Bill C-22 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to raise the age, from 14 to 16 years, at which a person can consent to non-exploitative sexual activity. It creates an exception in respect of an accused who engages in sexual activity with a 14- or 15-year-old youth and who is less than five years older than the youth. It also creates an exception for transitional purposes in respect of an accused who engages in sexual activity with a 14- or 15-year-old youth and who is five or more years older than the youth if, on the day on which this Act comes into force, the accused is married to the youth. The exception also applies to the accused if, on the day on which this Act comes into force, he or she is the common-law partner of the youth or has been cohabiting with the youth in a conjugal relationship for less than one year and they have had or are expecting to have a child as a result of the relationship, and the sexual activity was not otherwise prohibited before that day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I would like to call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 30, 2006, Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, is before the committee.

We have a good slate of witnesses here this morning. I would ask that those presenting keep their comments to about ten minutes so that all will have a chance to present. Presentations will be followed immediately afterwards by a series of questions from the members here.

There is a speaking order on the agenda. I'm going to begin, as is noted here on the order paper, with Ms. Faytene Kryskow, the director of Motivated Young People for a Strong Canada.

Also presenting here this morning will be the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health; Egale Canada; Regroupement québécois des CALACS; and the Canadian AIDS Society.

I'm now going ask Ms. Faytene Kryskow to begin.

Criminal Code

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

I have long been a strong advocate for tough, smart and effective law and order measures in my riding of North Vancouver. In my previous role as mayor of the district of North Vancouver, I worked closely with local law enforcement officials to address crime and justice issues in our community and to ensure that North Vancouver is safe for residents and families.

Superintendent Gord Tomlinson and the North Vancouver RCMP detachment do excellent work in our communities with a comprehensive policing approach which includes working with concerned members of the community to ensure we are all doing our part.

The North Vancouver block watch program immediately comes to mind. Designed to build safer neighbourhoods by providing support, guidance, training and resource materials to develop and operate neighbourhood block watch programs, block watch has flourished in my riding by informing and engaging citizens about keeping our neighbourhood safe.

The North Vancouver RCMP also facilitates the local citizens on patrol program which utilizes local volunteers to monitor areas where the community is requesting more patrolling and where history and statistics demonstrate crime is more likely to occur.

Volunteers are paired up, given a combination cell phone-radio and they patrol in their own vehicles looking for any suspicious activity, which they phone in to the RCMP. The volunteers receive training on what to look for and how to react when they observe suspicious activity.

The decision to start this program in North Vancouver was prompted by the success of similar programs in Coquitlam, Mission and Vancouver, and it is part of the way the RCMP is expanding its level of service throughout British Columbia through the use of enthusiastic local volunteers.

As well, community policing offices located in neighbourhood shopping centres across North Vancouver are staffed by local volunteers and provide a friendly local face and convenient location for residents to come to for information on policing services and crime prevention programs.

While Bill C-35 makes appropriate changes to better deal with those already charged with firearms related offences, we cannot forget the value that preventive measures, such as block watch, citizens on patrol and community polices offices, have in preventing crimes from being committed in the first place.

While I have always been an advocate for being tough on crime, government can do more to prevent crime in the first place. We can be tough and smart on crime at the same time, while building safer communities with a view to future generations. Constituents in my riding understand this. It is therefore disappointing to see the government is more content playing politics with its law and order agenda.

Like my constituents, the Liberal Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, understands this and is not soft on crime as the Conservative government is attempting to portray him with its latest republican style smear campaign.

A Liberal government would sit down to negotiate with the provinces to give municipalities more money to hire more officers and give the RCMP an extra $200 million to hire 400 officers for rapid enforcement teams across Canada that would boost local police and communities in their fight against guns, gangs, organized crime and drug trafficking.

Unlike the Conservative government, we will walk the walk and not just make hollow promises when fishing for votes. A Liberal government would also give provinces more money to hire more crown attorneys to speed up trials and to establish organized crime secretariats in every province, similar to Ontario's very successful guns and gangs task force to fight organized crime.

In addition, we will actually fill the judicial vacancies that currently exist across the country. How can the Conservatives claim to be tough on crime when they sit on their hands as judicial vacancies grow and the courts get more and more backlogged by the day? That is not providing justice for Canadians. Justice delayed is justice denied.

