future PM which are undermining his authority. Events, however, speak for themselves.
Will the Prime Minister agree that the decision made by the premiers of Quebec and the provinces to go to his successor for answers on the issue of health care funding are a clear illustration that neither he nor the present finance minister have the necessary authority to provide any kind of answer?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really wonder why the ministers met with the federal finance minister on this matter last week.
Our contacts with them are ongoing. We have a budget. We gave considerable amounts of money for health in the last budget. In February we signed an accord with the provinces. They were very pleased with it, but as always they would like to have more.
Never once in the past ten years has a provincial premier called me to ask “Mr. Prime Minister, could I return some money?” This has never happened yet, and I do not think it is likely to happen any time soon.
* * *
[English]
Ethics
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that the Prime Minister forgets how he treated one of his own stalwarts of close to 40 years, Mr. Herb Gray, when he talks about how members treat each other.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister received any other gifts in excess of $200?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall any gift whatsoever that would be over $200.
In the case in question to which he is referring, the trip with the former Governor General Roméo LeBlanc, any obligation I have is to Mr. LeBlanc, not the Irvings.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is the ministers who set the policy. It is the ministers who are influenced. That is exactly why these guidelines are in place.
I would like to ask the Public Works minister whether he has ever received an undeclared gift of over $200.
(1430)
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge and belief, I filed all the returns required by the ethics commissioner to disclose all these matters in the public domain.
* * *
International Aid
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the House seems preoccupied with gifts over $200 and the role of the member for LaSalle—Émard. Perhaps I could combine the two in a serious question to the Prime Minister by asking him to imagine what a $200 gift of generic drugs would do for a person with AIDS in Africa.
When will the Prime Minister make that happen? When will that legislation come forward? Is it the member for LaSalle—Émard who is holding up this process? Whatever it is, we want it addressed and soon.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious question that needs attention. We have decided that we want to proceed with a change in legislation to ensure that the medication is made available to the people who are suffering from AIDS and other similar types of disease in Africa and elsewhere.
We have been working on this file for a long time. We have been helping, for example, the foundation of former President Clinton on this matter. We have been at the forefront.
I am happy the member from the NDP knows that there are other problems rather than trying to destroy the reputation of members of Parliament.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, no one knows better than the Prime Minister that time is running out for various political agendas. To the extent that this is on his political agenda, I wonder if he could tell the House that he will ensure this kind of change in legislation, which would provide generic drugs for people with AIDS and malaria and other diseases in Africa, will happen before the House adjourns or prorogues.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a complicated file. There is some work to be done and if it can be done before we adjourn, it will be done. If not, it will be done early in the next year.
* * *
Ethics
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am going to avoid the occasion to take a lesson from the man who wrote the book on saying one thing and doing another, and ask the Prime Minister a very direct question.
The ethics counsellor's website indicates the Prime Minister has not reported any gifts since November 19, 2001. Has the Prime Minister received any gifts with a value over $200 since November 2001, almost three years ago?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a process on that. I do not know if it has been filed. Every one has been reported and every one will be reported. I do not know if there are some lagging in time, but if they arrive there is a person in my office who takes care of that. I do not do the filing myself.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is cabinet members who set policy. It is cabinet members who are influenced. That is why we have guidelines.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. Has the minister ever received any other undeclared gift in excess of $200?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge I have complied with all the requirements, all the guidelines and made all the filings required by the ethics counsellor.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one by one, ministers of the government are apologizing for accepting a $1,500 fishing trip from the Irving family, which is unethical and puts them in an apparent conflict of interest.
My question is for the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the ethics counsellor. What should his successor do for having accepted $100,000 from the Irving family?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, political contributions are known and made public and are used for election campaigns. Everything is done out in the open.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a question of political morality, not a question of rules.
The Minister of Industry is saying that because he accepted a $1,500 trip, he refrained from discussing any issue or making any decisions regarding Irving.
What should the next prime minister do for having accepted $100,000?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, it was his organization that accepted the money, not him personally. Secondly, starting next year, this type of contribution will no longer be possible. The maximum will be $5,000 based on the legislation passed by the House of Commons a few months ago, which will come into effect on January 1.
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, many ministers are admitting to very limited knowledge today.
For the minister of the Treasury Board, the author and defender of ethics in this House, the minister who writes all the rules for everybody else, has the minister, the President of the Treasury Board, ever received undeclared gifts in excess of $200?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the issue of undeclared gifts in breach of the ethics code has been front and centre in the public for some time now. Every minister should be in a position to clearly and unequivocally know if he or she failed to declare those gifts.
