JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, September 25, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

The Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada)

Á

1110

Á

1115

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Á

1130

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mrs. Carole Morency (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice)

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

The Chair

Mrs. Carole Morency

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Á

1135

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

Á

1140

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Mrs. Carole Morency

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP)

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Mrs. Carole Morency

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Á

1150

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mrs. Carole Morency

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mrs. Carole Morency

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Á

1155

The Chair

Mrs. Carole Morency

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mrs. Carole Morency

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Â

1210

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Â

1215

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mrs. Carole Morency

Mr. Inky Mark

Mrs. Carole Morency

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Carole Morency

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.)

Â

1240

Mr. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mrs. Carole Morency

Â

1245

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Â

1250

The Chair

Mrs. Carole Morency

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Martin Cauchon

Â

1255

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mrs. Carole Morency

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mrs. Carole Morency

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

·

1300

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Carole Morency

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

·

1305

The Chair

Mr. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 063

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, September 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good afternoon, and welcome back. Bienvenue tout le monde.

    I call to order meeting 63 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today we have appearing before us on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, the Honourable Martin Cauchon, the Minister of Justice, and departmental officials.

    Colleagues, it's nice to see everyone again. It's been an interesting summer. I acknowledge my pen pals to my left and all of my colleagues. I particularly welcome Minister Cauchon and his officials, as we begin this very important work of the committee.

    I understand, Mr. Cauchon, you have on opening statement. Try to stay as close to ten minutes as you can.

[Translation]

    The Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada):

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, colleagues. I would like to thank you for the privilege of speaking to committee members on Bill C-20, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Protection of Children and Other Vulnerable Persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

    Before I begin, I would like to introduce two people with me today from the Department of Justice: Ms. Lisette Lafontaine and Ms. Carole Morency. They will be resource persons during the question period. Naturally, they were very much involved in drafting Bill C-20.

    Bill C-20 is important for a number of reasons. First and foremost, its chief objective is to protect children from sexual exploitation and from all types of victimization. The government said in the Speech from the Throne that this issue was a priority. I hope it will be supported by all committee members.

    Second, the bill is the product of a significant provincial, territorial and public consultation process, and a review of several of the proposed amendments.

    Mr. Chairman, Bill C-20 contains five main points. First, it seeks to strengthen the provisions on child pornography; to offer young persons better protection from sexual exploitation, to strengthen the provisions on sentencing in cases involving offences against children; to facilitate the testimony of child victims and witnesses as well as other vulnerable persons; and to modernize the criminal law by creating a new offence of voyeurism.

    I will take a few moments to describe each of these points in greater detail. The provisions on child pornography in the Criminal Code of Canada are among the toughest in the world. They already provide that the following acts are an offence: making, printing, publishing or possessing for the purpose of publication child pornography; and transmitting, making available, distributing, selling, importing, exporting or possessing for the purpose of transmission, making available, distribution, sale or exportation; and possessing child pornography and accessing any child pornography.

    Bill C-20 would go even further. First, the bill would broaden the definition of written child pornography. It would include not only written material that advocates or counsels sexual activity with children, but also written material the dominant characteristic of which is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a child. This amendment recognizes the danger that this type of written material can represent for children and society by describing children as objects of sexual exploitation.

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    Second, Mr. Chairman, Bill C-20 proposes to narrow existing defences to one defence of public good. Courts would have to apply a two-step inquiry. First, does the material or act serve the public good? If not, there would indeed be no defence. If it does, the next issue is whether it goes beyond what serves the public good. No defence would be available where the act or material poses a risk of harm that exceeds what serves the public good. In this way Bill C-20 recognizes that in some instances, for example, when a police officer or crown prosecutor processes child pornography for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting a child pornography case, the public good is served by providing them with a defence to a charge of possession of child pornography.

    It also adds an additional test that is not part of the current artistic merit defence. Under the existing artistic merit defence, defence is available for material that is objectively shown to have artistic value. Under the bill's proposal, even material that is objectively shown to have artistic value must be considered under an additional test: it will not have a defence where the risk of harm such material poses to society outweighs any potential benefit it offers.

    Mr. Chairman, this government has recognized that we must do more to protect young persons against sexual exploitation by those who would prey on their vulnerability. We have, for example, done exactly that with the recent creation of the new offence of using the Internet to lure a young person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against that young person. Bill C-20 proposes further protection.

    Mr. Chairman, it is true that some think that the best way to protect young persons against sexual exploitation is to raise the general age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years. However, the government believes there is a better, more effective, and more direct response. Consistent with the criminal law's general treatment of sexual assault, Bill C-20 focuses on the exploitative conduct of the offender and not on the apparent consent of the young person to that sexual activity. It recognizes that existing prohibitions against sexual activity do not differentiate between sexual activity that consists of kissing and sexual activity that consists of sexual intercourse. It also recognizes the reality that many Canadian youth do engage in sexual activity.

    Bill C-20 also recognizes that increasing the age of consent to 16 years does not respond to any concerns about the sexual exploitation of young persons through prostitution or child pornography by others in relationships of trust or authority, or involving dependency of the young person, because for all of these the age of consent is not 14, it is already 18.

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, Bill C-20 meets the concerns about the sexual exploitation of children, by proposing the creation of a new category of unlawful sexual exploitation. In addition to investigating whether there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency, the courts will also have to determine whether the relationship in question is based on exploitation. To do this, they will have to look at the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including the age difference and the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

    Mr. Chairman, we are concerned about situations involving sexual activity between a 50-year-old man and a 15-year-old girl. Bill C-20 meets these concerns and clearly orders the courts to look at whether the age difference indicates that the relationship is based on exploitation. The bill puts forward a number of amendments to ensure that the sentences given to the people who commit crimes against children better reflect the seriousness of such offences. The main measures are as follows: to double the maximum prison sentence for sexual exploitation from five years to ten years, in the case of indictments; and tripling the maximum sentence, from six months to 18 months, for sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching and sexual exploitation in the case of summary conviction proceedings. The bill would also increase the maximum sentence, from two to five years for failure to provide the necessaries of life and for abandoning a child when the offence is prosecuted as an indictable offence. 

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Chairman, the bill would also make the exploitation of a child during the commission of any other offence an aggravating factor for purposes of sentencing. I would highlight this change, because I know that some individuals expressed some concerns about the fact that in some cases involving physical or sexual exploitation of children, including child pornography, the sentence imposed on the person who committed the offence was not harsh enough.

    As you know, these concerns dealt mainly with the use of conditional sentencing in punishing these offences. In this regard, I know the committee is continuing its study of conditional sentences, and I am looking forward to the results of your work.

    Bill C-20 would improve the ability of child victims and witnesses and that of other vulnerable victims and witnesses to provide a clear, complete and accurate account of the events, while insuring that the rights of the accused are protected and respected. The bill would amend and clarify the criteria for determining whether testimonial aids should be used, in particular, a screen, a support person and closed-circuit television, excluding the public, publication bans, video recordings of the victim's statement and the appointment of a counsel to cross-examine the witness in cases where the accused is representing himself.

    The testimonial aids proposed in Bill C-20 can be broken down into three separate categories: first, cases involving a child victim or a child witness under 18, or a victim or witness with a disability; cases involving a victim of criminal harassment, and finally cases involving another adult victim or another vulnerable adult witness.

    For child victims or witnesses and victims or witnesses with disabilities, Bill C-20 would amend the criterion for determining whether the use of testimonial aids should be authorized. These aids would be available on request, unless they would interfere with the proper administration of justice.

[English]

    Mr. Chairman, in cases where the accused is charged with criminal harassment and the accused is self-represented, the Crown could apply for the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination of the victim, and the court would be required to order it unless doing so would interfere with the proper administration of justice. This proposed amendment recognizes that a victim of criminal harassment or stalking, as it is sometimes called, should not have to endure further harassment by a self-represented accused.

    In a case involving any other adult victim or witness, the Crown could apply for the use of any of these testimonial aids or the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination for self-represented accused. To avail themselves of these aids, these adult witnesses would have to demonstrate that based upon the surrounding circumstances, including the nature of the offence and any relationship between them and the accused, they would be unable to provide a full and candid account without the testimonial aid.

