|
Dear _________and ________:
Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the
prevalence of child pornography and other forms of child
exploitation in Canada. I share your concern that our
children continue to be at risk from sexual exploitation
as a result of lenient laws and continued government inaction.
My
Canadian Alliance colleagues and I have consistently advocated
for stronger laws to protect our children. Since the Liberal
government's election in 1993, they have continually failed
to take effective steps toward strengthening our ability
to shield those who require this protection in our society.
I
would like to take this opportunity to set out the Canadian
Alliance position and to familiarize you with our most
recent efforts to prohibit all forms of child exploitation.
When
the B.C. Supreme Court first struck down Canada's child
pornography laws as unconstitutional in the case of John
Robin Sharpe in 1999, the Canadian Alliance called for
the use of section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
the "notwithstanding clause". Invoking the "notwithstanding
clause" would have enabled law enforcement officials
to continue investigating and prosecuting child pornography
cases instead of suspending them pending an appeal. However,
the former Justice Minister Anne McLellan refused to take
this step as she was confident that the courts would make
a just ruling. This error allowed child pornography to
proliferate in Canada for two years until the Canadian
Supreme Court substantially upheld the law in its January
2001 ruling.
In
March 2002, the B.C. court acquitted John Robin Sharpe
on two child pornography charges on the basis that his
material had "artistic merit". Canadian Alliance
called on the federal government to immediately eliminate
this legal loophole.
In
the last two years, the Canadian Alliance introduced two
Parliamentary motions urging the federal government to
implement a national sex offender registry. The first
motion in March 2001 was passed, but no steps were taken
by the former Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay to actually
put the registry into operation. The Liberal Government
rejected our second motion by voting against it in February
2002.
Our
second motion in April 2002 urged the federal Liberal
government to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16.
Again, this motion federal Liberal Government voted against
our motion because they believed that the change was "too
complex" and there were "cultural considerations".
In
just this year (2003) alone, Canadian Alliance MPs tabled
in the House over 44,000 signatures from concerned Canadians
asking the federal government to strengthen our child
pornography laws. Individual Alliance members have also
introduced numerous bills and motions to address these
important issues concerning the protection of our children,
but all were defeated or obstructed by the Liberal Government.
After
years of efforts by Canadian Alliance MPs to raise the
age of consent for adult-child sexual activity, eliminate
the artistic merit defence, to strengthen laws against
child pornography, and to institute a national sex offender
registry, the Liberal Government only took the first basic
step towards addressing these concerns in December 2002.
However, these steps fall far short of what is needed
to protect children.
On
December 10, 2002, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon tabled
a long-awaited bill, C-20, that is intended to address
issues related to the sexual exploitation of children
and other victims of sex crimes. Unfortunately, the bill
is complex, with cumbersome provisions that will not make
it easier to prosecute sexual predators.
Rather
than removing the defence of "artistic merit"
for child pornographers, the new Liberal legislation has
simply repackaged the old law. The defence provided for
pornography has been renamed as the "public good"
defence. However, the court is still entitled to consider
"artistic merit" as a part of its determination
of whether a child pornographer should be acquitted.
The
new legislation fails to raise the age of sexual consent
between children and adults. The age of consent in Canada
will remain at 14 years of age even though most western
democratic nations have legislated a 16-year age minimum.
Some have even adopted an 18-year age minimum. The Liberal
proposal is to bring in a law that requires the court
to analyze each case to see if the adult is exploiting
the child. This approach is cumbersome, and fails to create
the certainty of protection that children require.
In
order to create the impression that this law will be tough
on child exploitation, the bill also proposes an increase
in the maximum sentences available. Canadian courts have
consistently failed to proportionately increase sentences
when the maximum allowable sentences are raised. Child
pornographers will still be entitled to "house arrest"
as an alternative to prison and without minimum sentences,
pedophiles like John Robin Sharpe will continue to escape
prison sentences even when they are convicted.
On
February 3rd, I addressed many of these issues during
the speech I delivered on Bill C-20 during the second
reading debate in the House. A copy is appended for your
reference.
On
December 11th, 2002, federal Solicitor General Wayne Easter
introduced legislation (Bill C-23) in response to repeated
calls by our party for a national sex offender registry.
Regrettably the legislation is so weak and ineffective
that it will give our law enforcement virtually no additional
tools to protect children and other victims of sex crimes.
The
federal Solicitor General indicated that he would not
include currently convicted sex offenders on the registry
because he is concerned about their privacy right. Only
those convicted in the future will be included. It is
the Canadian Alliance position that without a comprehensive
list of all convicted offenders, past and present, the
registry will be virtually worthless. Pedophiles and other
sex offenders, who have a notoriously high rate of re-offending,
can only be added to the registry if they offend and are
caught in the future - and even then, offenders will not
automatically be added to the registry. Furthermore, none
of this information will be available for members of the
public who, in certain cases, need to know when there
is a sex offender in their midst.