There are examples at all court levels of charges being dropped due to unreasonable delays in proceeding to trial. It is not good enough.

While the government has failed to convince Canadians it is capable of doing more than just talking tough on crime, let us turn to Bill C-35.

Bill C-35 would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to provide that the accused will be required to demonstrate, when charged with certain serious offences involving firearms or other regulated weapons, that a pre-trial detention is not justified in their case. These offenders have shown they are a danger to the public simply by using a firearm in the first place. Why should the onus be on a prosecutor to oppose bail being given in light of the serious nature of the crime for which they have been charged? Surely our law-abiding citizens deserve to feel protected from perpetrators of serious crimes.

The bill also introduces two factors relating to such offences that the courts must take into account when deciding whether the accused should be released or detained until the trial. Bill C-35 would require the courts to specifically consider: first, the fact that a firearm was allegedly used in the commission of the offence; and second, the fact that the accused faces a minimum penalty of three years or more imprisonment if convicted.

I strongly support amending the Criminal Code to add this provision. Police officers in my riding support this change, and constituents who simply want safe communities for their families support this change.

In addition, the Liberal opposition supports this change and we have demonstrated that in the House on repeated occasions.

For the fourth time in the past six months, the Liberal opposition this week attempted to get this bill and several other justice bills we are prepared to support, Bill C-18, the DNA identification act, Bill C-22, the age of consent bill, and Bill C-23, criminal procedures, passed without delay through all stages of consideration by the House. Had all members of the government and the NDP agreed, these bills could have cleared the House yesterday and now be on their way to the Senate as we speak. They would have been closer to law and the Liberal proposal would have advanced more than half of the government's entire justice agenda.

That is what my constituents in North Vancouver want. They do not care about politics or the next election. They just want safer communities and results from the minority government. It is too bad the Conservatives are not more interested in getting results than getting headlines.

I support Bill C-35 because I believe that the offences for which it would require a reverse onus for bail provisions are serious and that the bill would help ensure a safer community in North Vancouver.

These offences include any one of the following eight serious offences committed with a firearm: attempted murder, robbery, discharging a firearm with intent, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, kidnapping, hostage taking or extortion.

In addition, the reverse onus provisions will be required for any indictable offence involving firearms or other regulated weapons if committed while under a weapons prohibition order: firearm trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking or firearms smuggling.

I am more than comfortable with a change to the Criminal Code that would require individuals charged with these offences to make the case why they should be back on the streets while awaiting trial. I know citizens in my riding, who are going above and beyond to do their part to create a safe community, such as Block Watch and Citizens on Patrol, would be more than relieved to know there will be less of a chance of encountering individuals charged with such offences.

The government, in its effort to unjustly brand the Liberals as soft on crime, repeatedly attempts to assert that the opposition is opposed to these reverse onus measures as they are not in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While this party's commitment to the charter is unwavering, such an assertion is factually incorrect. It is true that the charter protects the presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied bail without just cause pending trial but within this basic presumption, however, bail can in fact be denied in order to ensure that the accused does not flee from justice, to protect the public if there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will reoffend and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Although the prosecutor usually bears the onus of demonstrating why an accused should be denied bail, there are currently situations where it falls to the accused to demonstrate that detaining him or her is not justified. For example, the onus already shifts to the accused if they are charged with: an indictable offence committed while already released on another indictable offence; if they fail to appear in court or allegedly breach a release condition; for certain organized crime, terrorism or security of information offences; for drug trafficking, smuggling or drug producing offences; and, if they are not ordinarily a resident of Canada.

The Liberal opposition has made repeated efforts to have Bill C-35 fast-tracked through all stages of the House only to be blocked by the government. The Liberal Party's support for measures similar to those found in Bill C-35 go well beyond this debate today and even this 39th Parliament.

I was pleased, as were law enforcement and residents in North Vancouver, with our party's proposals during the last election in support of the reverse onus bail hearings for firearms related offences.

Our position on this issue has not changed. Canadians sent us to Ottawa to work together and that is what the Liberal opposition is attempting to do with our proposal to fast-track Bill C-35 and the three other bills.

The Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, MITA, from the previous Parliament, will be reintroduced later today as a private member's bill by the Liberal justice critic and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I can only hope the government will not block this bill too. The government needs to prove that it is more interested in getting results than headlines.

