44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 01, 2023
- Bill C-291 is an Act that aims to amend the Criminal Code in order to replace the term "child pornography" with "child sexual abuse and exploitation material." This change in terminology reflects a stronger focus on the abusive and exploitative nature of the material. The bill also includes consequential amendments to other Acts.
- Yea (333)
- Nay
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is especially a pleasure to rise when we are speaking to a bill that is on a subject I am very passionate about.
I have spoken before in this House about things I said when I was on the doorstep, in my time, dealing with Internet exploitation of children. That was something I devoted a number of years to in my professional career. It is something I am very proud of, and it is something that taught me a lot about life, about healing, about trauma and, sadly, about how prolific this type of exploitation is.
I believe it was my colleague from the Bloc who spoke about increases in numbers. If memory serves, when we talk about sexual exploitation of children, the spike in numbers happens, and this is not something that gets mentioned when opposing parties speak about the Harper government and its tough-on-crime agenda. One thing that does not get mentioned is that a number of providers, be it media providers or ISP providers, were getting a free ride. They knew or ought to have known that their platforms were being used to facilitate either the potential or actual sexual exploitation of children, which typically begins with the offence of Internet luring.
What happened, I believe in 2012, is that the Harper government passed legislation that placed a positive obligation on service providers to report suspected abuse of children. No longer could a platform simply look the other way. No longer could a platform simply say that it did not know what was going on. A lot of platforms probably knew it was going on or chose not to know that it was going on, because it was easier and cheaper to do business as usual. From 2012, if we look at the graphs, we can actually see this spiking. That spike really has not receded to this day.
I was speaking at the B.C. ICE conference with a number of brave officers, pediatricians and workers who put their lives into addressing sexual offences against children. There were probably about 100 people in a room, generally from British Columbia. It was one of the most profound honours I have had as a member of Parliament. I attended this conference as an attendee, just somebody who was trying to learn more. This year I was invited to be one of the keynote speakers. What a profound honour to go from attendee to keynote speaker.
We still see this spike. Technology and the law are really not working hand in hand, especially when we think about technology and how far we have to go: not only how far we have to go when it comes to technology, but how far we have to go when it comes to sentencing.
I will pause here to note that in 2011, in a case called Woodward, a former Supreme Court of Canada justice, Justice Moldaver, when he was on the Ontario Court of Appeal, actually said that when it came to Internet luring, we should be looking at sentences of three to five years. This is a judge who later went on to the Supreme Court of Canada. I still remember the language he used. He talked about “this insidious crime”, the one that targets children in such a hidden way. Here we are dealing with it.
When I was on the doorsteps of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, when I was running for office, one of the things I committed to was changing the name of “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”. I am very proud that my colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap and I will be giving evidence as witnesses at third reading in the Senate on Thursday on Bill C-291. I researched the bill. I authored the bill, and I put forward the bill. My colleague sponsored the bill. It was unanimously passed at second reading and third reading, and now it is at third reading in the Senate and is about to be considered at committee. Again, it is a profound honour to be able to do this.
It is my hope that when we talk about things that are in Bill C-270, for instance, that we would eliminate the term “child pornography”. Pornography implies consent. Pornography implies adults who are voluntarily doing things. Children can never consent, so it is time we eliminate the term from our legal lexicon. Bill C-270 tells us why we need to be aware of this, so it is my hope that we will receive royal assent very quickly on Bill C-291.
I am just going to go through a few of the aspects of Bill C-270 and provide some input as to why I do support it, particularly as it relates to child sexual abuse and exploitation material that is being put on the Internet. Obviously I support the punishment at subsection 2 and the designation of the offence.
The reality is that I cannot adequately say how many times the police will come to ask questions when someone deals with this type of matter in a prosecutorial context. It is an area of law that someone needs to sink their teeth into in order to understand it. Unless someone spends a lot of time with it, I find, it has a really steep learning curve. It took me a long time. I still felt like a bit of an amateur even when I was elected here, with respect to the nature of the law on these types of things.
One of the struggles that the police would communicate to me when it was an attempt to prove Internet luring or possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material was the age of the person being dealt with. That puts forward, again, a positive obligation. For those, like my mother, who are at home watching this on CPAC and who may wonder what I mean by a positive obligation, it is a requirement for somebody to take action.
One thing I really like about the bill is that it is not stating that somebody would need to refrain from doing something, which would be a negative obligation. There would be a positive obligation to ascertain the age. A failure to do that, to take that step, is the nature of the offence that I am speaking of right now, the failure to ascertain that a person is actually 18 years of age.
In my view, child sexual abuse and exploitation material is a blight on our society. If anybody thinks that it is just something that happens over there or happens elsewhere, in my experience it is something happening far more than we want to admit, yet what have we seen when it comes to sentences? I referenced Justice Moldaver earlier on Internet luring.
We have seen the Supreme Court of Canada come out with a case called R. v. Friesen that said mid-single-digit penitentiary terms should not be odd; they should be the norm. I cannot recall whether the maximum sentence for possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material is 10 or 14 years, but for Internet luring it is 14 years, and for production, I believe, it is 14 years.