Has the Minister of Justice ever failed to declare gifts in excess of $200?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my recollection, the answer is clearly, no. When there is a problem, I ask the ethics counsellor. I am used to dealing with him in a proper manner.
* * *
[Translation]
Agriculture
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture community is unanimous in denouncing the inadequacy of measures to help farmers affected by the mad cow crisis.
Is the federal government, through its minister, prepared to listen to Quebec's Liberal Minister of Agriculture, who is saying that it is essential for the federal government to provide a quick solution to the problems being experienced by producers of cull cattle?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very evident that the government has been listening to the beef industry and the dairy industry in the challenges they have been facing because of the BSE find last May. I have discussed that on a regular basis with those in the cattle industry and in the dairy sector as well. I also discussed it with all the provincial ministers yesterday.
I will continue to do that in order to provide ways to support the marketing and use of older animals in our beef industry.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, farmers do not want words, they want action. This is an urgent situation. The minister does not seem to understand that. Yet, the minister from Quebec understands, people in the opposition understand, and producers of cull cattle understand.
Will the minister take his blinders off and respond to this urgent situation with an emergency program?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition members want government to have discussions with the provinces and with the industry before taking action and that is exactly what we have been doing right from May 20 with regard to this issue.
The federal government has put millions of dollars forward. The provinces have been there. We have been there together. We have worked with the cattlemen, the dairy industry, the processors and the manufacturers. Canadians have supported the situation in Canada.
We will continue to take that approach because it is working.
* * *
Ethics
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for many Canadians $200 is a lot of money. According to Canada's Auditor General and our chief actuary, this year Canada's working poor will be overcharged by more than $200 on their EI premiums.
Has the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada ever received an undeclared gift in excess of $200?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, all my gifts have been declared appropriately under the ethics guidelines.
[Translation]
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Has the minister ever received an undeclared gift worth more than $200?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. One thing is certain, the questions from the opposition today are not worth $200.
* * *
[English]
Arts and Culture
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of talking with Wendy Crewson who last week received a well deserved Gemini Award for best actress in a TV movie. As she said, “Canadian drama is in a rough spot right now”.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House when we can expect more support for Canadian television and film?
(1440)
[Translation]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I can tell him that he is not the only one concerned about the dissatisfaction of the public in English-speaking Canada with respect to English-language Canadian drama. The CRTC is also concerned and has just issued a public notice to gather comments from Canadians. Those who have opinions and observations to offer have until November 14 to do so.
I would like to take this opportunity to invite all the members of this House to respond to the CRTC's request.
* * *
[English]
Ethics
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Canadians deserve to know how many undeclared gifts in excess of $200 are still out there. A couple of weeks ago there were none and today there are a lot of them.
Has the Minister for International Trade ever received any undeclared gifts in excess of $200? Canadians deserve to know.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. Every gift I would have accepted or received would have been declared. I do not think anyone has been that generous with me.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC): Mr. Speaker, the ministers are the ones who set policies and the ministers are the ones who are influenced. That is why guidelines are in place.
Has the Minister of State responsible for ACOA ever received any undeclared gifts in excess of $200?
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my answer is exactly the same as the answer given by the Minister for International Trade and other colleagues. To the best of my knowledge I have complied with all the guidelines.
* * *
Budget Surplus
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, even as the Liberals again lowball the surplus and then apply every penny of it to the national debt, cuts are in the air.
Even as Canada's debt to GDP ratio goes down the fastest in the industrialized world, we are told to spend more on debt repayment and less on trains.
And even without any innovation in medicare or a Kyoto plan that really fights climate change, we are told tax cuts are the order of the day.
Why on earth would Canada make another hard right turn? Could we get some answers from the member for LaSalle—Émard?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been no question to the government.
* * *
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals broke their promise to the CBC by cutting $10 million this year on top of the hundreds of millions of cuts since this government took over. Ten million dollars could produce a program like Shattered City: The Halifax Explosion, which over one million Canadians watched last weekend.
I could ask the government to commit today to stable multi-year funding as the heritage committee recommended, but the member for LaSalle—Émard could nix it.
The CBC operates three to four years ahead in programming. What guarantees can the Minister of Finance give that the CBC will receive the funding it needs to carry out its mandate?
[Translation]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform this House that this morning, CBC officials appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. They answered a barrage of questions, but their answers confirm that they are fully capable of fulfilling their national broadcaster mandate with the $1 billion the government gives them each year.