    Bill C-20 also proposes to amend the existing provisions relating to the admissibility of videotaped evidence of a child's testimony or of a victim or witness who is able to communicate but may have difficulty doing so because of a physical or other disability. Specifically, it would permit the admission of videotaped interviews of these witnesses in proceedings for any criminal offence and not just those involving sexual offences.

    This bill also proposes to modernize the provisions for publication bans that can be imposed to protect the identity of a victim or witness or to ensure trial fairness. These provisions would be amended to prohibit publication, broadcast, or dissemination in any manner, including by the Internet.

Á  (1120)  

[Translation]

    In addition, Bill C-20 would amend the Canada Evidence Act to eliminate the requirement to hold a hearing to determine the witness' capacity to testify and to eliminate the distinction between testimony under oath or solemn affirmation and testimony without oath or solemn affirmation.

    Rather than stressing the capacity of a child to explain what is meant by swearing an oath or promising to tell the truth, the changes provide that the court must examine the capacity of a child witness under 14 to understand and answer questions. It is then up to the judge as is true in all the situations, to determine the weight that should be given to the evidence provided by the child.

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill will protect the privacy of Canadians by modernizing the criminal law to respond better to new ways of committing acts of voyeurism. We are proposing a new offence that would criminalize the surreptitious observation or recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Individuals commit an offence if they observe or record a person in these circumstances, if this is done for a sexual purpose or if it is a serious violation of a person's privacy.

    Bill C-20 would ban the publication or dissemination of any recording resulting from acts of voyeurism. The defence based on public good could be used for all offences of voyeurism, and an exception for peace officers would ensure that these new offences would not have any impact on activities carried out under the authority of a court warrant.

    Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you on Bill C-20. As I mentioned at the outset, this bill deals with a number of issues on which the government has made a commitment to take priority action and which are considered important by many Canadians.

[English]

    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your time. I'll let you proceed with your question period.

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Cauchon.

    For the first seven minutes, Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    We hope this won't only be a question period but more of a question and answer period. We welcome this opportunity to hear from the minister and to raise specific concerns.

    This bill, in our opinion, is a very first, timid step by this government to protect children. It is good in some respects and yet quite unsatisfactory in many others. In Bill C-20, the existing defences to child pornography—artistic merit, educational, scientific, medical purpose, and public good—have been reduced essentially to the single defence of public good. This leaves in the hands of judges the determination of what constitutes public good.

    Judges have failed children on this issue before. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that defences to the possession of child pornography, including specifically public good, should be interpreted in as broad terms as possible. This helped John Robin Sharpe get off the hook for possession of child pornography that a judge found had artistic merit.

    What did our highest court say about the term “public good”? What it said is truly alarming. In the Sharpe decision, the court held that public good has been interpreted as “necessary or advantageous...to the pursuit of science, literature, or art, or other objects of general interest”. The court went on to say this:

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. In some cases this might eliminate some of the more problematic applications of s. 163.1(4). For example, it might in certain cases foreclose

—and I emphasize the word “foreclose”—

the law’s application to visual works created and privately held by one person alone....

That's essentially the John Robin Sharpe situation.

    Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw in the Robin Sharpe decision essentially adopted that position in acquitting Mr. Sharpe of a number of offences. Now this bill specifically incorporates that defence, making express the defence that John Robin Sharpe was acquitted on by Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw.

    Mr. David Matas, a very prominent lawyer and civil rights advocate and also counsel for the anti-child pornography group Beyond Borders, tells us that this defence of public good in fact expands the artistic merit defence. It doesn't close it off, it expands it. So it's obvious that a broad loophole for sexual perverts who wish to possess child pornography has been left in this bill. Canadians have been misled by the term “public good”, considering how the Supreme Court of Canada has already interpreted the defence. It seems odd to me that we would be incorporating specifically the problem that the Sharpe decision made very express and that concerned so many Canadians when Mr. John Robin Sharpe was acquitted.

    What assurance does the minister have that this broad new defence of public good will not be broadly interpreted so that we have a repeat of the Sharpe situation, where prosecutors were not able to convict him of a number of charges thanks to the court's interpretation of public good?

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: Let's first have a look at the Sharpe decision and look at the reason why he was found not guilty. Essentially, it was because of the existing definition of written child pornography. If I may, I'll just quote here. The current definition of child pornography applies only to material “that advocates or counsels” illegal “sexual activity” with children.

    That said, if in the case of Sharpe he was able to get away with not being found guilty, it was essentially because of the existing definition of written child pornography. If you look at the brand-new definition, it really broadens the base of application, and with that brand-new definition we believe the written material in Mr. Sharpe's possession indeed would have been seen as child pornography.

    The second point I'd like to raise is on the public good defence we bring forward. It's a defence that exists within the Criminal Code and that's been tested in the past as well. It's a two-tiered system, a two-step defence, if I may say. It seems obvious to me that in the Sharpe case he would not have been able to go through the second step of the public good defence. Again, the first step is that it has to serve the public good. The second test is to look at whether it goes beyond what is needed to serve the public good.

    That said, he wouldn't meet the new definition we have in Bill C-20. Second, he wouldn't be able to go through the second stage of the public good defence.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Less than a minute, Mr. Toews.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Vic Toews: I'm concerned, Mr. Chair, because not only was the Sharpe decision restricted to written material, but now we also have the Supreme Court of Canada specifically saying that the public good defence will “foreclose the law's application”--namely, the prosecution of cases--“to visual works created and privately held by one person alone”. So with John Robin Sharpe, the ones he was acquitted on were the written ones. Now we're saying that not only are they going to be acquitted on the written ones, where it was privately held by one person--or so he claimed--but where there now are visual works created, the law is going to be foreclosed from prosecuting him.

    That's what the Supreme Court of Canada says. These are the court's words, not mine. It's the court itself. So I'm concerned, why would we adopt a standard that specifically raises the issue now of the visual works being exempted?

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: Madam Morency has something to add.

    The Chair: Go ahead, Madam Morency.

    Mrs. Carole Morency (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): In the Sharpe decision, the materials in question were written stories, and the intention had been to make them public. He was attempting to have them published. The Supreme Court's decision in dealing with this matter looked at works of the imagination that are not shared, not made public, not given to anyone. And with respect, the quote, I believe, was referring to works of the imagination, where that exemption applies. Bill C-20 does not alter that exemption. However, for works of the imagination, whether it be a written story or a painting, if an artist or a writer or an individual makes that public, shows it to one person, or otherwise distributes it, that material is caught by the existing offences.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Monsieur Marceau, seven minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you for your presentation, Minister. I think that everyone here wants to fight child pornography and I think the discussions of this committee should be centred on that.

    My first question is about the definition to which you referred that appears in Bill C-20. In your opinion, would this bill, through this definition, criminalize the twisted and sick thoughts of men or women who write down their thoughts about child pornography in their diary? By broadening the definition, would we be making such thoughts criminal?

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Morency.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: Again, it's the works of the imagination. If the diary is made by an individual, kept only for that individual's use, not otherwise distributed or shown to anyone, the Supreme Court, in the Sharpe decision, did say that material would not be caught by possession. There would be an exemption for that. But the second the individual shares that material, makes it available, distributes it, shows it to anyone, that exemption would be lost. In the case of child pornographers, from a practical perspective, law enforcement advise that this generally is not an issue. Child pornographers tend to share, distribute, make available their materials. But again, it was a very narrow exemption, dealing with works of the imagination.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Concerning the Sharpe decision, I was surprised not to find ...

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: Once this type of written material is shared, the exemption no longer applies. In the example you gave, only the defence based on the concept of public good could be used.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand correctly, there is no problem if individuals write down such things for themselves, but if they show this written material to someone else, a charge could be laid, and the defence would be the concept of the public good.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: These are the exceptions that were defined in the Sharpe decision.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I was surprised not to find them in the bill. Why do we not find a direct reference to the defences set out in the Sharpe decision in the bill?

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: The Sharpe decision clearly set out the exceptions. It is not necessary to include them in the legislation. The exceptions are stated very well in the Sharpe decision and they are part of Canadian law.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Consequently, Bill C-20 in no way amends the exceptions set out in the Sharpe decision.