The court said that a maximum sentence should not be all that uncommon. I still look, to this day, at B.C. Court of Appeal decisions every day, just because I find them interesting. I cannot remember one time seeing anything close to the maximum sentence. In fact, what I am seeing more of is what used to be considered outlier cases, where community-based sentences are now being provided.
In 2011, a respected jurist said that we should be looking at three to five years for Internet luring. Then there was the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Friesen that said sentences should range from the upper-single digits to double digits on sexual offences against children, and the maximum should not be there. What are we seeing? We are just not seeing it come to fruition.
I know I have not touched on this as much as I could. I could obviously speak a lot more. I wholeheartedly endorse the bill. It is time that we address sexual offences in this country and that we do it with full vigour. I, my colleagues and, I believe, my colleagues across the aisle, should be focused on this. It is something that cannot wait another day.
1452 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it has been almost a year since one of the most notorious serial killers in Canada was moved from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security facility under provisions of the NDP-Liberals' so-called justice legislation, Bill C-83.
This serial killer is infamous for his long string of rapes in Scarborough; the rape, torture and murder of his sister-in-law; and the rape, torture and murder of two very young, innocent girls from St. Catharines. We all know his partner in crime, his wife, Karla Homolka, skated with a 10-year sentence, despite actively participating in the crimes as per the videotape the police had in their possession. This rapist, this serial killer, this monster is Paul Bernardo.
Let me acknowledge the pain and suffering, and the repeated victimization, of the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. I cannot imagine the pain that they live with everyday. God bless them.
After Bernardo, that monster, was found guilty of his crimes, the judge correctly sentenced him to life imprisonment as a dangerous offender, meaning he should have stayed locked up in maximum security until he died of old age. However, no, our current government, this woke bunch of MPs who are running our justice system, decided that Paul Bernardo is the real victim, a nice, fine, misunderstood fellow who deserves medium security.
The Liberals passed a law, Bill C-83, which explicitly tells police, judges and Correctional Services Canada to impose the least restrictive measures on a person as possible. In practice, this means that this monster, Paul Bernardo, now lives in a dormitory, has a tennis court and ice rink for recreation, and access to sharp instruments when he gets that urge to murder again. It is not even close to maximum security. That makes no sense.
On June 23 last year, I asked the justice minister, in this very House. why Paul Bernardo gets such special treatment. What was his answer? Of course, he did not answer at all. Instead, one of the Prime Minister’s attack dogs got up to say that, just because Paul Bernardo is a bad man, it does not mean the Liberals did anything wrong with their legislation.
Yes, everyone heard me right: the Liberals refused to take responsibility for their own actions. However, members need not worry. Since the current NDP-Liberal government refuses to take responsibility for its own actions, it will be the Conservatives who once again step up to the plate to fix the situation.
What would that fix? Bill C-351 is a bill introduced by my great Conservative colleague from Quebec. This legislation would fix the mess created by the Liberals in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It would amend section 28 of the act, which currently states, “If a person is or is to be confined in a penitentiary, the Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with the least restrictive environment”.
That is what the Liberals have changed it to say. They made it as easy on the convicted criminal as possible. This is why Bernardo is getting all the special treatment.
My colleague's bill proposes to change that section to say, “ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with an environment that contains only the necessary restrictions”. In other words, only make it easier on a convicted criminal if it is absolutely necessary. This legislation is making a significant fix through changing the words “least restrictive environment” to “environment that contains only the necessary restrictions”. While it is a simple language change, it is a massive policy change.
When it comes to crime and what to do with criminals who victimize Canadians, Conservatives, such as myself, my colleague and our leader, have very different approaches than those of the NDP-Liberal government. Conservatives believe that victims of crimes, those who are innocent, who have been terrorized in their own homes, have had their cars stolen, have been mugged on our streets, who have been are raped and those who have had family members murdered, should come first.
The NDP-Liberals have a very different approach than Conservatives do to crime. I believe in common sense. If a crime was committed, the criminal needs to answer. The woke, NDP-Liberal approach is that the criminal is the single most important person in the justice system. They believe, and they have written into law, that police, prosecutors, judges, jurors, and jailers must take into account diversity, equity, inclusion and critical race theory when dealing with criminals. They have put into place checklists. Does this criminal have any sort of skin colour, racial background, sexual identity or anything in their background that would warrant that criminal to walk away scot-free? If so, let them go. That is the NDP-Liberal approach to criminal justice.
This woke crowd does not care if a criminal has raped a woman, kidnapped a child or murdered a indigenous man because, in their minds, that so-called underprivileged criminal is more important than any victim can be. In their topsy-turvy world view, it actually sees those committing the crimes as the people who need to be cared for, while the actual victims continue to suffer over and over again.
Senator Kim Pate, appointed by the current Liberal Prime Minister, summed up the Liberal hug-a-thug position quite nicely last year when she addressed the Fredericton City Council. She said, “Canada’s criminal legal system is unjust, discriminatory and biased against indigenous people and people of colour.”