* * *
[English]
Ethics
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has a dismal record of getting cash out to primary producers and I am sure they would be interested to know how many undeclared gifts of over $200 the minister has accepted in the last little while.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member, the House and all Canadians that I have declared every gift certainly within the knowledge that I have and that I received.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that after two weeks of scandal every minister over there has had ample time and ample reason to search their recollection, search their records and search their conscience on this issue.
Has the natural resources minister received any undeclared gifts over $200?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at members of the Alliance Party. Is this what Canadians elected them to do, ask questions for $200? No. They were elected to debate the issues most important to Canadians and that affect Canadians. That is why they are at only 13% in the polls and going down further.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Highway Infrastructure
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the construction of highway 175 was announced 14 months ago, nothing has been done in the Saguenay. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord blames the delay on Quebec provincial officials.
Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether or not his government is prepared to take on 50% of the cost of building highway 175, as well as 50% of cost overruns, if any?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year we made a commitment regarding construction of this highway. We are going to pay 50% of the cost of constructing this highway.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Liberal minister, Françoise Gauthier, confirms that the only thing blocking the agreement now is that the federal government refuses to accept responsibility for its share of cost overruns.
Will the Minister of Transport confirm that the Canadian government's commitment to paying 50% of the highway costs also means it will share 50-50 with Quebec on any cost overruns? If he will not make that commitment, it puts the whole agreement at risk.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement that our contribution to construction of this highway will be 50%.
* * *
[English]
Ethics
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government seems to think that our questions today are inappropriate, but what is inappropriate is the government's conduct which has necessitated our polling of its ministers as to their improper conduct.
Has the Minister of Labour received any undeclared gifts in excess of $200, except for the one that she belatedly reported this week?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, no.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources are treating this ethical issue of reporting undeclared gifts over $200 as one of partisanship, not principle. That has been the problem all along.
Has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development ever received undeclared gifts in excess of $200?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Insurance Industry
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I asked the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions to launch national public hearings into the state of the insurance industry. Since then, things have gone from bad to worse in all insurance fields.
On behalf of the realtors of Canada, especially those in Peterborough, I now ask the secretary of state if he will initiate federal hearings into the declining availability and the rising cost of property insurance.
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I share Canadians' concerns over the impact of rising insurance rates, which is why I have already taken action on this file. I asked OSFI to prepare a report on the industry in those areas covered by its mandate and OSFI reported that overall it considers the industry's investment portfolios and strategies to be prudent.
I know that the member, who has served as a parliamentarian at both the federal and provincial levels, knows it is the provincial governments that are responsible for regulating the market conduct of all P&C companies, which includes the issues of insurance contracts and premiums.
The fact that rising insurance premiums were major issues in several recent provincial elections clearly demonstrates that fact.
* * *
Ethics
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the past two weeks the House has caught high ranking cabinet ministers with their hands in the Irving cookie jar. It seems that the line-up of Liberals coming out of the closet to admit their wrongdoing by accepting these gifts will only keep growing.
Since this trend seems to be increasingly fashionable among the Liberal ranks, I would invite the Minister of National Revenue to hop on the bandwagon. Canadians want to know. Has this minister ever accepted an undeclared gift in excess of $200?
(1450)
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made much of his new ethics package as part of his legacy. It is pretty hard to take him seriously when he makes a mockery of those who raise concerns about the ethics of his own ministers.
Has the immigration minister received any undeclared gifts of over $2,000, or $200?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Two thousand dollars? Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a raise in the question.
[Translation]
First of all, according to our sources, our ratings have unfortunately dropped by about 80% in the past two hours. As for myself, I have most certainly never accepted that kind of thing, to the best of my knowledge.
I note once again that these questions are coming from people who are not capable of respecting their own signatures on an agreement with another person; they tell me that Jim Hart is still waiting for his $50,000.
* * *
Quebec
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made it known that he would be voting against the Bloc Quebecois motion calling upon the House to recognize that Quebec constitutes a nation.
My question is this: Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain to us how he could have voted in favour of recognizing the Nisga'a nation and yet now can oppose recognizing Quebec as a nation?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is incorrigible. This is not the issue before the House. The issue before the House has to do with the link between the concept of an exclusive nation held by the Bloc and the right to opt out with full financial compensation. That was what the motion was about. For once, the Bloc must not distort its own question.
* * *
[English]
Broadcasting
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Ministers of Industry and Canadian Heritage for bringing Bill C-52 to the House.