    You said earlier that the best way of dealing with the issue of consent to sexual relations was to lower the age of consent, but that you could not do that. I would like to have a better understanding of this criterion of exploitation and the problems and uncertainty it may cause in law.

    How can an adult who has a relationship with a minor be sure that he or she is not committing a crime? Are we not opening the door to parents who do not approve of their son's or daughter's relationship and decide to lay charges? The parent could do something that is not in keeping with the intention of the bill, which is to try to prevent exploitative relationships. Is there not a danger of uncertainty in the law, and if not, how can we better define exploitation?

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: A criminal prosecution is subject to a rigorous process before it goes to court. Frivolous prosecutions may be set aside by the police or crown attorneys. As you know, in Quebec, the crown attorney really plays the most important role in criminal prosecutions.

    First of all, the age of consent is 14 in Canada, but it is 18 for relationships involving trust, authority or dependency. The age of consent for crimes of child pornography or prostitution is 18. There is a great deal of discussion about this matter. Should we change the age of consent from 14 to 15 or 16? This matter comes up at every federal-provincial meeting, and there is no consensus on it around the table.

    Second, I think that the new offence we are creating will offer greater protection with respect to age groups. If we set the age of consent at 15, for example, then we are offering protection until age 15 only. The new offence we will be creating, which talks about an exploitative relationship, will protect all young people between 14 and 18.

    How will this be enforced? It will be up to the courts to determine, on a case-by-case basis that takes into account the entire situation of the relationship, including the age difference. I think this will offer maximum protection to more young people, and the courts will be able to rule on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Let me first thank the minister and staff for appearing before the committee.

    We all know Canadians have been waiting for a long time for this type of legislation. It is honourable to protect the children and other vulnerable persons in our country. We also know Canadians expect a legislative instrument to fulfil the needs of a country. In other words, if the legislation clearly says it should protect the children and other vulnerable persons, it should do that. They expect to see convicted pedophiles in prison, and if they repeat, the public expects them to be monitored. Whether this instrument we have currently before us will do the job or not we'll find out, I guess, when we go through the process.

    Knowing there is an urgent need for this legislation, let me ask two questions.

    One is about the legislative calendar itself. As you know, Minister, the government is probably going to rise soon. This was tabled December 5, 2002, so we're almost a year down the road, and we're sitting here basically starting out. So what's going to happen to this piece of legislation in the event that the House rises?

    Second, one of the criticisms of this bill is that it fails to institute mandatory prison sentences for convicted pedophiles and other sexual predators. I'd like to know why that is not put in place.

    Thank you.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: First, I would like to thank the chair and committee members. This bill is the very first one on your agenda, it's your priority, and it's my priority as well. I really wanted to proceed with this piece of legislation. I'm glad to see as well that we are all working in the same direction and want to make sure we move quickly with this bill. If there's an amendment that we can bring in order to offer better protection to our children in this nation, we'll be more than pleased to have a look at all that.

    As to the calendar, first, it's up to the work of the committee. You will hear some witnesses, and as soon as the committee reports, we'll move ahead in the House. We hope to be able to proceed with full adoption of the bill in the House of Commons before Christmas.

    Mr. Inky Mark: If it fails going through the House and the Senate, do you expect this to be raised in the next session as a priority item for Justice?

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: There is no doubt in my mind that it would come back in another session. It's an important piece of legislation and it's a priority. But I believe we're going to be able to go through with the bill this fall

    Mrs. Carole Morency: With respect to the issue of why Bill C-20 does not address the issue of mandatory sentences, as the minister has outlined, what Bill C-20 does do is a number of things with respect to sentencing. First, it makes the commission of any offence against any child an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. The change there is that currently it's against one's own child, so it's in the case of a domestic violence situation. That's a change that will affect all of the offences.

    Secondly, there are a number of proposals in Bill C-20 to increase the maximum penalties for some of the specific child sexual offences. The minister made reference to the issue as to whether or not Bill C-20 should have addressed the issue of the use of conditional sentences, for example, in these cases. As the minister has said, that's an issue before this committee generally on the issue of conditional sentences.

    With regard to mandatory minimum penalties, I know you've heard from one of my colleagues from the Department of Justice, Mr. David Daubney, on issues of sentencing, but as the committee will know, the Criminal Code was amended a number of years ago to create a whole new approach to sentencing issues. It provides sentencing principles for guiding the courts in exercising their important functions in arriving at a sentence that both meets the circumstances of the case and protects society. Mandatory minimums have a number of issues that go with them, and if the committee is interested, I would be prepared to have one of our colleagues come to speak to you more specifically on that.

    It's not addressed in this context. The conduct covered by the offences addressed in Bill C-20 covers quite a range of conduct. It certainly would be outside the type of conduct that is traditionally covered by mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Nystrom for seven minutes.

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to welcome the minister and the officials and say that we support this bill on second reading. I can think of nothing more despicable than pedophiles and people who prey on children. We have to be tough and bring down the full force of the law and have tough sentences and do everything we can to ensure we limit this despicable practice.

    I want to ask the minister two or three questions in terms of his definition of the new law and what the changes are from the previous law. I want to ask him to define, in his opinion, the scope and nature of the public good. I'm asking that, Mr. Chair, because I've had some representations from the Writers' Union and artists in the country who are concerned that the term “artistic merit” has been dropped, or is proposed to be dropped. They're concerned about legitimate expression of art.

    I don't think anyone wants to see innocent bystanders caught up in the sweep of the law. We have to have a tough law and go after the culprits—the pedophiles and sexual predators. But there is concern by the artistic community on the other hand that they may be caught up quite innocently in the whole sweep of the process. Why was artistic merit dropped, and what is the minister's definition of public good as it pertains to this?

    I think what the minister says, Mr. Chair, is important here in terms of giving some kind of signal to the courts as to what the Department of Justice really means by this.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: Artistic merit still exists in the sense that a piece of art will have to essentially go through the new defence of public good and through the two stages. Of course, the first question is always this. Does it serve the public good? In other words, does it serve our society? The second step it will have to go through is whether the harm caused to our society outweighs the purpose it serves.

    As I said, the defence of public good is not new in itself. It has been used in the Criminal Code in the past. I see no problem with people from the media, for example, as regards the use--the use of what they have, what they could have--but they will have to go through one more time the two-tier test that exists. The best example we have is the one I gave in my opening statement, when we were talking about police forces in possession of materials that could be seen as child pornography. They would have to go through the test, and I believe they would be able to rely on the defence.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: In addition, as the minister has said, for example, if you consider a work of art and how that would pass through the two-step test the minister has described.... This committee may be familiar with the decision in Ontario involving an artist, Eli Langer. In that case, they looked at whether or not under the existing Criminal Code provisions that artwork met at that time the community standards of tolerance test. But the issue really was in applying the two-step inquiry.

    That art work in question was considered by the court to lament the sexual abuse of children as opposed to describing it or portraying it for sexual purposes or other reasons. Certainly that common law, that case law, would be before the courts. The courts would also benefit from the Supreme Court's decision in Sharpe in interpreting and applying the public good defence.

    But the definition would be very clear, as would the two-step test, again, as interpreted by and applied by the Supreme Court.

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Since we're going into new area here, I'd like to put another question to the minister. I'll just read it so I get it as precisely as I can. Can you assure us that child pornography sections have sufficient safeguards in them to protect legitimate artists...? I've talked about the artists already, so you've answered that part of the question, I think. But we've also had representations from scientists, researchers, and others whose legitimate work may involve sexual materials. For example, a criminology or sociology student may publish sexually explicit material as part of an academic and research paper. I'm just wondering if the minister can comment in terms of whether or not there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation to protect, not just the artist, but scientists and researchers. This is a question that I've had asked of myself by some of these folks.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: Of course, all people would have to go through the tests of public good. As I said, even members of the police forces will have to meet the test. But having said that, I believe that when you look at the defence itself and the way it is structured—the two-tier tests—there are enough safeguards.

