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]

The steering committee has decided on everything up to the DNA bill, Bill C-18. There have been no specified times allotted for your motions, because times were going to be something that would be discussed. Now Bill C-22, even though it was discussed earlier at the steering committee, is on the floor here as well.

A motion has been put forward. We'll deal with the motion. There has been no decision on either of Mr. Ménard's motions that are on the agenda here as far as time is concerned.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I would move, Mr. Chairman, that Bill C-22 be moved forward immediately, ahead of the motion by Mr. Ménard. Let's get down to business. That's what we're here for, so let's get somewhere.

I don't know how it should be worded, but that's my motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I raised the issue of Bill C-22, it was not at all my intent to delay the review on the judicial appointment process suggested by Mr. Ménard in his motion. It was, in fact, because we felt that these two issues were equally important. The review of the appointment process was done by the government without any consultation.

This was, moreover, what prompted me to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that the government consider referring Bill C-22 to a legislative committee, despite the fact that the House had referred it to the Standing Committee on Justice. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that associate members of a standing committee can sit on legislative committees. So it isn't true that only the regular committee members can sit on it.

I would also like to correct a statement made by Mr. Moore to the effect that legislative committees are established further to an agreement or consensus amongst the parliamentary leaders. If that were the case, there would not have been the government motion before the House on Bill C-35, which is aimed at reversing the onus of proof in cases awaiting trial. The parliamentary leaders were not consulted: the government acted unilaterally.

If committee members feel that Bill C-22 is as important as we, the members of the opposition, feel it is, by agreeing to study the judicial appointment process which was done unilaterally by the government, I move that Mr. Moore go back to his minister, his parliamentary leader, and, if necessary, his Prime Minister, and suggest that the parliamentary leaders consult with one another during their meeting on Tuesday afternoon. A suggestion could be made that another motion be tabled in the House requesting that the House review its decision, namely, that it refer Bill C-22 to a legislative committee rather than the Standing Committee on Justice.

In my opinion, that would suit everybody. The government would ensure that Bill C-22 is examined without delay and all of the members of this committee would be able to review the judicial appointment process, which was reviewed by the government without any consultation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard, you're absolutely right. This committee is the master of its own destiny, of its future.

If someone were to propose a motion to deal with Bill C-22 ahead of Mr. Ménard's motions, then we would vote on it.

It's that simple, right, Mr. Ménard? You said it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

I certainly know this committee in general wants to deal with Bill C-22 as expeditiously as possible. The problem now is before all of us, because I see that there's a general desire to see Bill C-22 in front of the committee probably ahead of Mr. Ménard's motions, I would have to suggest.

At the same time, the matter may end up being settled with a vote to do that very thing. If that's what the committee wants the chair to do or if there's some other way of coming to an agreement, let's do it now.

Mr. Ménard.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Speaking to the ninth report issue and our future agenda, the first point I've got to make is that when the House refers a bill to a committee, that bill has to have, at a minimum, at least some notional priority to other business.

I realize occasionally you get a little bit of a pinch point or a logjam, and there may be reasons to refer stuff out to a legislative committee. That has been done here on one occasion—for the second time, actually, in this Parliament--but the relative expertise in dealing with bills in this envelope is generally in this committee, and we ought to be making room.

I appreciate the efforts of Monsieur Ménard to offer business items and agenda items for us. As I look at this ninth report, I think three of the five items have been suggested by Monsieur Ménard. That's just wonderful, but the fact is that the government and the House have referred a whole bunch of other items to us, and I think we've got to work on those.

We've already done a side trip on another issue. We have to do that occasionally as a standing committee, but I want to see the age of consent bill get dealt with, Bill C-22. It's already been referred to us and it absolutely has to have priority over the issues of proceeds of crime or the appointment of judges. These are, of course, important public issues, but we have our work agenda established primarily by the House; we are a creature of the House. If we could find a way to wedge in a review of judges or proceeds of crime or other things, I'm happy to do that, but we absolutely have to get to the bills that have been referred to us. I would support any initiative that would get Bill C-22 in here right after Bill C-18, the DNA bill. Let's do our homework here, as the House wants us to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard, in fact that is exactly what's going to happen. You have served notice on the committee to deal with this particular point; it will be debated and discussed on Thursday, February 22. It shall be so.

Getting back to Bill C-22, I think there is a need...and my understanding is that many in the opposition want to see Bill C-22 hit the floor of this committee. I'm trusting there's going to be some consensus here to be able to deal with that quickly.