Many of us have been in discussion with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and are well aware of the financial and cultural damage that illegal satellite dishes and the piracy of intellectual property have caused in our country.
Would the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons assure the House that the legislation will pass expeditiously. Further delay would mean that there would be hundreds of millions of dollars lost in revenue to the provincial and federal governments?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from a number of people who have indicated to us how important this legislation is. I certainly agree with them and with my cabinet colleagues. I intend to put the bill forward for debate as early as next week. I urge all hon. members to support our Minister of Industry and our Minister of Canadian Heritage in this regard.
* * *
[Translation]
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ind. BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
After the theft of computers from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's Laval premises on September 4, application was made to the Quebec Superior Court by the Union des consommateurs and a private citizen from Beauport to initiate a group action against the federal government.
Can the minister tell us whether she plans to compensate the 120,000 taxpayers who were victims of this theft, or does she plan instead to deny any responsibility for this situation?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that it would be improper and irresponsible for me to comment on matters that are before the courts or might be before the courts.
* * *
Ethics
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, sitting here listening to minister after minister stand up and say “to the best of my knowledge” is kind of frightening as we all know that a lot of them do not have much in regard to knowledge.
I would like to ask the minister of fisheries, if he has ever received any other undeclared gifts in excess of $200.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, no. But I should advise the opposition members, and the rump of the opposition, that they are at very close risk of fishing without a licence here. However, as the yield seems to be insignificant, I will not recommend further action by my department.
* * *
(1455)
Nuclear Industry
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government is proposing to dump another $46 million into the bottomless pit known as the nuclear power industry. In spite of a long litany of broken promises from the government and the industry and strong opposition from the Canadian public to this form of power, the government persists in giving away huge subsidies.
I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, is it not time for a full public review of government support for this toxic industry?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the nuclear industry is a $5 billion industry that creates thousands of jobs across the country.
Of course, in terms of the structure of AECL, this is something that is being reviewed at this time as to how we can change the structure to take advantage of new opportunities.
Last week the Prime Minister was in China. The Chinese bought two Candu reactors and they were on time and on budget. I hope we have further opportunities. That is showing off the technology. Canada is leading the world in nuclear technology.
* * *
Ethics
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. minister of fisheries that I do not think we need a fishing licence to catch these suckers.
Even members of the ethically challenged cabinet should be able to answer this simple question not to the best of their knowledge, but with a very simple yes or no.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Has he ever failed to declare gifts of over $200?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the very best of my knowledge, the answer is no.
* * *
[Translation]
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Solicitor General stated that the lives of citizens took precedence over the lives of informants.
Can the Solicitor General tell us with certainty that the RCMP was never aware that murders were being committed in order to preserve the cover of its informant, Dany Kane, who had infiltrated the biker gangs?
[English]
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in what I stated yesterday and I stand by what I stated.
The fact of the matter is, the very responsibility of the RCMP is to enhance and protect public safety out in the communities. That is what it does as its first priority and that is what it will continue to do.
* * *
Ethics
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that Canadians receive unequivocal assurance from each one of the ministers that they have abided by the ministerial code of conduct, not just when they have been caught, but at all times.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Has he ever received any undeclared gifts of over $200?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when I travel, I give small gifts to ministers and I get small gifts from ministers. I have an office staff who look at this. They understand it. The member can come to my office and he can see all the gifts.
I did once receive a painting by a constituent which was more valuable than $200. I gave it to the department. The member can come and see it. It is hanging on the wall of the department. So it belongs to him along with every other member of the House.
* * *
Health
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who in the past has expressed concern about fetal alcohol syndrome. I am sure he would like to have as his legacy an initiative which was passed by Parliament almost unanimously two and a half years ago. Before he ends his time as Prime Minister, could the Prime Minister ensure that the motion passed by Parliament requiring labels on all alcoholic beverage containers warning that drinking when one is pregnant can cause fetal alcohol syndrome becomes a reality?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has done before, she has raised a very important issue, one which is of great concern to everyone in the House and all Canadians.
I want to be sure that everyone in the House understands that the motion that was adopted in 2001 was that the government should consider the advisability of requiring that no person shall sell an alcoholic beverage unless the container in which the beverage is sold carries a warning label. I want to assure the hon. member that we are doing just that. We are seriously looking at the advisability of requiring warning labels.
* * *
Ethics
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that my friend the House leader looks forlorn and left out, I want to return to the only minister who refused to answer the question today, the Minister of Natural Resources.
Seeing that he has not filed with the ethics commissioner since May 1998, would he tell the House whether he has received any undeclared gifts over $200?