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I wonder if Ms. Morency might want to add something to that as well.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: I think the minister's comments address it. I'm not sure if I can expand. I would add only the idea that no one has a blanket exemption or is excluded from the application of the child pornography provisions in section 163.1 to begin with—police, artists, educators, medical practitioners, scientists. If the material or the act in question meets the definition of child pornography as set out in section 163.1 and as proposed by Bill C-20, then the material automatically qualifies as child pornography.

    The next test before the court would be, does the individual in question have a defence? For police, the example has been made. For artists, the example has been made. For scientists or educators, obviously there is value. Again, the Supreme Court does provide some analysis on this. But clearly there's a benefit to society if medical practitioners or a profession can educate their new students or members in terms of what some medical conditions are and whether it's a depiction. It certainly goes to serve the public good and would be in the public interest.

    I query whether an individual on the street who has all of these medical journals and is not a medical practitioner could make the same argument in meeting at least the second test.

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I certainly agree with you that no one should be excluded. It's a matter of whether or not there are adequate safeguards to make sure that legitimate people have the freedom to explore what they have to explore in terms of the research, science, and art.

    I want to ask you another question in terms of how the law may evolve. For instance, is the public good to be measured in the short run or the long run? How do you see this evolving? I know from my experience around this place over the years that the definition of something today might be different than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Things evolve. On the issue we were involved in just recently in terms of same-sex marriage, for example, there were different feelings about that 20, 30, or 40 years ago, even five or six years ago. There has been an evolution in our society on many issues.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nystrom.

    Ms. Morency.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: The starting point specifically in the area of child pornography, of course, the Supreme Court's decision on Sharpe, is there. There is some case law before this, because the public good defence has been part of the Canadian criminal law since the first Criminal Code in 1892. Certainly there are other cases that the courts can draw from in terms of helping them to assess this balancing test on the public good defence.

    However, the tools are fairly clear for the courts today. The definition is clear. The proposal in Bill C-20 is to expand on the written definition of child porn, and again the test is fairly clear and is further elaborated upon by the case law. So we think the tools are there for the courts to interpret it in a manner consistent with the objectives that everyone is discussing today.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    Thank you very much, Minister, for coming and explaining this bill to us, because it's one I think most of us are very concerned about. As Mr. Nystrom said, we're all concerned about freedom of expression, artistic merit, etc., medical research, and at the same time, we want to make sure our children are not exploited. I think many of us have been concerned with regard to the Sharpe case, whether it had or had not crossed the line, and I think you've explained all that very well to us.

    I approve of some of the things you are doing now to increase and improve the ability for young people to be protected. However, I have always been very concerned about one particular thing, what we loosely call child prostitution. I don't think we should call it child prostitution; I think we should call it commercial sexual exploitation of children, because prostitution leads one to believe the person is plying a trade. These children aren't plying a trade at all; they're just being exploited.

    The one thing that concerns me in your expansion is the term “evolution of relationships”. You said there were going to be three new ways in which the courts are going to consider whether a relationship is exploitative or not. One is going to be to consider the age difference between the parties, and that's reasonable. The other one is going to be the degree of control or influence, which is extremely reasonable. But what do you mean by evolution of the relationship? Could it be taken to mean a person deciding to build and develop a relationship with a young person with a view in a year to exploiting them commercially? I'd like to have that explained.

    Second, you've said on page 4 of what we have, “to watch persons of that age group, exploitation of persons, or from communicating with them by computer”. I understand communicating with them, but it is my understanding, having looked at this for a long time, that many children who are commercially sexually exploited are not necessarily being communicated with, they are communicating. In other words, they don't stand on street corners any more, they are actually on a computer, they are on a website, they are advertising themselves. So I want to know if this now covers their own advertisement for themselves, whatever the body they're being exploited by.

    When I was Secretary of State for the Status of Women, we put out an international forum of young people in the Americas who had been sexually exploited, and they had concerns over some of these things. They are no longer on the street corners; nobody can see them or pick them up. They are being advertised on the Internet in very subtle ways. It's not openly “buy me for sex”, but it's subtle enough that people can log on and have a try. So we're not communicating with children, the children are communicating with adults, and I wonder if this covers that as well.

    Finally, I do have a concern with regard to the public good. Building on what Mr. Nystrom asked you, I know there used to be these cute little shots of babies lying on a blanket with nothing on. I know many parents are concerned, because there have been instances of parents taking pictures to be developed by some company and the person who's developing the pictures has said, oh my goodness, look at this picture of the child, thinking this is exploitation, and it's created a lot of grief. It's that fine line between the old days of child abuse and what was allowed within a parental discipline. I'm just wondering if this is covered and we can deal with it.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Morency.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: Thank you.

    With respect to the bill's approach to the issue of child victimization through commercial sexual exploitation, as opposed to their being called prostitutes, Bill C-20 is certainly consistent with that objective. For example, the proposed amendments dealing with sexual exploitation focus on the conduct of the wrongdoer, as opposed to the apparent consent of the young person to that sexual exploitation. So it is consistent, I think, with that objective.

    As you know, Bill C-20 doesn't address the issue of commercial sexual exploitation. There were some reforms in recent years, including through Bill C-27 in particular, that looked at that, creating a mandatory minimum sentence for pimps who procure young persons for the sex trade and use force to do so.

    As well, the minister mentioned Bill C-15A, which came into effect July 2002 and created a new offence of luring, in other words, the use of the computer to communicate with a young person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against that child. So the luring offence exists, and as you've noted, Dr. Fry, the communication can be both ways. Bill C-15A does address it. Bill C-20 would enhance the ability of the luring offence to address relationships that would now fall within that new proposed category, sexual exploitation, where you look at a number of factors to assess the nature of the relationship.

    This takes me to the earlier question as to what is meant by the third category in particular. The proposal to amend section 153 talks about directing the court to look at all the circumstances, the nature of the relationship in question, in other words, to consider it on a case-by-case basis, and this is how the courts have already interpreted section 153 as it exists now. The age difference is a critical factor; it's an obvious one to understand. As to evolution of the relationship, it may be, for example, that an individual meets a young person over the Internet and in a very short period of time, the next day, arranges to meet with somebody, or they meet somebody in a local community centre young persons tend to frequent. Again, the court can look at all of the circumstances. Some of these factors would distinguish it from a long-term courtship, for example, of a neighbour with the younger person. With the degree of control or influence by the other person over the young person, again, the court could look at a number of factors. The other person may not be financially supporting the person, but may be using other abilities, financial or other, to influence the young person. There's a vulnerability there, and the other person exploits that. All of those factors and others that may arise in an individual case would be considered.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Cauchon.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: The question of the Internet, which you just raised, is one of the key concerns not only in Canada, if you look at the work of the justice ministers at the G-8 level. Of course, here in Canada we have very good national legislation. We have created a new offence of Internet luring and all that. But what we see is that groups of people are starting to produce illegal material in countries where they don't have such good legislation. So what we're trying to do at the G-8 level is increase cooperation in order to deter those groups of people and go back to the root of the problem. Nationally, we have to fight hard. I believe we have good pieces of legislation, but now the work proceeds on the international level, and it goes well on that side as well. But we have to move quickly and develop new tools among the G-8 countries.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would like to thank the minister and the officials for appearing today. It's nice to see you again.

    With respect to the age of consent issue, Minister, I'd submit that the vast majority of Canadians, when they become aware that the age of sexual consent in Canada is 14 years, are shocked. I'd say in some cases they're appalled at it, because they don't honestly understand it; they don't believe that's the way it is until somebody actually tells them. You've indicated that there are various reasons why it shouldn't be raised, or in some cases why maybe it even can't be raised, when I'd suggest that most western democracies have seen fit to have it at 16, or in some cases 18, including some states in the United States. You're suggesting that we have to let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis, depending on the relationship. That says to me and to Canadians that there are apparently some situations where we feel it is legally acceptable for an adult to have sexual relations with a 14-year-old. I'm suggesting that most Canadians would not agree with that. So can you give us a situation where it would be deemed legally acceptable, and why it should be? I'm not talking about relationships between teenagers here; I'm talking about relationships between adults and 14-year-old children. I'd like to know if there are situations where it should be legally acceptable, because that's what's being implied here.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: That question goes back to many discussions we've had among the justice ministers. When you look first at what's taking place on an international basis, we're not in the higher part of the spectrum, but we're not in the lower part either, in terms of the age of consent. I've made it quite clear that the age of consent is 18 years old, in some circumstances I mentioned earlier.