Go ahead, Mr. Lee.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I think, Mr. Chair, that Bill C-22 has already been referred to this committee. Obviously I'm not prepared to answer that question at this point anyway, because that's a decision the House leaders make, but I would want members to bear in mind that Bill C-22 certainly falls within the purview of this committee, for one thing, and for another, we are already dealing with another justice bill in a legislative committee.

I know that would stretch some people extremely thin, because they'd possibly be on three committees. I would prefer that we deal with Bill C-22, which is a bill that was referred to this committee, as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The issue Ms. Jennings brought up was to seek from the government a desire to have a legislative committee look at Bill C-22.

Criminal Code

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of this bill. After listening to the comments from the hon. member for Joliette, it seems the Bloc is more concerned about the dangerous offender than the victim, or the young child who has been abused, injured or sexually mistreated, or the mother or father of that child, or those potential children who might be abused. If we pass this legislation, this could otherwise be prevented.

As we know, safe streets and communities are important to all constituents in Canada. We are rightly proud of the history of having safe streets and homes, but times are changing and Canadians are experiencing not only an increase in crime, but an increase in a crime of the most heinous kind, one that is violent and abuses the sanctity of people, particularly children. They have called upon the government to take action. They have called upon the government to pass legislation not only in this area, but in other areas as well. We cannot ignore this problem. We must roll up our sleeves, do the job that needs to be done and work in committee to get the bill passed.

During the last election, we promised Canadians that we would crack down on crime, and that is exactly what we propose to do. We promised, we made a commitment and we are moving on it. We have tabled Bill C-27 in that regard.

In a nutshell, Bill C-27 deals with dangerous offenders and provides for ways of dealing with them. In particular, it also deals with section 810, peace bonds, which can put certain restrictions upon them should they ever get released.

To make it clear, many are calling upon the government to take action. Recent events in the area of Whitewood, Saskatchewan have brought many constituents together. They have presented a petition to the government asking for action. They have said that dangerous offenders should not be out on the loose or if they are released, they should be subject to some of the severest of conditions, so the public is not endangered by their actions. They have not only united the community in that area, but all of the constituency that I represent, including Saskatchewan, as well as provinces beyond.

We have received petitions signed by up to 24,000 to 25,000 Canadians who urge this government to take action. Today, I had the opportunity to file those petitions. It is fitting that we would do it on the day we are introducing Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation. Let us see what they call for in that petition.

They have asked the government to proceed with changes to the justice system in legislation that would result in harsher penalties for convicted pedophiles. They have asked for mandatory or compulsory electronic or other forms of monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody. They have asked for compulsory public notification and movements of convicted pedophiles. They have asked that we ensure repeat offenders are designated as dangerous offenders.

Why has this situation incited such an interest in the many constituencies, people and communities of Canada? Because the public is fed up. People have had enough of this easy justice, especially where people have been convicted of the same serious offences on at least three occasions, offences that require two or more years of jail time. They are saying there comes a point in time where something needs to be done. These people need to be contained or released under very strict conditions.

I am quite pleased to say that the Government of Canada has responded to the petition that my constituents have filed, and its response is interesting to note. It says that the Government of Canada is fully committed to protecting children from sexual offenders. In the last Parliament, Bill C-2 introduced mandatory minimum penalties for many sexual offences committed against children. These offences are, therefore, not eligible for a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Also, a number of criminal law reform initiatives have recently been introduced in this regard, including: Bill C-9 to restrict the availability of conditional sentences, which I just mentioned; Bill C-22 to increase the age of protection; Bill C-27, regarding dangerous and high risk offenders, about whom I speak today; and Bill S-3, regarding improvements to the national sex offender registry.

As introduced, Bill C-9 would toughens penalties for a number of sex offences, including offences against children, by making it clear that the conditional sentence is no longer available. Who could argue against that? Bill C-22 would better protect against youth adult sexual predators by raising the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years.

Who opposes this legislation? The opposition parties, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Party and the New Democratic Party have been obstructionist in committee. They have taken clauses out. They have watered them down. They have made them almost of no effect, when just the opposite is what the people of Canada expect. They expect us to get at least that tough, and tougher. They try to use the argument that it might not be constitutional.