I will continue to support Bill C-35 and I encourage the minority Conservative government to work with this Parliament, including the Liberal members, and pass these laws that will enhance Canada's Criminal Code and justice system. Families in my riding want these bills passed. Police officers favour these changes and I stand here today to demand that the government listen to Canadians and do the right thing.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked for my commitment. I certainly will be supporting this bill and will do anything possible on my part to help pass this legislation.

However, I would also remind the hon. member that if he was in the House the other day, the hon. critic for justice brought in a motion to speed up the legislation that I mentioned: Bill C-18, the DNA identification bill that would help police solve many missing persons cases; Bill C-22, the age of consent bill that would have made our children, our sons and daughters, safer; Bill C-23, the criminal procedures bill, a bill that would help to make our justice system more efficient; and Bill C-35, the reverse onus bill that we are debating today.

In fact, if the hon. member were here, he would have noticed that the House leader on the Conservative side raised a point of order not to support that option that we brought in to speed up not only one of those bills, but four of them.

I was in Surrey last month, where the mayor of Surrey along with all the stakeholders put a crime prevention strategy in place. In six months they are much further ahead of where we are today with the Conservative government delaying and playing politics. So, I would ask the hon. member to ask the House leader and his Conservative colleagues to support and get those bills passed so we can protect our streets.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for North Vancouver.

It is an honour for me to rise in the House here today to discuss Bill C-35. I cannot understand why my Conservative friends on the other side continue to delay this bill becoming law.

I must point out that the Liberal Party has already gone a long way to putting in place laws to make the jobs of our men and women in uniform easier. I think of legislation like the anti-gangster law.

I would also like to point out that during the 13 years of the previous Liberal administration, we saw crime rates drop by more than 20% in some cases. This bill will only enhance those provisions that the Liberal Party has already provided.

Bill C-35 will make the streets safer by keeping criminals who use guns in prison, instead of out on bail to commit more crimes.

This is a bill I am proud to support and I cannot understand why my Conservative colleagues keep on postponing passage of this legislation.

This bill is designed to change the Criminal Code so that reverse onus will be required if an accused is charged of crimes with a gun. This bill will also be used against those charged with gun trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking or gun smuggling.

I would like to remind the House that it was the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard who brought me into this political arena. In the 2006 election he supported the idea of reverse onus bail hearings for gun related offences. I was proud to support this initiative with him then and I am proud to do so now.

The presumption of innocence and the right not to be denied bail without just cause are rights protected under the Charters of Rights and Freedoms. I firmly believe that this bill is in keeping with the spirit of the charter. It enhances our safety while still respecting our basic rights.

When I talk to people such as Chief Superintendent Fraser MacRae of the Surrey RCMP detachment or Chief Constable Jim Cessford of the Delta police department, I know how important is this legislation. I hear it everywhere from my constituents of Newton—North Delta. These voices from my riding of Newton--North Delta must be heard. It is so important that they be part of the process.

Why is the minority Conservative government not listening? These men and women, the ones on the street keeping us safe every day, are the ones who best understand what is needed to keep our homes, our families and our children safe. We must do all that we can to support them. That is why I am saddened by the cynical partisan games that the government is playing with such important legislation.

The official opposition has tried more than three times in the last six months to speed up many government bills dealing with justice issues. Each time the Conservative Party has shown that they are more interested in politicking than in actually passing their own legislation and making our families safer.

I would remind the House that it was my hon. colleague, the Liberal justice critic, who tabled a motion that proposed the immediate passing of four bills: Bill C-18, Bill C-22, Bill C-23 and Bill C-35, the very bill we are all here still debating today.

If it were not for this cynical government's obstruction, we could have sent all of this legislation to the Senate and put it on the fast track to becoming law. In one swoop we could have passed more than half of the government's entire justice agenda. We could have taken major steps in protecting our families and our communities, but the Conservative House leader raised a point of order to block the Liberal motion and caused more delays in passing serious anti-crime legislation.

Why will the government not take yes for an answer and pass its own legislation for the sake of our safety? The government knows that a majority of MPs in the House of Commons want to pass these bills and the government will just not stop dragging its feet.

The fact that the government is blocking its own legislation proves that it is not serious about crime. It only wants to use these bills as an election issue, not as a way to make our neighbours and communities safer. The Canadian people deserve better. They deserve a government that will not play politics with the Criminal Code.