I agree that it has been unjust against indigenous victims of crime like those on the James Smith Cree Nation. The coroner's inquest, which was held in my home riding of Saskatoon West, by the way, was clear on the point. The man who murdered all those indigenous people on the reserve should never have been released in the first place. However, folks like Senator Pate do not particularly care about those victims, do they? Instead, they are making excuses for the inexcusable. Senator Pate is one of the many examples of what is absolutely wrong with NDP-Liberal justice.
Once a crime is committed, the criminal must be punished, period. That is why a common-sense Conservative government will bring in tough-on-crime legislation. We will lock up the criminals. We will stop the crime. “Diversity, equity, inclusion” and critical race theory approaches that lead to “hug a thug” and to repeat offenders will be swept away. Common-sense Conservatives will bring back mandatory minimums. We will crack down on the people who sexually exploit our children and on the people who peddle sexually explicit images of children on the Internet. Indeed, my Conservative colleague for North Okanagan—Shuswap brought in his private member’s bill, Bill C-291, to do this very thing.
We will take the issue of women being trafficked into sexual slavery seriously and not laugh it off as sex workers and body positivity, as men pay their pimps in order to abuse and demean women. My colleague, the Conservative MP for Peace River—Westlock has introduced legislation in the House to accomplish this through Bill C-308, an act respecting the national strategy to combat human trafficking.
We will ensure that men who commit violence against pregnant women face stiffer sentences. The NDP and the Liberals voted to kill the legislation, based on the justification that beating a pregnant woman senseless is just another form of abortion, almost as if that were a good thing. I would argue that the last thing a civilized country like Canada should do is beat pregnant women and not punish criminals properly for it. I proudly supported the legislation brought forward by my Conservative colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville, that would have allowed the judge to consider pregnancy as an aggravating factor when sentencing someone who has beaten a pregnant woman.
Shall I give another example? Why not? Let us contrast, juxtapose and expose the soft-on-crime approach of the NDP-Liberals. My Conservative colleague, the MP for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, has introduced Bill C-296, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, which would make life imprisonment actually life imprisonment. That means that if someone commits—
1424 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this House as the representative of the great people of North Okanagan—Shuswap as I make some final comments on Bill C-291.
Bill C-291 proposes to change the term in the Criminal Code from “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”. I would like to acknowledge and again thank my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who drafted this bill after recognizing the need for Criminal Code amendments that this bill proposes. I also acknowledge members from all parties who have made meaningful contributions to the development of this bill, both in this chamber and at committee stage.
Committee review of the bill strengthened it by adding the words “and exploitation” to the proposed new term in the original bill, and I thank the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Justice for their collaboration and continuation on this important initiative.
Expressions of support and collaboration from all sides reflect that this bill is a step in the right direction, a step that must be followed by more steps: additional steps toward strengthening the Criminal Code and other federal laws to increase protection of children; additional steps to increase capacities of those entrusted with enforcing and prosecuting offences; and additional steps to support healing and recovery of those victimized by child sexual abuse and exploitation.
I want to thank people who have approached me in North Okanagan—Shuswap on the streets and at events to express their support and appreciation for this bill. The spontaneous face-to-face support from constituents is always reassuring that we are moving in the right direction. I also thank all of the Canadians who supported the bill by signing petition e-4154 initiated by Rachel Enns back home in Vernon. I would especially like to acknowledge and thank the organizations that have expressed support for this bill, that work every day to fight child sexual abuse and exploitation.
I look forward to the vote on Bill C-291 and I hope all members support this important bill to move it forward and send it to the other place toward completion so that it will establish the proposed changes in Canada's Criminal Code.
384 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑291. Some bills seem less substantial than others, but are just as important. The bill amends the Criminal Code to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” and make consequential amendments to other acts. Words sometimes carry great weight.
As I just mentioned, this bill makes no other changes than replacing the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”, and has no legal consequences per se.
First, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. Even though this bill has no legal consequences, it does make us think about the importance of terms, their scope and their deep meaning. According to the bill's sponsor, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, the objective is to link the charge of child pornography to sexual abuse. Without changing the definitions, since the notions of consent and current sentences will stay the same, Bill C‑291 explicitly expresses the fact that such an offence is an act involving the sexual abuse of a child.
We understand and support the underlying principle. In my speech, I will share my thoughts on the importance of the words used to provide additional detail about this bill, reiterate the importance of training judges and conclude by expanding my argument to include cybercrime.
First, the term “pornography” seems overused and ambiguous in the sense of both the legal definition and the general definition, because its scope is very relative and can depend on a given individual's sensitivity. Moreover, some schools of thought disagree on the degree of consent pornography supposes and whether pornography is essentially a form of violence. Some feminist thinkers see it that way, and regular consumption of pornography also contributes to rape culture.
One thing is clear: Pornography in and of itself is not a crime, but there are the exceptions we are all familiar with, including child pornography. In other cases, it is difficult to see a clear and consensual difference between eroticism and obscenity, pornography and violence. It all comes down to the participants' consent, which is impossible to establish or obtain. When children are involved, the Criminal Code pretty clearly defines the acts, but I will spare my colleagues a reading of that.