However, these individuals, these victims, need protection, and that is exactly what we are about to do. Most Canadians are calling for us to take that action. It would be a good point for the opposition to take that into account, get behind us and have this legislation passed, as opposed to delaying it in committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

The bill was reported back to the House from committee on December 13. It very seldom happens that a bill is reported back without amendments. That shows what can happen when there is strong cooperation between the parties. Actually this is one of six bills the official opposition has called upon the government to work with all parties to pass as soon as possible.

We believe with just a little more cooperation, especially from the government, that in addition to Bill C-26, the following bills could be reported back to the House: Bill C-9, which would restrict the use of conditional sentences; Bill C-18, which would strengthen the DNA data bank; Bill C-19, which would amend the Criminal Code on street racing; Bill C-23, which would amend the Criminal Code and criminal procedure in languages of the accused and sentencing, in other words, update Canada's Criminal Code; and Bill C-22, which would amend the Criminal Code with respect to age of protection, with the importance of protecting children. We believe with a little more cooperation from the government, we could in fact be getting those six bills approved in the House.

In summary, Bill C-26 amends the Criminal Code of Canada to exempt payday lenders who operate in provinces and territories having measures in place to protect borrowers from the application of section 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and require jurisdictions that regulate the industry to place limits on the cost to consumers of payday borrowing.

To a great extent a lot of work was done on this bill by previous ministers of industry and justice. A lot of work has gone on with the provinces and territories to get the kind of collaboration needed to put forward this bill in the House of Commons. I congratulate all the folks, including members of the government, who were involved in those discussions to get us where we are at today.

There is certainly a need to ensure consumers that usury interest rates are not allowed in this country. There is no question that there is a lot of authority in the Criminal Code of Canada under section 347 to lay criminal charges for usurious interest rates. Section 347 makes it a criminal offence to charge more than 60% per annum.

As we all know, some payday loan companies have charged far in excess of that rate. In fact, we have heard of outrageous interest charges, when compounded and fees are added, in excess of 1,200% per annum, yet no charges under section 347 to payday loan companies have been made.

Yes, the concern is there, but the payday loan business is a little more complicated jurisdictionally, and I would say on an individual need basis, more than meets the eye. Jurisdictionally payday loan operations are considered to be commercial businesses. They are not banks, although I think many people believe they are. As commercial businesses, to a great extent they fall under provincial jurisdiction.

My colleague, the MP for Scarborough—Rouge River, explained it. I want to quote from his remarks in the House because he gave best explanation on this point:

We are going to keep a Criminal Code provision, but we are going to allow an exemption for a lawful business that lends money using this payday loan mechanism. The exemption will be based on the premise that a province or a territory is regulating the commercial operation.

He went on to say:

Placing this amendment with section 347, will allow the provinces to assume their proper jurisdiction in the regulation of the commercial affairs of their citizens. However, at the same time, we maintain the criminal prohibition with the 60% per annum cap where there is no provincial regulation. We are assuming that a province will provide a form of regulation that will essentially keep the same level of protection the consumers have had up to now.

It is important to mention that because it explains the jurisdictional problem and the difference between the commercialization as a business.

Therefore, the bill does cover off the jurisdictional question under clause 2 by the person being licensed by the province to enter into the agreement, and second, the province has been designated by the governor in council or cabinet under the proposed new section 347.1.3.

On an individual need basis, it is obvious from the demand for transactions, estimated to be $1.3 billion or more, and in fact the parliamentary secretary said it is as high as $2 billion now, and also the increase of payday loan companies that are estimated to be over 1,300. It is obvious from these shocking figures that individual Canadians have an urgent need for short term cash for whatever reason.

Yes, I recognize the amounts are in the low hundreds of dollars, but the cost, as others have said before me, are very high.

Mr. Jenkin with the Department of Industry, who was a witness before committee, indicated:

It's a form of short-term lending through which the consumer typically borrows several hundred dollars for 10 days to two weeks. The borrowing costs are very high, as you probably know. They are usually in the range of, for example, $40 to $75 for a $300 loan for two weeks or less.

I must emphasize that while I support the bill as a way to improve the situation for people who are in need of immediate cash, I still am worried about the impact of the financial strain on individuals. There is no question in my mind that the individuals who are basically forced to use these services are the ones who can least afford to pay these high fees. Maybe they need the dollars to provide food, buy groceries for the family. Maybe they need the dollars for a medical bill or maybe they even need the dollars to pay the minimum payment on a high interest bearing credit card.