The late Pierre Trudeau said, “just watch me”. Well, the Canadian people are watching. The people of the riding of Newton—North Delta are watching. The people are watching the government play politics with the safety of our children and families. Canadians and the good people of my riding of Newton—North Delta deserve better. They deserve a government and a leader who will put the safety of our families ahead of politics.

When I look at the justice platform put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I have hope that the government might also finally get one. The Liberal Party has proposed a new plan, one that would have a major impact on the way we approach safety and justice in our country. It is not enough to simply talk tough on crime and then do nothing as the minority Conservative government has done so far.

We must deal with every aspect of fighting crime on our streets. We must work to prevent crime. We must work to make it easier for our police to catch criminals. When criminals are caught we must work to see them convicted through competent and quick administration. When they are convicted we must work to rehabilitate those criminals, so that when they get out of prison they do not commit more crimes.

I would encourage the government and all members of the Conservative Party to support the legislation and also support the Liberal idea to fast track those bills that I mentioned earlier. I encourage them to support our men and women in uniform who keep our streets safer and to support the official opposition when it has the guts to do what must be done to see this legislation pass to improve our safety and justice system.

We want no more delays, no more partisan politics and tactics, and no more games. Let us get the job done. Canadians are counting on us.

Comments by Government House Leader

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us try again. Would the Speaker please seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, be deemed to have been reported without amendment by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, concurred in at the report stage, and read a third a time and passed.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

We're in favour of Bill C-22; therefore we're not rejecting an American model.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

It appears that Bill C-22, which would raise the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years.... There has been testimony that many states in the United States have 16 as the age of consent.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Ms. Kohan, you stressed that you did not entirely agree, because even with Bill C-22, conditional sentences are not imposed on those cases. The sentences are too light. You gave us many examples.

Ever since I started sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as soon as the United States is cited as an example, we are told that we should not do what the Americans are doing. But what are we doing? Are our children any different from American children?

I would like to know your thoughts on this. You gave us several examples, and I would like you to elaborate on this subject.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Earlier, we asked you what you thought of a government that did not do this or that. What do you think of Bills C-9 and C-10? C-10 included minimum sentences, particularly in cases involving luring. The piece of legislation was castrated, as Mr. Ménard said on the CPAC television channel.

What do you think of Bill C-9 and conditional sentences? Bill C-9 that has been completely gutted. We have two major pieces of legislation. How can you expect, even with Bill C-22—

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

What do you say about a government that was offered the possibility in October 2006 by the Liberal House leader, the Liberal caucus, to pass Bill C-22 with our support as swiftly as it wished it to be passed and refused to take us up on that offer? Close to six months later this bill is still before the House when it could be, if the government had wished it to be last October, before the Senate and quite possibly already enacted today. What do you say about a government and its own legislation?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of my caucus and of all my Liberal colleagues, I would like to thank each and every one of you for having agreed to appear before us today in order to express your support for Bill C-22. Each one of you asked for this bill to be passed as quickly as possible.

What would you have to say about a government which, in October 2006, received an offer from the official opposition to have this bill adopted swiftly? This same offer was repeated in February 2007 and March 2007. Yesterday, the official opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada, introduced a motion for today's opposition day, which would have, had the government supported it, had this bill we are discussing today, Bill C-22, deemed to have been passed at all stages in the House, including at third reading, by the end of the day today.

What would you say of a government which stopped the passage of a bill it had itself introduced?

[Carrie Kohan, Child Advocate, Founder of MMAP and Co-founder of Project Guardian, Mad Mothers Against Pedophiles]

Hello. Bonjour. My name is Carrie Kohan. I am a child advocate who founded Mad Mothers Against Pedophiles and I am the co-founder of Project Guardian.

I've sat in front of this committee for many years now on various bills, and I'd like to thank the justice committee again for allowing me to speak to you on this matter today.

When looking at Bill C-22, age of consent, I feel like I'm having a déjà vu, because on October 7, 2003, four years ago, I sat in front of this justice committee on this very topic. It was Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act. It was an omnibus bill that tied in child Internet porn, artistic merit, and the support of vulnerable witnesses. Each one of these topics was a very serious issue and probably should have been addressed individually; however, they were lumped under one large bill.