    Having said that, I sincerely believe—knowing a consensus doesn't exist around the FPT table—that the course of action we have taken in creating the new offence of exploitative relationships will offer young Canadians much broader protection. As I said, raising the age of consent will offer additional protection for those who are 15 or 16 years old, but with the new offence we are creating, a judge will be able to have a look at a relationship between a 14-year-old and an 18-year-old and see if it is exploitative. Of course, the age difference will be taken into consideration.

    Knowing the situation we're in, I believe that the new offence will indeed offer a much better protection to a broader number of young Canadians.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Very quickly, Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: With due respect, Mr. Minister, I asked if somebody could give me an example of where it would be legally acceptable for an adult.... I'm not talking about an 18-year-old and a 14-year-old; I'm talking about a 50-year-old and a 14-year-old. How is it going to be determined whether that's exploitative? Is there some situation you can foresee where it would be legally acceptable for a 50-year-old and a 14-year-old to have a relationship? That's what we're opening up here; that's what I'm asking.

    The Chair: Ms. Morency.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: Bill C-20 acknowledges that a difference in age is an important indicator of an exploitative nature of a relationship, but it also acknowledges that the exploitation can come at the hands of someone who is close in age. So it addresses both situations.

    The clear example that is very easy to understand is a 50-year-old and a 14-year-old or 15-year-old. But what about a 19-year-old and a 15-year-old? While I appreciate that perhaps the issue of closeness in age is not a concern for you, for some it has been an issue of whether even that should be permissible. So there is a range of concerns, and Bill C-20 tries to get to the heart of what the concern is.

    It's truly the exploitation, recognizing that youth will engage in sexual activity. While more youth than not will engage in a relationship with someone who is closer in age—and Health Canada has released a report in the last two weeks looking at youth sexual activity—there will be relationships between young persons with a greater age difference than two or three years.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. O'Brien, three minutes.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Minister and officials, thank you for joining us.

    It's a very important bill, and I believe we need to expedite it. I do however think you may have erred in the timetable of the committee. I don't think the committee has made any firm decisions yet on exactly what its timetable is going to be over the next period of time, and we need to do that very quickly.

    I for one think there's a bit of important unfinished business called the same-sex debate, which you'll recall we had in June. So I think the committee is going to want to consider whether it wants to finish that report, whether there's any value in finishing that report. I'd be interesting in knowing your view on that, if you would share it with us.

    On the criteria and the age, I share the concern of Mr. Cadman about whether 14 is the correct age or not. I don't know. As a father of three who have passed that age, and as a teacher of many people around that age for many years, I do know, as you do, Mr. Minister, that 14 does not equate to 14 all the time. In other words, people are at very different levels of maturity at any age, and certainly at 14 they are. So what allowances are there for the reality that people are at different levels of maturity intellectually, psychologically, socially, etc., at 14? Is there any flexibility, or is 14 somehow the magic age at which one is able to give consent? I think there might be an argument, if that's the magic age, that it's too low.

    I promised a constituent to put these questions directly to you, so I'm glad to have the opportunity.

    Was there ever serious consideration in Canada of lowering the age to 12? Can the age of consent be changed in any other way than by an act of Parliament?

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: On the question of lowering the age to 12, the answer is no. The answer is quite clear. Of course, if you want to change the age of consent, which is 14 or 18, depending on the circumstances, it requires an act of Parliament. It's the Criminal Code.

    On the first point you raised, that's essentially the whole meaning of the new offence we have created. The judges will have to really look at all the surrounding circumstances of a relationship. You've pointed out some concerns you have. In court, they'll have to look at the circumstances based on the case they have before them. So they will not only have to take into consideration the age difference, but all the surrounding elements.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Do you agree, Minister, that we should finish the report we were attempting to finish in June on same-sex relationships?

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: It's up to you as a committee. I'm not going to get involved in the agenda or calendar of the committee. You're masters of your own timetable.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: You asked us, sir, to take the study on. Do you have no view on whether we should complete it?

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: I gave you a mandate a year ago to proceed with a thorough consultation of the Canadian people, which you did. I recognize that you did fantastic work. I believe the government could certainly benefit from your report, in the sense of what you heard from the Canadian people.

    Having said that, we had to move last spring. We have decided upon a course of action that is quite clear to all Canadian people. That's it.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: I will agree to disagree on that, but I appreciate your thoughts on the report, Minister.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    To Monsieur Marceau for three minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I would like to come back quickly to the issue of age difference, Mr. Chairman. Let us take a concrete example. Mr. X, aged 45, meets a young woman in a bar. She is 15 years old. She is a girl, actually, not a woman. This man gives her generous gifts, etc., and a short time later winds up in bed with this girl. At the moment, this 45-year-old man has not committed any crime.

    Is it true that under Bill C-20, this same 45-year-old man who meets a 15-year-old girl in a bar and starts seeing her and giving her expensive gifts, could be found guilty of a Criminal Code offence and liable to imprisonment for 10 years? Is that the type of situation you are trying to prevent and deal with?

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: Bill C-20 sends out a clear message to Canadian society as a whole. I see that there is substantial consensus around the table that the message we want to convey is that we are seeking to protect all young persons in Canada.

    Your question is hypothetical and incomplete, because the offence we are creating, one based on an exploitative relationship, will enable judges to analyze each case on its merits and to take all the facts into account. You have raised one point, but the judge will have many pieces of information. Each case will be different and the judge will have to take into account the factors we have mentioned several times. The age difference is an important factor that will have to be considered, but there are all sorts of other factors, and this will help the judge to make a decision.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I am going to ask my question differently, and make it more specific and not hypothetical. Does Bill C-20 cover situations that are not covered by the Criminal Code at the moment? If so, what are those situations? What new point of law in Bill C-20 will ensure that our children, who are our most precious asset and the most precious people in our lives, will be better protected than they were in the past?

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: Under the bill, the court will look at the nature of the relationship. I was saying earlier that the age of consent is 18 in cases involving relationship of dependency, or a position of trust or authority. And of course that is very clear in cases of prostitution or child pornography.

    By establishing this new offence, courts will be able to look at the nature of the relationship, its exploitative nature, which is really something new, in addition to the offences that exist at the moment. I repeat that the important point is that courts will have to have all of the background information about the relationship. For example, some fears have been raised about people who might come to Canada as sexual tourists. All these factors would have to be taken into account. There is a reference to the nature of the relationship and to the age difference. There are a number of criteria that the courts will be able to consider, but this really is a new offence.

  (1215)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Jennings for three minutes.

[Translation]

    Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you very much for your presentation and for your clarification of the new offences for sexual relations or sexual activities between an adult and a young person.

    I would like to come back to the issue of child pornography and the provisions of Bill C-20 that seek to deal with the concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in the Queen versus Sharpe, such as artistic value, and so on.

    We have heard that even if the material in question has pictures of child pornography, there would nevertheless be the defence of the public interest. I must tell you that I may not be objective, since I have a young daughter, but this does concern me, because I am wondering whether we are sending a message that in some circumstances child pornography may be a good thing, when we say that there is a defence, the public good.

    I would like you to reassure me, because I do trust you, Minister. I think you have done an excellent job as minister so far, that you have managed a number of issues very well, so I would like you to reassure me about the message we are sending the public and parents when we say that there may be a legitimate defence—that the public good has been served—even when the material in question contains child pornography.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: Bill C-20 wants to send out a clear message, as you do, as I can see by the nature of your question. You are a mother. I am also the father of three children and I think that we all want to protect children in our society.

    Bill C-20 sends out a clear message. Let us take a look at the first element, namely the issue of child pornography, the written material. Bill C-20 basically widens the application of the definition of child pornography, in order to cover written material not covered before, as for instance in the notorious Sharpe case that I just referred to. It is a classic example.