Whatever the reason, there is clearly a problem out there that needs to be addressed beyond this bill. I certainly would advise the government and others that we really need to be doing as a country, both at the provincial and federal level, some research into the social or economic reason why people think they are forced to go to these services for those kinds of money. They are the people who can least afford it and I believe that needs to be looks into and addressed.

The bottom line is that we are in favour of this bill. We do believe it is a step in the right direction However, there are other underlying causes that we need to recognize are out there in a social and economic sense and issues that really affect people in their daily lives that forces them to use these services. That is the worrisome point.

The bill is good but I believe the House and the government need to look at the underlying causes of the need to use these services more so.

[Carole Morency, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Good morning.

As the committee has heard already, the Internet luring of children offence in section 172.1 was proclaimed into force on July 23, 2002. It was enacted as part of former Bill C-15A, which included Criminal Code reforms to better protect children from sexual exploitation, particularly vis-à-vis the use of new technologies such as the Internet.

This offence prohibits the use of a computer system, such as the Internet, to communicate with a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of one of the enumerated child sexual or abduction offences.

In the past, luring children over the Internet had become a new concern which was not properly addressed by the Criminal Code. Although the law completely forbade sexual physical contact as a result of Internet communication, the law did not really address action taken before that happened, action that facilitated this type of contact—Internet communication—to prevent a sexual offence or a kidnapping offence from being committed.

So, for example, this conduct could have been charged as an attempt to commit a child sexual offence, but as the law on attempts requires that the conduct amount to more than a mere preparation, it was difficult to have sufficient evidence to found a reasonable belief that an offence had been committed before the prohibited physical sexual contact actually occurred.

The Department of Justice, together with our provincial and territorial counterparts, continues to monitor the implementation of section 172.1. Given the fact that the offence only came into effect in mid-2002, there really is not much hard statistical data relating to its use. What I can bring to the committee's attention is a summary of some of the relevant reported case law.

Nonetheless, we are seeing reported cases and we can confirm that section 172.1 is being used successfully to address Internet luring of children. Charges are being laid and convictions secured, including as a result of guilty pleas and with sentences of imprisonment. So we believe that section 172.1 is having a positive impact in safeguarding children and youth against such online sexual exploitation. And, of course, recognizing that Canada continues to be one of the world's most plugged-in countries, we know that the importance of section 172.1 in this regard will not diminish.

For example, three years ago Statistics Canada reported that 71%, or almost three-quarters, of 15-year-olds use the Internet at least a few times each week, with 60% saying that they used it to communicate electronically through, for example, e-mail and chat rooms.

Parents who participated in the Canadian component of the 2004 World Internet Project survey that was reported in October 2005 estimated that youth in their households spent, on average, 8.9 hours per week on the Internet. Last summer, in August 2006, the United States National Center for Missing & Exploited Children released a report on the 2005 Youth Internet Safety Survey, a survey of 1,500 representative national samples of youth Internet users aged 10 to 17 years. It found that, of the youth who were targeted for sexual solicitations and approaches on the Internet, 70% were girls and 30% were boys, and 81% of those targeted were 14 years old or older. Overall, 90% of the sexual solicitation on the Internet happened to teenagers. They found none involving 10-year-olds, and 3% involved 11-year-olds.

So clearly efforts that serve to strengthen our responses to this type of sexual exploitation will better protect youth. Bill C-277's proposal to increase the maximum penalty on indictment for this offence will do this. As well, Bill C-22, which is now before this committee and which proposes to increase the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years, will also better protect youth against Internet luring, specifically 14- and 15-year-olds, who the recent research shows are most at risk for this type of exploitation.

With that, I'll end my introductory remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have for me.

Age of Consent

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today signed by 25 of my constituents. These constituents are claiming that the existing law regarding the age of sexual consent remains at 14 years of age. They are saying that Bill C-22 was tabled to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years and this petition lobbies the federal government to raise the age of sexual consent to 18 years.

Human Trafficking

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells and speak in favour of Motion No. 153 brought forward by my colleague the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

I agree, as I am sure all members do, to the motion's condemnation of sexual exploitation. I commend the member for her hard work and perseverance in tackling the issue of human trafficking and for urging the government to adopt a comprehensive strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide.

Indeed, the trafficking of women and children, in particular, for the purpose of sexual exploitation is a scourge of the world. As a leader in the world, I believe that Canada has a duty and responsibility to lead in combatting this scourge both here at home and in other countries.

As we speak, raids have been taking place at brothels in B.C. where young women and girls are abused. The world's people often look to Canada for leadership. We must not let them down. That is why I am in full support of the motion. I believe that Canada, blessed as we are, can do a great deal to put a stop to this victimization of vulnerable people around the world.