In my address, I spoke of my concern that having a lower age of consent combined with such lenient sentences or non-existent sentences for convicted pedophiles would lead to Canada becoming a pedophile haven, which it since has.

According to the recent 178-page report compiled by EPCAT in December 2006, it states that Canada has indeed become a destination for child sex tourism because of its relatively lower age of consent. If that statement doesn't sound alarms in the whole of the justice committee, I don't know what else you'll need to hear to create change and understand the desperate situation our children are being put in as a result of our previous lawmakers and their apparent lack of concern for the safety of our children.

I also believe another contributing factor has resulted in our country being recognized as a pedophile haven, and that is our lack of sentencing for convicted pedophiles. In the hearings of October 2003, I shared with the then Liberal justice committee the 1997 stats that showed that in Canada, 60% of convicted pedophiles get jail time and 40% get conditional releases or house arrest. Of the 60% who get jail time, the average time served in prison was only six to eight months. This is because in Canada we can't enforce our maximum penalties. If we do, they are often appealed and reversed to a much more lenient sentence.

It is not that all Canadian judges don't want to give the maximum sentence; in Canada, they cannot. If a judge even tries to give a maximum sentence it is likely the convicted pedophile will successfully appeal his or her sentence and win, and the children of Canada and we as a society will lose. So the judge has no choice but to base his or her decision on precedent because our legal system is based on civil law.

Let's take a look at a recent conviction in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office, on November 3, 2006, a 54-year-old West Palm Beach man named James--or Jimmy--Oliver was convicted and sentenced to 130 years for just four counts of sexual exploitation and one count of possession of child pornography. The convicted man had traded child pornography online with another man and included a video of himself performing oral sex on a prepubescent child in his care. When a police seizure was made of Oliver's home, he was also found to possess images of child pornography on his computer.

On October 6, 2006, the West Palm Beach federal grand jury returned a 19-count second superseding indictment, charging Oliver with seven counts of distribution of child pornography and one count of receipt of child pornography, each of which carries a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years, up to a maximum of 20 years.

Oliver was also charged with two counts of distribution of child pornography to a minor in order to induce or persuade that minor to engage in sexual activity with him. These convictions also carry a minimum of five to 20 years. Oliver was also charged with four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor for the purpose of creating child pornography, each of which carried a mandatory minimum term of 15 to 30 years.

Oliver was charged with four counts of permitting a minor in his custody or control to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of creating child pornography, again a mandatory minimum term of 15 to 30 years. Lastly, Oliver was charged with one count of possession of child pornography, carrying a statutory maximum term of 10 years. In total, Oliver got 130 years in prison.

The U.S. judge also imposed restitution in the amount of $11,142 to pay for the victim's psychological counselling and a special assessment to be paid of $500. The judge also stated that no prison term, no matter how lengthy, can undo the serious harm done to these children.

Obviously, the United States of America has a zero tolerance policy for this crime. Now compare this to Canada. Can you understand why we are considered one of the places now to come and rape children and create child pornography and distribute it from? In May 2006, a Montreal man, who must remain nameless because of our laws, assaulted his young daughter from age 24 months to 4 years of age. He posted the pictures of this crime on the Internet. He was also found to have roughly 5,000 pictures and 5,000 videos of child pornography on his computer, some of which featured very young children and infants.

By the way, this actually brings up something else that I'd like to talk about later--the police issue of sampling. That's something we have to address.

Anyway, this 32-year-old Canadian man was sentenced to a maximum sentence of 15 years in November 2005. However, he won his appeal in the Quebec Court of Appeal and had his sentence reduced from 15 years to nine years. But in Canada nine years doesn't mean nine years; it actually means anywhere from three to six years, not including time served.

When the appellate court reduced the sentence, Judge Côté cited the man's crimes were not amongst the worst sexual assaults ever committed. And they also cited his young age--not the young age of his victim, but his young age. The court also cited the fact that this man had only one other criminal conviction, for sexually assaulting another child when he was 17 years old.

Here we have two similar crimes. The convicted pedophile in Canada has a prior conviction and possesses over 1,000 pieces of child pornography and gets maybe five to six years in prison, a prison that Canadians have now nicknamed Club Fed. The other convicted pedophile, in the United States, gets 130 years for virtually the same crime, and he has no prior conviction. Where do you think pedophiles would rather commit their crime? In a country where they could potentially get 130 years in prison or a country where they can get a maximum three to six years served? And that's if they are even caught in the first place.

