CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 139 Ï NUMBER 025 Ï 3rd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, March 12, 2004 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 1439 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, March 12, 2004 The House met at 10 a.m. The problem with this bill lies in the proposed public good defence. Mr. Sharpe is not alone when he claims that the proposal is Prayers too vague to survive court challenges. Many legal experts agree with him. Judges who interpret and apply the law do not consider the many fine speeches delivered in this chamber. They simply look at the words of the laws that we pass in this place. GOVERNMENT ORDERS Ï (0955) What does public good really mean? The government has failed to make that clear. What if, as Mr. Sharpe suggests, a judge finds it in [English] the public good to allow possession of child pornography if it CRIMINAL CODE prevents convicted child molesters from reoffending again? That certainly is within the realm of possibility. The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of If Parliament passes this bill, a person would be found guilty of a children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, child pornography offence when the material or act in question does be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment. not serve the public good or where the risk of harm outweighs any Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I public benefit. Since the Sharpe case, Conservatives have called am pleased to rise this morning on behalf of the constituents of again and again on the federal government to eliminate the artistic Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, an act to merit defence, but replacing it with a public good defence is not the amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other solution. We must eliminate all defences that justify the criminal vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act. possession of child pornography. Contrary to yesterday's assertion by the justice minister, the official opposition cares about protecting children from sexual Ï (1010) predators. That is why we are firmly opposed to Bill C-12. We want legislation that makes the perverts who prey upon our innocent The Liberals need to get their priorities straight. They have children fearful. brought forward many pieces of legislation, but none of them protect children against child pornography. For years I have been Unfortunately, Bill C-12 fails in that regard. This bill has been demanding a stop to the sexual exploitation of children, but the endorsed by none other than Mr. John Robin Sharpe, the very man Liberals clearly lack the political will to fix that problem for our who was found guilty of possession of as many as 400 images of society. children whom prosecutors contended were being exploited sexually. In March 2002 Sharpe's conviction concerning the images was In fact, during the Liberal government's tenure, family values have upheld by the Supreme Court. However, he was ultimately acquitted been continually eroded. We can talk about any single issue that of related charges that had been filed against him in connection with relates to family values. Those family values have been eroding the stories he had written, specifically because those writings were under the Liberals, whether it is the definition of marriage, protecting deemed to have artistic merit. Mr. Sharpe feels that this bill is so children from child pornography, raising the age of consent, taxation poorly crafted that even he could use it to his advantage in the courts. laws with respect to single parent families, or giving law enforcement agencies enough resources and laws with teeth. To quote the nation's most notorious child pornographer, “The interesting thing about the child sex laws is that they may offer some unintended opportunities for the defence”. Mr. Sharpe asserts that the On every single front, the Liberal government has let families federal proposal is a panic reaction to his two successes in down. It always forgets that the stronger the family, the stronger the challenging the current legislation in court. He further writes, “I community and the stronger our great nation would be. The am fairly confident that given good legal counsel, and a by-the-book foundation of this great country is the family, not the social welfare judge who bases his decisions on the wording of the law...I and my system. We have to strengthen our families. We have to protect stories would again be acquitted under the proposed measures”. children and other vulnerable people. 1440 COMMONS DEBATES March 12, 2004 Government Orders Canadians want laws with teeth. That is one thing we can do in suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, and extreme promiscuity and this chamber. At least we could make laws with teeth and not have involvement in prostitution. It is vitally important that we do not just a slap on the wrist or a revolving door criminal justice system. confuse physical maturation with psychological maturation. The We cannot do that anymore. Why can the Liberals not see that we “age of majority” is a term used by lawyers to protect the offender want deterrents in place, not some sort of motivation for criminal and to describe the time in life after which a person is legally no behaviour? longer considered a child. In essence, it is an arbitrary time when a child becomes an adult in the eyes of the law. Bill C-12, which we are debating today, will increase maximum sentences or maximum penalties for offences that harm children. I agree, but that is not good enough. How many times has government introduced legislation that increases maximum sentences? What is Why is it that we as a society feel that children are ill-prepared to the good of increasing maximum sentences if the courts will not drive, to drink, even to vote or marry or drop out of school or even apply the full force of the laws we already have in place? Increasing watch violent movies, but we feel they are totally ready to decide for penalties is meaningless if the courts do not impose the sentences. themselves with whom they should have sex? It is a pity to have this societal social evil. This makes absolutely no sense. We know from experience that when maximum sentences are raised there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices. What is needed? Mandatory minimum sentences. We need truth in sentencing. We need no conditional sentences for child Raising the age of sexual consent would definitely put us more in predators. We need minimum mandatory sentences instead of the line with other western nations. We know that in Denmark, France maximum sentences so that the judges can implement them. and Sweden the age of consent for sexual activity is 15. In Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and even Bill C-12 creates a new category of sexual exploitation that the United Kingdom, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16. In protects people aged 14 to 18. Courts would focus not on consent but Canada, we still have that age of 14. It is time for the Liberals to on whether the relationship is exploitative based on age difference, prohibit adults from having sex with children under the age of 16. control exerted and other circumstances. Again, that is not good This age of 14 is not a good thing for society. enough. It is already against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority, or with whom a young person is in a relation of dependency, to be sexually involved with that young person. It is already in the law. It is unclear how adding such people will add legal protection for young children. Ï (1015) Ï (1020) What the Liberals should have done instead was increase the age of consent for any sexual activity. A major shortcoming of the bill is that it fails to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between The need to protect innocent and vulnerable children from pimps children and adults. I fail to see the rationale for permitting adults to and other sexual predators is a matter of highest priority. It should engage in any sexual activity with children. The government should not be on the back burner of the government's priorities. How many raise the age of consent, currently set out in section 150.1 of the Canadians are aware that a 14 year old can move into a conjugal Criminal Code, from 14 to 16 at least, if not 18. relationship with a 50 year old? There is nothing the parents can do, at least legally, to put a stop to such an exploitative relationship. In Surrey, we are all too familiar with the problem of prostitution. Persons at 14 and 15 years of age lack the mental and emotional Studies have found that 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes enter maturity to cope with the psychological effects of engaging in sexual the trade as children. In particular at that age, the recruitment process activity with older persons. for the sex trade in Canada preys on young girls and boys and specifically targets those who are at the current age of consent, that is, 14.