It is understandable to be shocked by the fact that a term with no criminal or even negative connotations is attached to such despicable acts, hence the principle of Bill C-291. In the healing process, it is important, from the outset, that the victim is relieved of guilt about the events and that the burden is carried by the abuser. Naming the abuse can also help the victim. It may not seem important, but being a victim of child pornography does not have the same connotation as being a victim of child sexual abuse. A person charged with possession of child pornography will not be charged with sexual assault. However, they are indirectly participating in it by not reporting it and by taking advantage of the situation to deliberately indulge their deviant urges.
Most of the time, the victim is not mentioned in child pornography cases, except to say that they were indeed a child. When we talk about child sexual abuse material, we are doing two things: We are naming the abuse that the child is suffering, and we are calling the accused a child molester. These are much more powerful words, even though we are talking about the same act. They put things in perspective. In a crime involving child pornography, there is a victim of abuse and there is an abuser, the child molester.
In many types of crime, there is often a grey area, extenuating circumstances, possible doubt over the degree of guilt, participation and consent of the victim. In the case of child abuse, everything is clear and we have to call a spade a spade.
What is more, this term is already being used by some advocacy groups, including the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and Canada's national tipline for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children. Children are disproportionately the victims of sexual offences and are especially vulnerable. In Quebec, 54.4%, or the majority, of victims of sexual assault are adults, but the number of victims under 18 is growing faster than the number of adult victims, with annual increases of 9.5% and 4.3% respectively. Victims of other sexual offences are nearly exclusively minors, at 90.8%. These offences include sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, luring and publication of intimate images.
These statistics make it clear why victims and their loved ones feel as though these situations are being downplayed.
If an offence is not a direct aggravated sexual assault, then it gets classified under “other offences”. In reality, however, the possession of child pornography often involves sexual assault that is often even documented.
According to the Quebec Department of Public Safety, these types of crimes are on the rise. Cases of sexual interference and luring have risen by 6% and 9% respectively. These are moderate increases. Cases of incest have risen by 4.3%. Cases of publication of an intimate image without consent have risen by 7.4%, and cases of invitation to sexual touching have risen by 1.4%, and that number has held steady. These are chilling statistics.
Sexual acts and activities must only take place with the free and informed consent of the participants. The concept of consent is essential. It is based on the idea that the person is fit to make a decision and that they understand the implications and consequences.
In Canada, the age of consent to sexual activity is 16. However, in the case of all minors, including those who are aged 16 and 17, a young person cannot legally consent if a sexual partner is in a position of authority over them. If the young person is dependent on their sexual partner for support and has nowhere else to go and no one else to care for them, then they are in a relationship of dependency.
The relationship is exploitative when, as of the age of 12, there are close-in-age exceptions. A person who is 12 or 13 can consent to sexual activity if their partner is less than two years older. A person who is 14 or 15 can consent to sexual activity if their partner is less than five years older. That means that even if one of the partners is over the age of majority, as in the case of a couple consisting of a 15-year-old and a 19-year-old, consenting sexual contact can take place with a minor as long as they are close in age.
This also means that, conversely, in a situation where one member of the couple is over the age of majority, as in the case of a 14-year-old and a 19-year-old, the child cannot legally consent to sexual activity and the act becomes a sexual offence, even with the consent of the minor's parents. There is no possibility of consent when a child is under the age of 12.
It is worth noting that the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee took only 30 minutes. This is an uncontroversial bill, despite the number of amendments that were moved. In fact, most of the amendments came from the government. There was absolutely no debate on the substance of the bill, and all the amendments proposed by the government, 15 in all, were adopted unanimously. This is important work. Amendments G-1 and G-12 essentially added the notion of exploitation to the term “child sexual abuse material” to make it clear that possession of such material automatically involves the exploitation of a child. Naturally, these amendments were also adopted.
Also, not all judges have the knowledge required to deal with sexual assault cases or cases involving certain groups. We have been talking about this for a long time. Training for judges is important. The case of Judge Jean-Paul Braun is a shocking example. He said out loud during a trial that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the assault, had a pretty face and should feel flattered to have attracted the attention of an older man. An Alberta judge was fired after making what were considered sexist and racist remarks about indigenous people, abused women and victims of sexual assault.
An acquittal was overturned because a judge who found a man accused of sexually assaulting children not guilty relied on stereotypes. The judge suggested that, because nobody noticed anything, the girl, who was only between the ages of 6 and 12 at the time, was not credible. The judge said the child's testimony was not transparent, reliable, sincere or credible. Forcing all judges to participate in sexual assault and social context training would destroy certain stereotypes and myths that influence judges' decisions and their attitudes toward victims.
Fortunately, Bill C‑3 called on the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure that federal judicial appointees to various courts have the tools to help them preside over sexual assault cases. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who worked on that bill, pointed that out. The third time around, Bill C‑3 was finally unanimously passed by all MPs. It was passed on division in the Senate and received royal assent on May 6, 2021. It is an important bill.
In addition, the whole issue of cybercrime is also troubling. Last week, I had a chance to talk with Hugo Loiseau, a professor at the Université de Sherbrooke who is studying this issue. A cybercrime is a criminal offence committed through a computer system that is usually connected to another network. This whole issue of child pornography content, along with incitement to terrorism or hatred, falls under the category of cybercrime.