The previous justice committee of Canada, Solicitor General, justice minister, and prime ministers that I have met or sat before over the past eight years have effectively put Canadian children on the top hit list for pedophiles to target. The only way to correct the ineffective laws of our past governments is to create new laws that will mirror those of our neighbours, so that we will no longer be the desirable destination of choice by pedophiles.

We need to increase our age of consent to 16 years minimum. In fact, the majority of Canadians that I have spoken to, which have been many, have actually wanted the age of consent to be similar to that of the United States and other countries and be raised to the age of 18. We need to include a close-in-age clause, four to five years. We need to grandfather previous relationships of one year or more that are outside that five-year age difference--within reason, of course. We also need to be on par with other democratic countries and implement minimum sentences of five years, to a maximum of 20 years, for various child-predatory-related crimes. I would personally like to see Carrie's guardian angel law adopt a progressive timeline for this type of sentencing.

I hope this justice committee understands the urgency needed here, and I also hope that this bill and the safety of our children does not become a bargaining tool for other political parties. That would be a shameful act, demonstrating that the will of the party is not to protect the children of Canada but instead to use the bill for the party's own political benefit or gain. Whether it is within the legal means of the political party to use this bill as a tool or not, I would ask that all parties present and the members of this committee pass this bill as a selfless act and act as a united parliamentary union in support of the protection of the children of Canada from predators.

Please ask yourself how many children are being raped at this very moment across Canada because of our ridiculous laws to date and the apparent lack of protection for Canadian children. And how many pedophiles are walking away with house arrests for abusing defenceless children?

Take a look at the 178-page report. You will see that we are a national disgrace. Only you, this committee, can do something about it. Please raise the age of consent immediately--today--and unanimously bring forward new legislation to introduce minimum sentencing for pedophile-related and violent crimes, such as the four violent crimes we witnessed in Edmonton, Alberta, over this last year, against Shane Rolston, Josh Hunt, Dylan McGillis, and, most recently, 13-year-old Nina Courtepatte. We'll be hearing that sentencing tomorrow.

These were violent crimes. The murderers deserve more than bail and house arrest.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

[Don Hutchinson]

A society can be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Statistics Canada notes that in 2003, six out of every ten sexual assaults reported to police involved a child or youth, although they represent only 21% of the population. It is clear from these statistics that we as a society need to do more to protect our children. Bill C-22 in effect says “hands off” and asserts this stronger protection.

A recent case that made the news involved a teacher in the United States who was convicted of sexually abusing a 15-year-old and was offered two sentencing options: jail in the U.S. or three years' exile in Canada, where an adult being in a relationship with a 15-year-old is currently legal. Clearly, there has to be more equity on this issue between these two bordering countries. Raising the age of consent to 16 years of age will provide an additional measure of protection for our children.

Yesterday's Ottawa Citizen reported the arrest of a Vanier man preying on young girls over the Internet. He was arrested when police were alerted to his efforts to meet a particular 13-year-old girl. What if she had been 14?

As mentioned earlier, a May 2002 Pollara survey entitled “Canadians' Opinions on Canadian Child Pornography Legislation and the Age of Sexual Consent” found that 80% of respondents expressed a desire for the age of consent to be raised to 16 or even higher.

We commend the intent of this bill, which is to protect our children from adult pedophiles and predators of pubescent youth. We strongly support the adoption of this bill into law, believing that it makes a good step towards making Canada a safer place for our children.

Thank you very much.

[Tony Cannavino, President, Canadian Police Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

The Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to present our submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with respect to Bill C-22.

The CPA is the national voice for 54,000 police personnel across Canada. Through our 170 affiliates, membership includes police personnel serving in police services from Canada's smallest towns and villages as well as those working in our largest municipal and provincial police services, the RCMP member's association, and first nations police associations.

Protection of Canada's children has been an issue of paramount concern for the CPA and our members. In this regard, the CPA has long advocated that Parliament increase the age of consent from 14 years of age to 16.

The government included a commitment to move forward with this legislation in their justice platform during the last federal election, and we are pleased to see this commitment being delivered upon. We are also pleased to see that all other parties in the House of Commons have been generally supportive of the principles contained in this bill.