    The second element deals with the means of defence. Of course, when dealing with written material, there are artistic and scientific issues, all of which still exist. If the material is classed as child pornography, people will try to use existing means of defence, and will have to pass two tests, including the test of the public good. The public good test already exists in the Criminal Code, it has been interpreted by courts, but it is not in any way meant to lend legitimacy to child pornography.

    On the other hand, we must realize that as a society, we want to ensure the implementation of a legislative tool that will be efficient and able to stand up to analysis by the courts. The defence still exists; it has been changed, and in my opinion, it is more severe, but this defence must be maintained, especially because of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must strike a fair balance, but we must keep in mind the main objective, which is to give children all the protection that Canadian society owes to them. That is our ultimate objective.

  (1220)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Mark for three minutes.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Under proposed subsection 153(1.2) we have been talking about factors to be considered. We've talked about age, evolution of a relationship, and the degree of control or influence. Is sexual orientation a factor? Does that come into play at all in the legislation?

    Mrs. Carole Morency: Perhaps you could clarify. I'm not sure how....

    Mr. Inky Mark: I'm just asking a question.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: In the nature of the relationship it's whatever factors the court finds that took advantage and exploited the vulnerability of the young person. There are three factors listed here. It's not an inexhaustive list. The court can look at others, depending on the nature of the circumstances. But in and of itself, it would be hard to imagine a hypothetical.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    To Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you.

    From the line of questioning here today, I can see that we're still having difficulty with not distinguishing sexual activity in the Criminal Code in terms of sexual kissing, sexual touching, or sexual intercourse—at least in terms of the criminal assault provisions.

    I would like to ask the minister, but I'm presuming there's no intention on anyone's part to actually start distinguishing those activities, except where we've already done it in the code. What we've been targeting for at least 10 or 20 years, and what this amendment will really target, are the harms that we've identified. One of the harms is the assault element, and the other one is exploitation. Certainly, the exploitation concept comes into child pornography. Have I got it right, that the proposed amendment stays very far away from criminalizing sexual intercourse or sexual touching in relation to 15-year-olds, or whatever the ages are, and that it focuses...? Those things are not by themselves wrong or harmful, unless someone around here thinks that sexual intercourse is by its nature criminal in some way.

    So we're focusing on the exploitation that may be present in cases involving young persons 14 to 18. We've tried to focus on that in the amendment, rather than jiggling with the ages. We've focused on the harm of the exploitation visited upon the young person. This is the policy route we've chosen, rather than criminalizing sexual kissing by a 17-year-old, which is essentially what we'd have to do if we took the route proposed by many who suggested we raise the age of consent to 18 or 16. Have I got that right?

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

    Mrs. Morency.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: First, it's important to remember what the minister said, that any non-consensual sexual activity is an assault. It's not a question of consent.

    Your opening remarks, sir, referred to the fact that the existing criminal law prohibitions address the full range of sexual activity, from sexual touching, including kissing, for example, up to and including sexual intercourse. The Criminal Code underwent a fairly comprehensive review and reform in the 1980s to move away from specific forms of sexual assaults that involved only penetration, for example, and otherwise. That's in the general sexual assault provisions.

    In addition to those, the child-specific sexual assault provisions were significantly reformed, effective 1988, recognizing that children can be victimized and can experience just as much harm from some contact that might fall at the lower end of the spectrum as they may from the other end.

    So the objective with the existing Criminal Code provisions is to enable the law to address all forms, the abuse, the actual harm, as well as the exploitation-type elements, such as prostitution and child pornography. The proposal in Bill C-20 focuses on issues where there is a vulnerability for those 14- to 18-year-olds and where others try to take advantage or exploit that vulnerability. So Bill C-20 addresses the gap that has been raised as part of the concerns with the age of consent. It doesn't address the existing abuse element, as you've noted, because that's already covered by the other Criminal Code provisions.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I'm going to go to Mr. Sorenson, and then back to Mr. Macklin.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing today.

    Over the last year we have become more aware that tolerance is applied to each one of us and is expected of each one of us. We have to recognize that we need to be a tolerant people when it comes to individuals, but tolerance never applies to truth or to right or wrong principles. That is, we should never be tolerant of things that are wrong. Right is still right if nobody is right, and wrong is still wrong if everybody is wrong. There are some principles where we need to say we are only tolerant of what is right. We don't need a government that is only going to pass law that is right when everyone is right; that's expected of government. We need a government that is willing to pass laws that are right even when there is a constituency of people who are wrong. That is, we need to be tolerant of what is right even when there are some people who are saying this is wrong.

    Now, you will always find people who will argue for the individual and who, for example, are trying to protect the Sharpes of this world. There will always be people who are trying to protect that, but a government that is going to be courageous is one that is going to do what is right when there are pressures to do the opposite.

    You said “If there is an amendment we can make to protect children more, we will look at that”, and then you right away said, “but that being said”.

    Some of the amendments that need to happen in Bill C-20 are those types of things that will set the stage for what is right. The first one is the age of consent. An age of consent of 14 is not what this country should be looking at and not what the government should look at. We need to move the age of consent to 16.

    In your testimony today you talked about maximum sentences. You spoke about how maximum sentences are being raised. Very seldom do we ever see the courts imposing maximum sentences. We need a government that is going to say, listen, there are some absolutes here: we have no tolerance for child pornography; we have no tolerance for the exploitation of children. Increasing the maximum sentences is not sufficient. We need minimum sentences that are going to send a direct message to everyone that there are some absolutes when it comes to the children of this country.

    More and more we're seeing conditional sentences for those who are caught with child pornography. We need to be intolerant of individuals who possess child pornography and who victimize our children. It is only a matter of time, Mr. Minister, before in this country we will be calling those individuals who are pedophiles and who are consumed with the idea of child pornography a health issue. It is only a matter of time before we'll be saying it's a disease and they need help. Will you put someone in prison then? You'll continue on with this conditional sentencing.

    We need to send a strong message that there is no appetite in this country for child pornography. Bill C-20 misses the mark. Will you impose minimum sentences for those caught exploiting children? Will you impose minimum sentences for those with child pornography?

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: You heard in my opening remarks today what we're doing on the sentencing side: sometimes we triple, sometimes we double. That being said, a court will have to take a decision based on a clear message that is sent by the government, and Bill C-20 clearly sends a message that there is no place in Canada--and as a matter of fact, there's no place in the world--for people who are involved in the business of child pornography. It's a disgusting crime, and we have to do everything we can as a society in order to deter those people or groups of people who are destroying the lives of our kids.

    For you to say or to think for a moment that the government is not doing its best...I just don't see how you can think that. We're doing our very best in order to keep improving our legislation, and we are looking at other legislation in the world. Canada actually has some of the best legislation to keep fighting child pornography on a national basis. Not only that, we are very active on the international scene, among the G-8 countries, and we keep fighting on that side. There is no tolerance in Canada.

    That being said, we have to make sure, Mr. Chairperson, that the tool we develop is a tool that will bear the scrutiny of the courts and at the same time protect our kids. I believe Bill C-20 does exactly that.

    In his conclusion Mr. Sorenson talked about conditional sentencing. First, the Supreme Court of Canada has said it is a valid tool to be used in some circumstances. The Supreme Court of Canada has well established the parameters in regard to how we can use conditional sentencing. Across Canada people do understand that this could be a valid tool. Actually, some of my colleagues have raised some concerns, looking at some judgments that have been rendered over the past few years, and are saying that we are not using conditional sentencing in a proper way.

    Mr. Chairperson, this is a totally different question, and this committee of yours is looking at that at this very moment. We expect your report. That being said, we're having a federal-provincial-territorial meeting next week, and that will be back on the agenda. We want to focus on what we can do in order to improve the situation without getting rid of a tool that has been recognized as useful by the Supreme Court.

    The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.

    I would like to go off in a slightly different direction, because one of the things we're talking about today is our priority being our children and what our children are being subjected to within our society. But also, when justice intervenes in this process, it can be a very traumatic experience. I'm speaking specifically about child witnesses and how we get evidence before the courts.