In conclusion, the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking is following this issue closely and is considering recommendations that could be made to the government to take action.
1724 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise this evening to speak to and express my support for this very important bill. This bill was brought forward by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap. Bill C-291 is an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, namely child sex abuse material.
I will underscore the fact that words do, indeed, matter. Definitions matter and language matters. It matters for the elected officials and the staff who work in this House of Commons. It is why the legislative drafters write the technical text of legislation and spend hours upon hours and days upon days refining and crafting the language.
Once a bill becomes law, it sets the parameters and the boundaries of behaviour within a free and democratic society. Bill C-291 is a very important bill that would ensure that there is no confusion around what “child pornography” actually is. It is child abuse.
As a former litigator, I am proud to see a common-sense and important change being proposed. As a mother, I am encouraged to see this House take action to protect and fight for our children, our country's most precious gift.
Changing the term “child pornography” in our federal laws to “child sexual abuse and exploitation” is not just semantics. If we understand the power of our words, especially when codified, then we know that this change will affect how we see and categorize this evil perpetrated against our children, and how we must all unite and fight against it.
This change would increase the clarity, the understanding and the precision in our legislative and legal framework. It would recognize that when pornography involves children, make no mistake, it is not pornography; it is sexual abuse material.
As Judge Koturbash said in a decision on this subject, “These are not actors. It is not consensual. These are images and videos of child sexual abuse.”
This kind of material is abhorrent. It cannot be consensual. These images are serious and they cause lifelong damage and trauma to children. Therefore, we must fight it with every tool that we have at our disposal in society. Without clarity and precision in our laws, and in the Criminal Code, there is confusion.
In this case, as Judge Koturbash said the current phrase “child pornography” actually dilutes the true meaning of what these images and videos represent. This change will recognize that children are victimized by such material.
As has been mentioned earlier, here in Canada, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16. There is no legal basis for a child to consent to participate in such material, and this, absent of consent, constitutes abuse and exploitation.
Around the world, we have been seeing similar initiatives to make this clear distinction. Child advocacy groups in the United States, like the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, as well as the 2016 Luxembourg Guidelines, which were put forward by 18 international partners, have sought to harmonize the terms and definitions that relate to child abuse and protection.
We need to see more decisive action from the government to bring perpetrators of sexual violence to justice. We need laws that will prosecute the broadcasting of sexual abuse and violence materials. We need laws that will make it clear that it is a crime to sexually exploit children.
This is one small but very significant step forward in protecting vulnerable boys and girls in Canada. Once again, I want to commend and thank the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap for his excellent work. I also want to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for his work on this bill.
I believe this bill reflects the collective strength of this united House and that we will stand together in denouncing child abuse and strengthen the laws to protect children from all forms of abuse. I believe that this bill would save lives. It is my honour to publicly support and vote for this bill.
686 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to start by expressing my sincere condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Jim Carr. He was a devoted parliamentarian who worked tirelessly for his community. He will be missed forever.
I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, regarding child sexual abuse and exploitation material, introduced by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap on June 17.
At the outset, I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleague for introducing this bill, which has a very important objective, to ensure that the terminology used to refer to child pornography means that this harmful material is actually abuse of children.
The Government of Canada is committed to preventing and protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind, including in Canada and abroad.
Canada works closely with international partners to combat online child sexual exploitation—
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this includes materials such as works of fiction that promote the sexual abuse of children, as well as the sexualized portrayal of adults as children. I am pleased that the new term was adopted unanimously by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as it is an important step towards bringing Canada in line with the general trend away from the term “child pornography”.
The second amendment proposed by the government is an entirely new provision, a one-year coming-into-force provision for the entire bill. I am pleased that this measure, too, was adopted unanimously by the committee.
This proposed amendment came about as a result of studying Bill C-291 after it was introduced. The government noted that the federal regulations made pursuant to An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service would require amending as a result of this bill, as they contain the term “child pornography”.
Those regulations will not be amended as a result of the enactment of Bill C-291 and, therefore, time would be required to get the process under way. I also learned that there are at least 50 pieces of provincial and territorial legislation from across Canada that incorporate or make reference to the term “child pornography” as defined by the Criminal Code, statutes as well as regulations.
Giving the provinces time to adapt their legislation, if they wish, to ensure the coherence of the legislation across Canada, is an important government responsibility. The one-year coming-into-force period would allow time for those amendments to be made in their respective jurisdictions. This delayed coming into force would also allow time for necessary administrative changes to be made at both the federal and provincial levels in places such as courts administrative systems and IT systems.
Finally, the third amendment proposed by the government, which was also unanimously passed in the committee, was the addition of a transitional clause. This new provision would assist participants in the criminal justice system to understand how ongoing proceedings that use the term “child pornography” would be affected on the date of the this bill coming into force.
This new provision clearly states that the changes of terminology would not affect the validity of any ongoing proceedings that have already begun under the old term “child pornography”. Similarly, the validity of any documents related to those proceedings would not be affected by the change in terminology.
In short, this transitional clause tells the criminal justice system participants that this change is a change in the name only. There should be no impacts on ongoing prosecutions as a result.