Canadians also support efforts to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years. In 2002, a Pollara poll of Canadians revealed that 72% of those polled agreed with raising the age of consent from 14 to 16.

Canada lags behind most first world nations in the protection of our children through age-of-consent provisions. Countries with an age of consent of 16 or higher include Belgium, Hong Kong, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Most of the states in the United States and Australia have an age of consent of 16 or higher. Many of these countries also include “similar in age” provisions to address consensual relations between young people of similar age.

The growth of the Internet has significantly increased the availability of child pornography and it facilitates attempts by pedophiles to find new victims. Unfortunately, under existing Canadian law, Canada is viewed by some foreign sex predators as a child sex tourism destination. Law enforcement authorities report a growth in the number of pedophiles who contact young people in Canada through the Internet because of the low age of consent and who then travel here for sexual purposes.

Those who would prey on our children through the Internet or other means understand that it is not an offence in Canada for an older person who is not in a position of trust or authority to have consensual sexual relations with a child of 15 years.

Although Canadian families have the highest per capita Internet use in the world, Canada remains well behind other jurisdictions in dealing with the online sexual exploitation of children. According to the Young Canadians in a Wired World survey, 99% of youth have reported using the Internet, one in four children have had a stranger ask to meet them in person, and 15% of all young Internet users have met in person at least one individual whom they first met on the Internet. Of those, only 6% were accompanied by a parent or another adult. One in four youth have been sent pornography on the Internet by a stranger.

Police officers welcome the changes introduced in Bill C-22 as another tool to help protect our children from sexual exploitation by an older person. Bill C-22 sends a message to these predators that Canadian children are no longer open game. The bill will reinforce the way police investigate child exploitation and provide police with the needed tools to intervene when older persons seek to engage in sexual activity with children between the ages of 14 and 16.

The Canadian Police Association recommends that Parliament proceed with the swift passage of Bill C-22 to give effect to the amendments contained therein.

Thank you very much.

[Det Sgt Kim Scanlan, Detective Sergeant, Sex Crimes Unit, Toronto Police Service]

Thank you. Good morning.

Thank you for this opportunity. I'm pleased to be here today to share with you some of the experiences of the Toronto Police Service, specifically the areas that I oversee, the child exploitation section and the special victims section. Both areas are responsible for investigations and arrests related to sex offences against children, including Internet-facilitated crimes and street prostitution. More importantly, the goal for both sections is to identify, rescue, and support vulnerable people, especially women and children.

It must be clear from the onset that our support of Bill C-22, increasing the age of protection from 14 years to 16 years of age, recognizes that it is not intended to criminalize consensual sexual activities of young people. Our support for the passing of the proposed legislation is meant for the increased identification and prosecution of adults who choose to sexually exploit and prey on the vulnerabilities of 14- and 15-year-olds.

I wanted to look at how 14- and 15-year-olds are vulnerable. First of all, it's the increased use and access to the Internet. Young people live in the world of the Internet and social networking while most of their parents don't. Parents are not always aware of where their children are going online and to whom they are talking. They do not want their children talking with total strangers, but on the Internet it's virtually impossible to prevent. When polled by a Microsoft-Ipsos Reid poll that was released in January 2007, 25% of children aged 10 to 14 years said they would feel safe getting together with a person they've only met online.

Sexual predators have an in-depth knowledge of computers and technology. They spend enormous amounts of time in the pursuit of their fantasy, which is having a sexual relationship with a young person. Sexual predators network with other like-minded individuals and are well versed in successful grooming and luring techniques. These abilities lead to potential sexual abuse and exploitation.

Further evidence of the vulnerability of this age group has been provided to me from some of Canada's most experienced undercover officers. These officers, who represent several provinces, have spent years online posing as 12- and 13-year-olds, and they report to me. Canada's low age of consent is openly discussed in peer-to-peer chat rooms by sexual predators. Some of the men who have been arrested for possession and distribution of child pornography or for luring were conversant with Canadian law in relation to sexual offences. Canada has been identified as a sex tourism destination, and pedophiles have openly sought opportunities to meet and have sex with young Canadian teenagers, both boys and girls.

Undercover officers report that 100% of the time when online posing as a 13-year-old, conversations that are initiated with them move quickly to discussions about sex. This usually occurs in less than one minute. Some predators who believed they were actually talking to a 13-year-old boy or girl tried to maintain the relationship with the undercover officer for several months, just waiting for that youth to reach the current age of consent, which is 14 years.