The
Liberal Government has consistently put the rights of
criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Once again, the Liberals have failed Canadian children
by refusing to table effective legislation that will extend
the necessary legal protections to victims of crime, in
particular our most vulnerable citizens - our children.
You
are assured that your concerns have been noted and that
my colleagues and I as the Official Opposition will continue
to support strengthening the current laws against child
pornography and all forms of child exploitation.
Once
again, thank you for writing.
Yours
sincerely,
Gurmant
Grewal, M.P.
Gurmant
Grewal, M.P.
Speech, Bill C-20, Second Reading
An Act to amend the Criminal Code
(protection of children and other vulnerable persons)
& the Canada Evidence Act
February 3, 2003
Gurmant
Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I rise again on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central
to participate in the debate on Bill C-20. I would like
to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for
sharing his time with me.
The
bill we are debating is an act to amend the Criminal Code
(protection of children and other vulnerable persons)
and the Canada Evidence Act. So far Bill C-20 has introduced
very weak and timid steps toward this issue.
A
person would be found guilty of a child pornography offence
when the material or act in question does not serve the
public good or where the risk of harm outweighs any public
benefit.
Some
of the other changes are proposed to protect people aged
14 to 18. Of course they would focus not on consent, but
on whether the relationship is exploitative based on age
difference, control exerted, and other circumstances.
Another
step is that it would increase penalties for offences
that harm children. The maximum penalty for sexual exploitation
would double from 5 years to 10 years.
Bill
C-20 would make it a crime to secretly observe or visually
record a person where privacy is reasonably expected.
Distributing a recording on the World Wide Web or elsewhere
would also be a crime. Such an offence would carry a maximum
jail term of five years.
We
know too well that courts never impose maximum penalties,
nor do they have the will to do that. Life never means
life and 25 years has meant only 7 or 10 years in jail,
just as if there is a scale or route under the maximum
penalty sentence. For it to be effective there should
be a well defined legislated minimum sentence. That would
be a deterrent and not a motivation to commit such a heinous
crime.
Last
March a British Columbia judge cleared John Robin Sharpe
of possession charges, concluding that his graphic child
sex stories had artistic merit and were protected by freedom
of speech. Canadians want their government to close the
loophole left when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled two
years ago that there were some exceptions to the child
pornography law. Child pornography and artistic merit
do not mix. The argument that pornography can be excused
because it has artistic merit has angered a lot of Canadian
parents. The weak Liberal Government of Canada continues
to have one of the most liberal pornography laws in the
world.
Last
summer, a Pollara poll found that 86% of Canadians disagree
with the artistic merit defence. They have been calling
for the removal of the provision for the artistic merit
defence from the child pornography law. We do not permit
artistic merit to be a defence when it comes to hate literature.
If we do not accept artistic merit in hate literature,
why should we accept artistic merit in the child pornography
law, which is meant to protect our innocent children,
our future?
A
major shortcoming of the bill is that it fails to raise
the age of consent from 14 years to at least 16, if not
18, for sexual activity between children and adults. I
fail to see the rationale for permitting adults to engage
in any sexual activity with children.
Canada
has a long history of prohibiting sexual intercourse with
young females, regardless of consent. I am not trying
to be politically incorrect here, but I am quoting: From
1892 to 1988, sexual intercourse outside of marriage with
females under 14 and for those under 16 and "of previously
chaste character" was illegal. The maximum penalty
upon conviction for sexual intercourse with a female under
14 was life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for sexual
intercourse with a female under 16 was five years' imprisonment.
Amendments
to the Criminal Code in 1988 repealed unlawful intercourse
and seduction offences and in their place created new
offences called sexual interference and invitation to
sexual touching, which now prohibit adults from engaging
in virtually any kind of sexual contact with either boys
or girls under the age of 14, irrespective of consent.
There
is no question that sexual exploitation is real and a
serious risk for children and youth in Canada. Reports
indicate that increasing numbers of youths are being sexually
exploited and that Canada is listed on the Internet as
a source for sex with children and youth. It is shameful.
Having
the age of consent set at 14 makes it easy for predators
to recruit young people into the sex trade without facing
repercussions or without initially committing any offence.
Once these youths are entrenched in the relationship,
they are then convinced or coerced into engaging in illegal
activities.
Recruiters
consciously choose to form consensual relationships with
youths who are over the age of consent but are as young
as possible in order to make it easy to gain a hold on
them. Raising the age of consent would assist in the prosecution
of adults who buy sex from young people because the adult
could be charged with sexual assault, and it would not
be necessary to prove that there was negotiation for money
or other considerations.
Raising
the age of consent would be more consistent with other
western industrialized countries. It would discourage
sex tourism. Having an older age would send a message
internationally that children in Canada are not available
for sex.
In
B.C.'s lower mainland, we are all too familiar with the
problem of prostitution. A study there found that 70%
to 80% of Canadian prostitutes enter the trade as children.