These three government amendments will, I believe, better achieve the objectives of not only calling these materials what they truly are, but also ensuring that the transition to the new terminology is done in a coherent and non-disruptive way.
I would like to thank the members of the justice committee for voting in favour of the government's amendments and for co-operating in bringing this bill through the House so quickly.
It should not be a surprise to members that the pandemic has contributed to a rise in the sexual offences committed against children, nor should it be a surprise that these offences are primarily committed via telecommunications networks.
In fiscal year 2021-22, the RCMP's National Child Exploitation Crime Centre received 81,799 complaints, reports and requests for assistance relating to online child sexual exploitation. This was a 56% increase compared to the previous fiscal year and an 854% increase compared to 2013-14.
Police-reported crime data from Statistics Canada which includes the first year of the pandemic indicates that incidents of making or distributing child pornography increased by 26% in 2021 compared to 2019. Possession of or accessing child pornography increased by 44% in 2021 compared to 2019 and represents a 146% increase since 2017.
There are many things needed to help combat child sexual exploitation. Clearly, we need to have comprehensive and robust criminal laws against it. We need to have strong and effective law enforcement. We need to continue to advance and support measures that seek to meet the needs of victims and survivors. The government supports the national strategy for the protection of children from sexual exploitation on the Internet, which has four pillars: raising awareness, reducing the stigma associated with reporting, increasing Canada's ability to pursue and prosecute offenders, and working with tech leaders to find new ways to combat the online sexual exploitation of children.
I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap for sponsoring this important bill and for co-operating with all parties to bring it to the House.
I also am thankful for the opportunity to speak.
819 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, could you tell us if we will be running out the clock or actually voting on this, perhaps tomorrow?
26 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before I continue, I also want to express my sincere condolences to the family of our hon. friend Jim Carr, who we lost. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends and constituents.
When we talk about this bill, the protection of children against sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind is an objective that I believe all members support. It is also a priority for the Government of Canada, and this is why we proposed amendments to this private member's bill that would strengthen it and ensure that it does what it was designed to do.
The bill, as it was introduced, proposes to change the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material” at section 163.1 of the Criminal Code, and to make other consequential amendments.
We proposed that the term “child sexual abuse material” in the bill be amended in order to be more descriptive of its definition, which is at section 163.1 of the Criminal Code. The new term, “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”, better describes not only materials that portray the sexual abuse of actual children, but also materials that advocate or counsel—
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join the third reading debate on Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, regarding child sexual abuse and exploitation material, which was introduced on June 17, 2022, by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it pleases me to see that the legislation received wide support at its introduction, at second reading and at committee, and now we have the legislation before us today in its first hour of third reading. Based on the comments we have heard consistently over the last while on this legislation, I expect that all members of the House of Commons will be supporting and voting in favour of it, and for good reason.
When the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo was standing up and reflecting on his time as a prosecutor, he said that he was prepared to take on and continue the challenge of going after these offenders. It made me reflect on a discussion I had with a police officer a number of years ago. The police officer said that he and a couple of others were involved in gathering information related to child pornography. What we are now talking about is widening the scope of child pornography to call it “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”.
There was an impact on that particular police officer, and he provided comments on that. He was making reference to Calgary at the time, because I believe that is where some additional attention was given by the government of the day in terms of going after Internet exploitation. It had an impact on individual investigators, and it was difficult for those who had children to go home and see them. One can only imaging having to deal with that on a daily basis.
I can sympathize with individuals who look at the legislation and say it must happen. There is no doubt in my mind that we will see the change. I say that based on discussions I have had with caucus colleagues and after listening to members across the way talk about it.
Replacing the words “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” broadens the scope and gives a much clearer and better sense of what we are talking about. Child pornography is, in fact, one of the most disgusting and horrific ways one can abuse a child.
When we talk about it, we need to have an understanding of the impact it has. It has a devastating impact on the lives of not only the victim, but the people around the victim, such as their family and friends. Obviously most important is the victim.
As the words say very clearly, we are talking about a child. When we think of the ages of the children being exploited, as has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions, we are talking about children as young as six months old to children up to the age of 18.
Regarding the type of exploitation that takes place, I do not know if trying to describe it in terms of actions is the way to go here, but what I would like to do is emphasize the degree, because often when people think of these materials being circulated, they think of things such as organized crime being behind it. I would like to highlight two things that I find so upsetting in dealing with this issue.
One is the end-user, the individuals who are participating and who ultimately cause any form of a demand for it. They are the consumers of these disgusting materials where children are being exploited. That is what offends me most. The individuals in question might actually surprise some. I was at a discussion where we were talking about child exploitation, and I was surprised to hear that there is a very strong component where we get family members who will exploit their own children.
How does a mother, father or any guardian take a four-year-old and put that four-year-old in an environment where there is some form of exploitation, sexual exploitation in particular? When I posed that question, I was told that there is an issue in many third world countries where the child is the source of income for the family. In my mind in no way does that justify the exploitation of the child, but I learned something from that.
We could then bring it forward to that more organized crime element, where it is well thought through. We could call it Internet luring. There are also individuals who will hang out at terminals where they know young people will go by. They lure young people through all forms of trickery, and before we know it, they are being exploited and being taken advantage of.