Another area we looked at was a two-year review of the Toronto Police Service sexual assault arrest data, focusing on offenders who were arrested in the years 2005 and 2006, although the offences could have occurred at any time. The following results were noted. In total there were 1,956 records of arrest. These were persons who were arrested, and there were no duplications here. The offence dates range from 1965 to 2006. There were some historical cases that came forward. When looking at only the victims who were under the age of 18, 75% of their offenders were adults, and for all the victims of sexual assault, the largest groups were represented by 14- and 15-year-olds. I repeat, 14- and 15-year-olds were victimized at a higher rate than any other age group, and when you combine the two ages, they equalled over 10% of the total of 1,956 victims.

As we know, the reporting of sexual offences to police is very low, somewhere between 10% and 25%. If you take that number, even at 25%, for the number of victims who came forward, it means there are likely 1,500 more victims from Toronto we did not hear from, including hundreds of 14- and 15-year-olds who were likely victimized.

The passing of Bill C-22 in the courts would mean that 14- and 15-year-old victims of sexual assault would not have to contend with the issue of consent; the only question would be whether a sexual act had occurred. The responsibility for sexual exploitation would revert to the offender, and this change would make it easier for more victims to come forward.

The number of persons reported missing and last seen in Toronto was another area we looked at. In 2006 alone, there were 5,861 missing person reports, and that doesn't include any repeat runaways or other people who went missing more than once. Of that number, 14-year-olds made up over 10% of this group, and 15-year-olds made up almost 20% of this group. Both ages combined equal about 1,700 reports of missing young people who are 14 and 15 years old, just for Toronto alone.

At any given time there are hundreds of vulnerable teenagers aged 14 and 15 who run away to cities like Toronto. They fall prey to sexual predators who are eager to take advantage of them. Gang members and organized crime members recruit runaway teens to get them involved in drug trafficking and the sex trade.

Some of these youths include Canadian and foreign teenagers who are tricked or coerced and become victims of human trafficking. Most young prostitutes are well hidden, working out of bawdy houses, which are not easy for the police to locate.

Increasing the age of consent, the age of protection, to 16 years will provide some protection to younger teens who may find themselves in vulnerable situations. Efforts to gain their compliance for sex would be more difficult, and those who prey on young people would have to consider the new legal consequences.

I'd like to make a couple of recommendations that would further assist us.

We need to stress greater deterrence in terms of lengthier terms of incarceration and prohibition for those who choose to ignore our laws and prey on children.

Victims need better protection of the kind that exists for domestic violence cases in terms of speedy trials, and they need protection when giving testimony in court. Victims should not be further victimized by participating in the court process.

There needs to be funding for resources for child exploitation investigative units. Direct funding to police services that are committed to doing this work is always needed. Increased numbers of arrests and the identification and rescue of victims are directly proportional to the investment in this area.

Funding and resources are needed for community agencies to help support youth before they become victims and to provide care for them after they have become addicted or abused.

Support is needed before and after a young person meets someone who may hurt them; before and after they run away from home and end up on the streets; before and after prostitution becomes their only means of supporting themselves; before and after they develop addictions to drug and alcohol; before and after their health begins to deteriorate due to sexually transmitted diseases; before suicide seems like the best option--it brings to mind the ongoing inquest right now in Winnipeg into the case of the 14-year-old child prostitute Tracia Owen--and support is needed before they meet their untimely death.

There needs to be support for continuing education. All people must be educated on these issues: Internet safety, safe sex, communicable diseases, how to report abuse, and resources that are available.

Non-governmental agencies must be encouraged to do everything within their ability to protect our youth. Legislation should not be required to make cooperation with the police happen, but instead it should occur because it is the right thing to do.

Canada needs to be more proactive when it comes to protecting vulnerable persons, especially women and children. We have not reached our full potential and need to be doing more. Sexual exploitation in any form is unacceptable and must be stopped, using all the resources that we have available.

As the parent of two young teenagers, I feel this legislation is particularly important to me to help protect them, and as a law enforcement officer, I feel the passing of Bill C-22, the age-of-protection legislation, is a step in the right direction and one more tool for law enforcement to use to help keep Canadian children safe.

Thank you.