There are literally hundreds of prostitutes under 17 years
of age currently working Vancouver's streets. The recruitment
process for the sex trade in Canada preys on young girls
and boys and specifically targets those who are at the
current age of consent.
According
to the Children of the Street Society, the majority of
parents who call asking for help have children who are
14 years old and who are being recruited into the sex
trade. The society's argument is that if the police had
the ability to pick up the girl or boy, regardless of
their consent, and return them to their family or take
them to a safe house, then many youth could be saved from
entering the sex trade.
If
we were to think about a 50 year old man being able to
target 14 year old runaways for sex and giving them AIDS
or other diseases or even getting them pregnant, we might
get a different response. The results of dozens of studies
show the effect of adult sexual contact with children.
They are at a 21% higher risk of clinical depression.
They have a 21% greater chance of suicide. There is a
20% increase in post-traumatic stress disorder. There
is a 14% jump in extreme promiscuity and involvement in
prostitution.
It
is a serious risk and a serious challenge and we must
take serious action. We suggest that the bill is a timid
first step for Canadian children. After months of the
Canadian Alliance demanding elimination of the artistic
merit defence, the Liberals finally have recognized the
danger but have not taken any serious steps.
Children
must be protected from abuse at the hands of all adult
predators. The age of consent for adult-child sex must
be raised from 14 to 16, in addition to having the new
categories for exploitative relationships. As well, higher
maximum sentences for child pornography and predation
will not be effective unless the courts enforce them.
I would also like to mention that police and prosecutors
still do not have the tools to deal with child pornography
cases effectively and efficiently.
Darrel
Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I listened to the hon. member's speech with great interest.
A major part of his speech was with regard to raising
the age of consent from 14 to 16. I strongly agree. What
has happened here in Canada is that we are known worldwide
as a shopping network for children, basically, those aged
14 and 15, because people around the world prey upon children
of this age and know they cannot be charged here in Canada
with a sexual crime.
A
ring was broken in Toronto a little while ago. I also
heard about a case in Vancouver. Maybe the hon. member
could address this. The men in these cases were picked
up. One was a 52 year old man who was with a 14 year old
child in a hotel room, yet that person could not be charged.
He happened to be an American, but these people come from
all over the world.
I
know that Australia now has a force which goes into the
Asian countries where this happens too. The force is now
photographing and reporting any Australian citizen who
goes into these countries for this activity.
Could
the hon. member address that? Does he think that would
be a good idea here in Canada?
Gurmant
Grewal: Mr. Speaker, it would be a very good idea. I thank
the hon. member for raising this issue.
It
is vitally important that we do not confuse the physical
maturation of children with the psychological maturation
of children. Why is it that as a society we feel that
children are ill-prepared to drive, drink, vote, marry,
drop out of school or even watch violent movies but we
feel that they are totally ready to decide for themselves
with whom they should have sex? This makes no sense.
Raising
the age of sexual consent would put us more in line with
other western nations. We know that in Denmark, France
and Sweden the age of consent is at least 15. In Australia,
Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway
and even the United Kingdom, it is 16. It is time for
the Liberals to prohibit adults from having sex with children
under the age of 16.
Therefore,
it is of the utmost importance, to protect our children
and society from sexual predators and this heinous crime,
that we raise the age from 14 to at least 16, if not 18,
to keep up with the international global phenomenon that
has taken place in other countries.
Moreover,
that would allow us to clean up the Internet in regard
to Canada being a haven for sexual predators or a haven
for child sex and sexual tourism. I think it is very important
that we protect our children by raising the age from 14
to 16 or 18.
Myron
Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I have a quick question for the hon. member. I appreciated
his words.
Bill
C-20 is an omnibus bill and has many items in it that
deserve some debate in committee, but to me child pornography
is a no-brainer. Child pornography should be brought front
and centre in the House of Commons, in my opinion, as
an entity on its own, separate from the bill. Every member
should come to the House and be dedicated to making certain
that our children will never be subjected to the terrible
evils that come out of this type of material.
Let
us do that. Let us bring it forward as an entity on its
own. Let us fix it and stamp it out in its entirety. Does
the member agree with doing that?
Gurmant
Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising
this issue. Most of us in the House are parents or grandparents.
I am a parent of two teenagers. I know that it is our
moral responsibility as lawmakers in the country to protect
innocent and vulnerable children from pimps and other
sexual predators.
It
should be a matter of high priority for us because it
will strengthen the foundation of the nation. It will
strengthen the institution of the family. Those children
who are abused, sexually or otherwise, do not have the
opportunity to regret what their future will be, a life
suffering from depression and other evils like this.
It
will strengthen the institution of the family and, as
I have said in the past, stronger families make stronger
nations. Therefore it is very important that the fundamental
principle or foundation of the country should be based
on the protection of our children, who are our future
leaders. We need to produce a stronger generation of children
rather than a weaker generation, an abused generation.
Therefore, I would like to say that as Canadians, as parliamentarians,
as lawmakers, it is our responsibility to protect children.
|