Whether it is the individual guardian or parent exploiting their own child or it is organized crime where we get that exploitation taking place, and everything in between, I believe Canadians look at it in the same manner I do and see it for what it is: a horrific crime of child abuse in the worst way.
At the end of the day, we factor in all the things that need to be factored in, and we take a look at the legislation. It is legislation many would argue is fairly straightforward legislation. It is legislation, as I indicated, that I am expecting all members to be voting in favour of when it comes to a vote. It is pretty straightforward in the sense of changing or replacing the word “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”, which I said at the very beginning widens the scope and provides a better clarification of what civil society, our neighbours and our constituents, would want us to do.
It is indeed a very serious issue, and I believe all members on all sides of the House recognize the sensitivity of it. As I said, I do believe that all members will in fact be voting in favour of it.
An hon. member: Then pass it today.
989 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak today on this important legislation, Bill C-291, from my Conservative colleagues, the members for North Okanagan—Shuswap and Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, and to help move this piece of legislation along.
Changing the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” is not only more accurate, but the terms “abuse”, “sexual abuse” and “exploitation” also currently exist in the Criminal Code and better align with the facts. As a mother, I have to say that I am not sure what could be more disturbing than child exploitation through sexual abuse material. The victims are children, and the unimaginable robbing of children of their innocence should be reflected in our Criminal Code.
Our 21st century digital age has brought many great things to our lives, but it has allowed the darkest and most pervasive crimes imaginable to be available to anyone. As a result, the ability of predators to monetize their evil behaviour means more children than ever are at a risk of repeat victimization.
It is shocking that in 2021 there was a 14% increase in sexual violations against children. A Statistics Canada 2021 report detailed how child sexual abuse material is a growing problem across Canada. We need to sharpen our laws so they ensure that the prosecution and punishment of offenders reflects the crime. Words do matter, and it is important this bill passes quickly in this place.
I am proud to support this bill, and I call on all members to join the Conservatives in acting to protect innocent victims, the children of today, who are the leaders of tomorrow.
285 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
I want to highlight the exemplary work of someone from my community who recently passed, and that is Melanie Savage. She was a captain in the Blackpool Fire Department. Only 34 years old, she served the community with diligence. I got to know her father through his work in the RCMP when he was a Queen's jubilee medal recipient four or five months ago. I had the privilege of speaking with him today. My condolences go to her family and may eternal light shine upon her.
Similarly, I want to express my condolences to the family of our colleague, the Hon. Jim Carr. May eternal light shine upon him as well.
I had to look up the date. It was about 2015 when my supervisor came to me when I was a prosecutor and said that I had done a lot of work prosecuting what we call child pornography offences, that I was good at it and asked if I would consider doing more. I said no. I went home that night, I talked to my wife about it and I said that somebody had to do this work, so I agreed to do it and said that I would take it on for two years. Six years later, I was more immersed in the work than ever.
Through my work prosecuting child sexual abuse and exploitation material, its production and its dissemination and also the hands-on offences such as sexual assault, sexual interference and Internet luring, I came to understand the importance of victims not only getting justice but moving forward. The reality is that in those six years I looked too many victims in the eye not to know that, if we think that this is something that happens elsewhere, we must think again. As one noted jurist said, Internet luring, for instance, is an insidious crime and it is connected to child sexual abuse and exploitation material.
There is no reason why this bill should not pass and that this bill should not be voted upon tomorrow. This is an important bill; let us make no mistake about it. This bill passed unanimously at second reading. I am confident it will pass unanimously again at third reading.
I drafted this bill based on my experience and I want to thank the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap for sponsoring the bill and using his spot in the order of precedence. I want to thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, taking a team British Columbia approach, for bringing this bill here today. I am going to look into the camera first and then I am going to look at my Liberal colleagues. In fact, I am going to look at all my colleagues and say this: There is no reason that this bill should not pass tomorrow.
After my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country, we as Conservatives will not be putting up any more speakers. There will be roughly 20 minutes of debate left. If debate collapses, we will vote tomorrow. Therefore, I want to be very clear. My exhortation to the people in the House is to let debate collapse. If we believe in this and we say this is important, let us put our money where our mouths are and let debate collapse. I want to be very clear. If debate does not collapse, it is not because of anybody here who wishes for it not to happen because I would love to see a vote occur on this tomorrow.
My heart goes out to victims, to law enforcement and to all those who deal with these difficult, insidious offences. That is all I have to say. My hope is that we are voting on this tomorrow.
646 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, may I have unanimous consent to split my time?
11 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am going to speak not from notes but from the heart today. Before I begin, however, I want to note two things. First, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kelowna—Lake Country. This will be likely a brief speech that I am giving, from the heart—
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment, since it is my first time rising since the passing of our colleague Jim Carr, who was the member for Winnipeg South Centre, to express my condolences to his family and friends and to say that I faced Jim across the aisle here for quite a long time. The flowers on his desk today certainly remind us all of his absence. We often shared a nod, a headshake or a smile at things that happened in the chamber. He was one of the MPs who exemplified to me the best of what it means to be a member of Parliament.