In developing countries of the world in particular, criminals prey on those want to improve their lives. The wish to improve one's life is universal and a worthy aspect of human nature. To see this positive virtue taken advantage of by criminals, is quite simply heartbreaking.

These criminals target the vulnerable. They care not what harm they perpetrate. They make lavish promises of possibilities in western countries to those eager to believe. Then they cruelly dash this hope by trapping their victims in virtual enslavement.

Listen to what Irene Sushko of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has to say. She says that trafficking of human beings “constitutes horrific acts of slavery, the shameful assault on the dignity of children, the exploitation of the vulnerable for profit”. She goes on to say that 80% of victims are women and children who are lured from developing countries with false promises of jobs and a better life.

Think of it. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how a human being could twist himself into being so cruel and heartless. Women and girls, with virtually nothing, become filled with hope of a better life. Only later after they land in their new country do they discover the tragic truth that they must toil work as prostitutes to pay the cost for their trip.

I do not believe there is a single member in the House who is not appalled by these circumstances. Let us translate this gut reaction into concrete action that will protect these vulnerable people.

Yes, it is time to take more aggressive action to combat the scourge of human trafficking. It is especially timely, given the preparations Canada must make due to our hosting of the 2010 Winter Olympics. Soon we will see the cruel cycle of hope raised only to be dashed replayed unless we act. If we do not act, criminals will be at work setting their traps to entice desperate people to make their way to Canada when we host the Winter Olympics.

It is clear. The time for Canada to take action is now. Consider that during a recent committee meeting, Benjamin Perrin of The Future Group warned parliamentarians that traffickers would consider the Vancouver Olympics to be a windfall. He said, “a large influx of that hard currency and foreigners with a lot of time on their hands and a sense of impunity will essentially drive this industry”. Let us take action today to drive a stake into the heart of this so-called industry.

As a member of Canada's new government, I stand with my colleagues in supporting tough measures to prevent criminals from having their way. I am supportive of the government's acting to protect women and children from being exploited by cruel and heartless criminals.

That is not to say that constructive action has not already been taken. I would be remiss in not thanking the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the actions he has already taken to give comfort to the victims of this cruel crime who are identified here in Canada.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has empowered immigration officers to issue temporary resident permits to victims of human trafficking, thereby helping them to recover from the impact of this horrible crime. We can only imagine the healing of the spirit that must be involved in this recovery. I am heartened that our government shows compassion for these victims. Furthermore, these victims are exempted from the usual processing fee and are eligible for health care benefits.

I know that the minister and his officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada have worked hard to support officers on the ground to assist victims. I thank them for this good work. This compassion on the part of the Government of Canada toward victims of crime makes me very proud to be Canadian.

The Minister of Public Safety has also taken steps to help protect victims of human trafficking. Bill C-22, if passed, would protect younger victims by raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years, an issue that I raised when in opposition in the last session. I urge members to support Bill C-22 so that Canada can make clear to international visitors and our own population the serious consequences should they break the law.

The passing of Bill C-22 would add another element to the tool kit our authorities must be provided by government in order that we do not provide a supportive environment for victims to be exploited. Simply put, by lowering demand, we can expect to reduce the supply of victims to Canada.

Needless to say, Canada will also need to work with other countries in order to similarly lower demand in those countries. In this manner we can address the motion's call to combat trafficking worldwide.

As I say, we have taken some steps in the right direction to meet the goals of the motion now before the House. I also note that Canada is already a signatory to the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children.

Today's motion is a clarion call for us as members of Parliament to call out for ever greater efforts to do more to stop this criminal activity and do more to prevent an ever growing list of victims.

The cause is certainly just. This is not to say that the problem is easy to solve. Nevertheless, by taking actions here at home, as we have already done, we can show the world that Canada is a leader in the fight against human trafficking. By working with other countries around the world, we can display this leadership to the world at large.

It is time to set our sights on doing more to prevent human trafficking, doing more to protect its victims and doing more to prosecute offenders. Passing this motion would set us in the right direction. Consequently, I call on all members to support this motion.

Criminal Code

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the member for Louis-Hébert asked the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities a question about Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act. The minister misled this House by stating that the Bloc Québécois was opposed to BIll C-22, when the Bloc Québécois has spoken in favour of the bill and will be voting for it.

I demand an apology from the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.