    I notice that in this bill you seem to be sending a signal that we're going to move off in a different direction in terms of how we deal with child witnesses specifically. Historically, of course, there have always been a couple of tests that have been put forward. First of all, does the child understand the nature of the oath or the affirmation that's coming forward, and second, are they able to communicate that evidence to the court? I see on the one hand the concept of trying to make the witness more comfortable and putting the witness at ease in terms of the ability of that witness to properly present the evidence. I think this is vital, because if we don't get the evidence before the court, we're not going to get the convictions.

    Second, I'd like to know, how do you, from a policy perspective, deal with the concept that the tests that were applied for the competence of that witness will no longer be applicable? Could you comment on that general policy change that appears in this bill and on where you're heading in terms of child witnesses?

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: As Mr. Macklin just said, in the existing legislation there's a test. With Bill C-20 there will be no test. So the crown attorney, essentially, will just have to make the request and the judge will have to decide. Of course, even though there will be no test, questioning will take place from the judge, and what will guide the judge, essentially, is what would serve the administration of justice. If it wouldn't serve the administration of justice to give, for example, testimonial aid, the judge will not give it. But you're right to say that we removed the test, and it will be just upon application that you can have access to testimonial aid. For those over 18 years old the judge will have to consider if the witness, without testimonial aid, will be able to give a full and candid account of the facts. There's a different test for those over 18 years old. So as part of the question of the best administration of justice, he will have to take into consideration if indeed, knowing all the circumstances, the witness, without testimonial aid, will be able to give a full and candid account of the facts.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin, Mr. Minister.

    Monsieur Marceau, then Monsieur Jobin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Let me make a comment and put a question.

    First I am still surprised to hear, from members of the same political party, that the age of sexual consent should be raised, whereas the age for criminal liability should be brought down to 12 or even 10 years. I have always had a problem with this point of view.

    Now here is my question. Facilitating testimonies from children, be they witnesses or victims, obviously raises the whole issue of the right of the accused to a full and complete defence. Now, how can you guarantee that this right, which is, after all, recognized by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will not be violated in any way by giving more protection to children, which is a most worthy objective as such. Can you claim that the balance between these two conflicting rights has been struck in the best possible way in Bill C-20?

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: This is always an issue of fair balance and judiciary discretion. Obviously, Bill C-20 was defined and prepared with the intention of striking this balance. We want to ensure that young witnesses can testify properly and feel at ease in court.

    As I just mentioned, the ultimate test is quite simple. With young witnesses, judges will have to consider how justice is applied. The point you just raised will be considered by judges.

    Another example which was raised several times deals with cross-examination when the accused is representing himself. This has already come up in the past. For instance, recently, there was a case in Nova Scotia; it is well known to the public. In such a situation, if an accused party representing himself cannot carry out a cross-examination, the judge can appoint a lawyer who will do it. Thus, everything has been done to ensure a fair balance between both parties.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Monsieur Marceau, Mr. Minister.

    Welcome, Monsieur Jobin. We celebrate your being here by giving you three minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): This is my first question before a committee, and I am honoured to address it to the Honourable Minister Cauchon.

    First, Mr. Minister, let me thank you for the good work you are doing with Bill C-20 to protect children and other vulnerable persons. My question is rather general, but I do think that it deals with the subject we are discussing today; namely, access to the Internet with its current profusion of pornographic sites. Did you know that if you type in www.porno or www.xxx, 83 million sites, all easily accessible to our children, will appear?

    I think that our children are increasingly exposed to information of a sexual nature. You surely know that in Quebec, a child prostitution network made big headlines; now, what is currently happening on the Internet is very close to us. For instance, the other day, my 8-year-old son received an e-mail message with a sexual content. I was amazed to see that on my net site.

    I do not know whether Canada is currently applying any measures to fight this kind of thing. The number of websites of a sexual nature has increased by 1,882% in our country, and our youth can quickly and easily access these sites. I think my question is relevant to today's topic, even if Bill C-20 does not raise it.

  (1240)  

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is basically referring to Bill C-15A, which primarily deals with cases where youth are lured through the Internet, and which also deals with child pornography on the Internet. It also deals with this kind of access to the Internet, which is strictly illegal here in Canada. Not only is it a criminal offence, but in such cases, courts can order that certain sites be simply banned from the Internet.

    I think that Canada has good legislation in this regard. Nonetheless, the question you raised extends to the international level. We are currently realizing that child pornography is increasingly coming from countries that do not have quite the same laws or the same enforcement capacity as ours. Thus, to carry on our fight against child pornography, we must, in my opinion, seek greater international cooperation.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci.

    We're going to go to Mr. Mark for three minutes. That will complete the round. I have four more names.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I just want to deal with the issue of theft of personal documents, like pictures, distribution through the Internet, and possession without criminal intent. I think every parent has had pictures taken of their children naked in the bathtub. My concern is not the picture, but theft of the picture for commercial use. How am I, as a parent, protected from being falsely accused of commercializing child pornography?

    On the same line of thinking, Mr. Jobin put it very well. Through the spam system, we all get flooded with information we don't wish, and as you know, it's not easy to get rid of a lot of these things that come into our computer; even when we delete them, there's still a memory there. How are we guaranteed that this kind of information doesn't criminalize us innocent people?

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: Let me deal with the second part of the question. As I said, we have in Canada good pieces of legislation, but outside the question of legislation, I would like to draw to the attention of colleagues around the table that we established last year with the Government of Manitoba a tip line, called Cybertip. Essentially, we have established here a successful model used in the States over the past few years. When you look at the results we've obtained with Cybertip, they are just amazing. We've received a lot of information, we've been successful in a lot of investigations, and we're talking about it here in Canada, but also cooperating with other countries. We would like to expand that tool across Canada and make it nationwide.

    The Chair: Ms. Morency.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: Thank you.

    With respect to the question about the photos a parent might take of a child in the bath, the Supreme Court's decision in Sharpe was very clear in saying that type of photograph would not be caught by the child pornography provisions, but in the example you've described, where the parent seeks to profit from the distribution or otherwise making it available, I think, again, from the Supreme Court's decision and interpretation, that would be caught by the existing provisions. The Supreme Court decision was clear in saying--and this was a question earlier--that it does not catch those types of photographs.

  (1245)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you.

    I still have this concern Mr. Mark brings forward. Parents sometimes think it's cute to send a picture of their baby or their little kid lying on a blanket or whatever to all their friends. The question is, how do they get caught by some malicious person who wants to prove that parent is up to no good? That's the first piece of it. I'll let you elaborate on that.

    My continuing concern is the commercial sexual exploitation of children. We now know from all the information we have that young people are engaging in sexual activity at an earlier and earlier age, for two reasons, first because physiologically, puberty is being reached at an earlier age, and second because young people seem to be, for some unknown reason, physically developing at an earlier age. I know, as a physician, there are 12- and 13-year-olds who are becoming sexually active at that early age. I don't know what we can do about the fact that this is aided and abetted--this is a freedom of the press issue--by magazines that have 12-year-olds posing poutingly in lingerie, because this is the cutest thing to do. It is now known that the younger you are as a model, the more you're sought after by modelling agencies. There was an article recently in the paper about 13-year-olds dressing in the most titillating manner. What do we do about that kind of advertisement, which is not in any way, as far as I'm concerned, in the interest of the public, but is “modelling” in fashion magazines of 12-year-olds displaying themselves in the most titillating manner, encouraging 12-year-olds who are reading it to be want to be like that?

    The Chair: That's a very good question. The minister is going to take some time to think about it. We're going to suspend for five minutes.

    

---

    

  (1250)  

    The Chair: I call the meeting back to order.

    We've all been waiting with bated breath for the minister's response to Ms. Fry's question, and he's referring it to Ms. Morency.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: With respect to the first question about the innocent baby photo, again, it's a question of whether it meets the definition in the Criminal Code. If there is a photo where the dominant characteristic of the child is that child's sexual organ or anal region and it's done for a sexual purpose, it's caught by the definition. The Supreme Court's decision in Sharpe clarified that. The type of example you described clearly isn't what is intended by “for a sexual purpose”, but again, if it's distributed or otherwise used for a profit, there might be a way to come at it again, because it clearly shows that it was being done for a sexual purpose.