Turning to the subject at hand, Bill C-291, the NDP will be supporting this bill as it has been retitled, “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”.
I accept the good intentions of its author and its sponsor in the House, and I believe that it is more than magical thinking, as some have accused. I think it is about making clear what we are doing and what we are condemning. We are broadening that definition so we can more easily get prosecutions done under this new title of “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”, and removing the word “pornography” takes away the sense that, somehow, there was anything ever consensual about these kinds of materials and activities when they involve children.
Those in the House now know that this is part of my own story. I stand in the House not just as an ally of child sexual abuse survivors but as one of them. I have a strong message for all of those out there, every time I speak, and it is that this could happen to anyone. It has happened to many of us, and it need not destroy our entire life, but it is a burden that we will carry forward. I am glad to see all of us supporting strong action against these kinds of crimes against children.
When it comes to child abuse and sexual exploitation, we know what works, and I am hoping that those who have sponsored the bill and all of us who are supporting this bill will also be there when it comes time to have additional resources for enforcement, and when it comes time for additional supports for those who have survived these crimes. I trust that we will all be there when that time comes.
I trust what the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap said today, in that we can agree to keep our speeches short and to limit the number to make sure that this bill can pass today before we rise for the holiday.
I know that there have been some discussions and some back and forth here today, and I am siding with the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap in that hope that we can do our best to make sure this is concluded so we can vote tomorrow to send it off to the other place.
I am really at the end of what I wanted to say today, so let me also take this opportunity to wish my colleagues, however they celebrate, a very happy holiday season. I look forward to being back here at the end of January to continue the important work we do on behalf of Canadians.
564 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, next time I will remember to ask for a lectern.
As I was saying, child sexual abuse has a significant connotation. It is pedophilia. When people talk about pornography in today's society, there is apparently some ambiguity around that word. The meaning and significance of pornography vary considerably from person to person. Some people may consider certain actions pornographic. Some actions, some audiovisual material and some books may be considered pornographic by some and art or just sexuality by others. To some people, it is not that at all.
I think we can live with some degree of ambiguity with respect to pornography. That may be a subject for another time in another place, but child pornography is something else entirely. Child sexual abuse is unacceptable in our society, and I think it is important not to mince words. The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑291 because we think it is essential.
The point I want to make about pornography is that it has everything to do with the participants' consent. Child sexual abuse is totally different.
Let us look at the statistics. We are told that, in Quebec, the number of victims under the age of 18 has grown faster than the number of adult victims in recent years. We are talking about an annual increase of 9.5% in cases of child pornography, cases of sexual assault against children. Meanwhile, the number of crimes involving pornography or sexual assault against adults increased by only 4.3%. That is a lot. I am not saying that it is not significant. I simply want to emphasize the fact that what we consider abusive, namely sexual assault against adults, increased by 4.3% and we find that unacceptable. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that, for children, that increase amounted to 9.5% a year.
I think we need to take action. There are all kinds of ways to do that. I am thinking about the possibility of educating children on the topic in schools and the need to make adults more aware of this problem. All sorts of measures can be taken as part of the administration of justice to ensure that children are better protected.
In the federal Parliament we work with the Criminal Code. Yes, we may need to review some provisions of the Criminal Code, impose harsher sentences or find other approaches. One thing is certain, what Bill C-291 is proposing is no minor matter, unlike some bills that simply seek to change the terms that are used without doing anything that has a real impact.
At the same time, I think we have to keep the issue of the healing process in mind. In the current system, an adult who sexually assaults a child could be charged with sexual assault or with using child pornography, without any real understanding of what that means. Often, children will feel responsible for acts that should be blamed on the adult who abused them.
During the victim's healing process, it is important to ensure that the victim does not feel responsible in any way. This is important. It is equally important, for the victim's sake, that we ensure that the abuser is blamed and identified as the perpetrator of the acts.
I think that being accused of having consumed, used or sold child pornography is already a serious matter. Being accused of child sexual abuse is much more serious, much more significant. Young victims will understand that the burden of what took place falls not on them, but on the abuser, the person who is accused of child sexual abuse. I think that will help in the healing process.
In closing, Bill C-291 is not a panacea. I said earlier that perhaps we need to review certain provisions of the Criminal Code in terms of how we deal with the offenders in question, but we also need to ensure the sound administration of justice.
We recently passed a bill that requires training for new judges who will be appointed in the federal system. They will be required to take training on sexual assault law. This is important. We want to avoid a repeat of what happened in 2017 with former judge Braun, who made wholly unacceptable comments about a young girl, saying that she should perhaps feel proud, or something like that, to have been forcibly kissed. It was unacceptable and despicable. The Court of Appeal refused to hear his appeal, as did the Supreme Court. We never want to see anything like that happen again. Training for judges is therefore important.
The bill we passed is important, but there is still more to do. Quebec and the provinces will no doubt follow suit with measures to ensure that kids in our schools and adults who work with young people are very aware of this issue. The federal Parliament has done its job with Bill C‑291, and I congratulate the member who introduced this bill. I think it will be good for everyone.
I will conclude by wishing everyone a happy holiday.
863 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