    Regarding the media's use or sexualization of young persons, certainly, it is an issue that is being discussed across the board with federal government departments. You may be aware that Senator Landon Pearson has been overseeing an interdepartmental committee looking at a broad range of child sexual exploitation, including through commercial purposes, involving partnerships with the community, the private sector. Clearly, the issue you raise is one that can be addressed through the partnership approach with the media, trying to raise awareness, as opposed to a criminalization approach.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Minister, certainly having adequate laws in place is one part of the picture. We can agree or disagree on the adequacy of these laws, but another major, substantial part of the picture is actually getting these cases into the courtroom in the first place. We've certainly had concerns expressed to us by the police, especially the police in larger centres like Toronto and Vancouver, about the incredible volume of evidence they have to work their way through.

    Really, it comes down to two issues. First is the resourcing issue for the police to be able to bring these cases to prosecution, but the other part I hear a lot of complaints about, in concerns expressed by police, concerns the rules of disclosure. When we're talking about literally hundreds of thousands of images on one computer alone, the requirement in many cases is to process each image individually, due to the rules of disclosure.

    Is any consideration being given to either the resources available to front-line police to deal with child pornography or the rules of evidence governing disclosure?

    The Chair: Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: With regard to resources, clearly we all understand and agree that the more resources we have, the better we'll be at fighting those involved in child pornography. That said, the question would be better put to my colleague Wayne Easter. He probably would be able to give you the exact figure with regard to the number of people working in that field, and whether or not he needs more resources.

    The second issue you raise, regarding the question of the justice efficiency, is an important one. Of course, court management belongs to the provinces, but depending on what we're talking about, sometimes the jurisdiction of the Canadian government is involved--for example, with regard to criminal law.

    I would like to tell you that next week, at the FPT meeting, one of the topics of discussion will be the question of justice efficiencies with regard to various trials. We may talk about the mega trial and others, just to make sure we keep having a good justice system.

  (1255)  

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: Well, disclosure is really the concern that the police have expressed to me.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cadman.

    Ms. Morency.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: Just quickly, on the issue of disclosure, when the police review each photograph they seize, they're looking at it for a couple of reasons: one, to find out if it meets the definition of child pornography; and two, police are looking at it to see if they can identify the victim in the case, in the photograph or image, to see if there's an ability to rescue the victim. So the process of going through the photographs is fairly important in terms of victim identification and trying to protect the victim being depicted in that image as well.

    That said, we are aware of the issues. The rules of disclosure, as we have them in Canada, in terms of the police having to go through each image, are similar to the rules in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and the United States. Again, the minister mentioned efforts through the G-8 to look at how we can facilitate this. The online child sexual exploitation strategy, the database--they all speak to that issue.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Lee, and then Ms. Jennings for the last question.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I want to go back to the age of consent issue. Mr. Sorenson had suggested that the age of consent should be raised to age 16. I don't know whether he realizes it, but if one were to do that, one would, of course, criminalize sexual kissing or sexual touching by or with two 15-year-olds. That is the effect of raising the age of consent.

    Oh, yes, that is exactly what is the effect, Mr. Sorenson--

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: On a point of order, Mr. Chair--

    The Chair: Well, it's a debate.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I just leave that as an implication of lowering the age of consent.

    Has the department ever considered separating out the act of sexual intercourse and simply raising the age of consent for that, just for that particular activity? Or would it even be possible to do so? I realize that focuses us away from the concept of exploitation and gets us back into an area that we had walked away from 10 or 20 years ago on a public policy basis, but would that be doable?

    The Chair: Ms. Morency.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: I think my comments would be as they were earlier. Certainly, the movement since the 1980s has been away from focusing on a very narrow range of sexual conduct, recognizing the results of a fairly extensive study, including by the Badgley committee, which looked at the forms of child sexual victimization and recognized that children can be victimized in a number of ways. Just because it may not have been through sexual intercourse, the impact for that child victim from a lesser form of conduct can be just as harmful for the young person. So the Criminal Code reflects that range of conduct and range of harm that the child can experience. That has been the direction of the criminal law reforms in Canada.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Sorenson and then Ms. Jennings.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, to be honest with you, that's a typical liberal response and one of the lowest character, I think, Derek. No one has ever suggested that the age of consent be lowered to 15 to make kissing and touching a criminal offence. I think we're very clear that when we're talking about the age of consent, we're talking about consensual sex, or intercourse. That is what we're referring to. We are not even referring to criminalizing someone who is 18 years old, if the other one is in a relationship at 16.

    We are very concerned in our party about the exploitation of children for sexual intercourse, children who are 14 years old and are having sexual intercourse with adults who are in their 20s, 30s, or 40s. So to say that we are in any way trying to criminalize kissing and touching of 14-year-olds, which is what you said, is wrong.

·  (1300)  

    The Chair: Okay, we're going to give the last word to Ms. Jennings and then thank everyone for their patience.

    Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I have short comments.

    What is the definition, please, of sexual intercourse?

    A voice: Oh, oh!

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My question goes back to Bill Clinton, who had a different definition than most people.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My question relates to the issue that Mr. Mark and Dr. Fry raised about a parent who takes a photo of a child in the nude. It could be in the bath, in the bed, outside, or whatever. The parent goes to get the photo developed and the image is stolen and becomes a part of pornographic material. As is common today, more and more families are sharing photos through electronic means with friends and family, as most homes are connected with the Internet. Le Canada est le pays le plus branché au monde; we have one of the highest take-ups of Internet in homes. I take a picture of my child, possibly during a birthday occasion or a swim party, or whatever, and I send those pictures to my relatives and friends in other countries, or elsewhere in Canada, and those images somehow get stolen. Then they are found in the possession of someone, and somehow my child, or one of the children who's in the photo with my child, gets identified, so the images are tracked back to me. How do I defend myself in that case? Literally, how do I defend myself?

    It's clear that I'm the one who took that photo; it's also clear that the photo has ended up in pornographic material. We already know with technology.... We saw that when Oprah Winfrey was close to 300 pounds, her head was superimposed on the body of a beautiful black woman. Most women, regardless of their colour, would have liked to have had that body. It was virtually impossible to prove that her head had been superimposed, except that everyone knew it had because she weighed 200 pounds more than the body.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So with technology today, how do we defend ourselves against that, because it is plausible?

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Morency.

    Mrs. Carole Morency: Well, again, whether an offence is committed in Canada still requires proof of the mens rea and the actus reas. Was there an intent to commit the act in question, and was there an act?

    The existing child pornography provisions do apply to virtual child pornography. In other words, taking the face from an innocent photograph and transposing it onto another with the use of new technologies would constitute child pornography. But again, in the case of that parent you describe, was there the mens rea? That certainly would be part of the court's deliberation.

    I wasn't sure if your question was serious, but the Criminal Code does define sexual intercourse in section 4: “For the purposes of this Act, sexual intercourse is complete on penetration to even the slightest degree, notwithstanding that seed is not emitted”. So there is a definition.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Minister, before we take off, I am going to give Mr. Breitkreuz one quick question, because he hasn't had one all day.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    There is one answer you gave, Mr. Minister, that I am concerned about. You said that the defences will have to actually go through a second stage now to determine whether something is in the public good. The question I have is this: doesn't that actually broaden the defences available and simply create more loopholes for a criminal? Isn't this only going to prolong court cases and create more problems for the court? “In the public good” is a very nebulous or fuzzy thing.

    While you're thinking of your answer, let me use an example. A university student who writes a paper describing child pornography in great detail could argue that for educational purposes it's in the public good. This is clearly a judgment call, and to me this second stage of a test now actually creates more loopholes. Is that not in fact true with this legislation, and does it not actually make it worse than it was before?

·  (1305)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Martin Cauchon: The public good is not in the second stage, but in the first stage of the test. Having said that, the defence of public good already exists within the Criminal Code; it is not something new. That has been interpreted in the Sharpe decision as well.

    So it doesn't create a loophole. I guess we have been able to craft a good defence to offer good protection for our children and our nation.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

    Thank you very much, members of the committee.

    Next Tuesday at 11 o'clock we will begin our new session.

    The meeting is adjourned.