Bill C-46 (Historical)

Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act

The enactment amends the Criminal Code to add new investigative powers in relation to computer crime and the use of new technologies in the commission of crimes. It provides, among other things, for
(a) the power to make preservation demands and orders to compel the preservation of electronic evidence;
(b) new production orders to compel the production of data relating to the transmission of communications and the location of transactions, individuals or things;
(c) a warrant to obtain transmission data that will extend to all means of telecommunication the investigative powers that are currently restricted to data associated with telephones; and
(d) warrants that will enable the tracking of transactions, individuals and things and that are subject to legal thresholds appropriate to the interests at stake.
The enactment amends offences in the Criminal Code relating to hate propaganda and its communication over the Internet, false information, indecent communications, harassing communications, devices used to obtain telecommunication services without payment and devices used to obtain the unauthorized use of computer systems or to commit mischief. It also creates an offence of agreeing or arranging with another person by a means of telecommunication to commit a sexual offence against a child.
The enactment amends the Competition Act to make applicable, for the purpose of enforcing certain provisions of that Act, the new provisions being added to the Criminal Code respecting demands and orders for the preservation of computer data and orders for the production of documents relating to the transmission of communications or financial data. It also modernizes the provisions of the Act relating to electronic evidence and provides for more effective enforcement in a technologically advanced environment.
The enactment also amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to make some of the new investigative powers being added to the Criminal Code available to Canadian authorities executing incoming requests for assistance and to allow the Commissioner of Competition to execute search warrants under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, no. I do not feel inclined to hear from the member.

I feel inclined to hear more from experts. Many people have stated that they want this bill to move forward. The member talked about 2012. I am going to go back further, to 2009, when Bill C-46 was brought before the House of Commons, and Bill C-51 in 2010. There was an individual at that time who seemed to think there was an urgency to move bills forward. He said that the “bill is quite overdue in terms of when it should have been on the law books of this country”.

Those amendments have been planned for some time. There was a sense of urgency then, coming from the NDP. It was the hon. member who was then justice critic and an hon. member of the NDP.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in the debate on the motion to prevent debate on the content and substance of Bill C-59. I find it rather odd that the Bloc has supported the government's attempt to stifle any attempt at debate on the substance of this bill.

No one in the House can accuse the Liberals of not supporting the idea of eliminating parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served for economic crimes. Two years ago, my colleague from Bourassa, our candidate in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and our member for Lac-Saint-Louis participated in a press conference with several of Earl Jones' victims to call on the government to quickly bring forward a bill to eliminate parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served, especially for criminals who commit major fraud and have multiple victims.

No one can accuse the Liberals of not supporting that idea. I think it is really dishonest of the government to make that kind of accusation when it knows very well what the Liberals' position is. This was pointed out by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Now I would like to talk about the debate and the fact that the Conservatives and the Bloc members want to limit the scope of the debate. Just seven months ago the members of the Bloc rose in the House to criticize the government for doing the exact same thing it is doing now with Bill C-59. The government moved a motion to block debate.

Last June, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain rose in the House to criticize the government for moving a motion to block debate on the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The Bloc member for Hochelaga also rose to oppose a government motion to block debate on Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, by imposing time allocation.

We are opposed to this time allocation motion because we believe that Bill C-59 addresses a very important issue. Furthermore, for two years now, the Liberals have been calling on the government to eliminate parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served for economic crimes like those committed by Earl Jones, Vincent Lacroix and others.

I think it is a shame that some would have people believe that the Liberals do not want to protect victims. That is simply not true. When the government introduced Bill C-21 on economic crimes and it was referred to committee, the Liberal justice critic proposed an amendment to the bill to eliminate eligibility for parole after one-sixth of the sentence in cases of economic crime. The Conservatives and the Bloc defeated the motion.

Every MP is entitled to his or her opinion on bills that we are called on to debate in the House. It is a fundamental aspect of the democratic process. The operative word here is “debate”, and the collusion between the Conservatives and the Bloc is preventing us from acting as responsible parliamentarians.

We would like to hear from experts. We want to know how this bill will truly address a gap in the law, how it will do justice to victims, how this bill will improve the chances of rehabilitation for those who once lost control of their lives.

Perhaps we should indeed eliminate parole after one-sixth of a sentence for offenders who have committed serious economic crimes and left a number of victims.

However, for non-violent criminal acts that are not fraud, we believe that evidence has shown that parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been very effective and that the rate of recidivism is much lower.

We will never know what the experts might have said since this closure motion eliminates any chance to consult experts. With this government so eager to control everything, it has become somewhat of a tradition to just pass a bill without any idea of the facts that might call it into question.

The Liberals are against this closure motion. It is not justified, and we regret that the Bloc has decided to join the Conservatives to limit the debate on this bill. As far as the substance of the bill is concerned, in the past and still today, no one could accuse the Liberals of not showing their support for eliminating parole after one-sixth of the sentence for economic crimes.

In order to illustrate the government's intellectual dishonesty, I would like to present a chronology of the Conservatives' failures in their so-called fight against crime.

I am referring here to the various bills that have died on the order paper for all sorts of reasons or that have remained in the House or at committee indefinitely.

Here they are. Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued; Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), died on the order paper before the House had a chance to vote on it; Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), also died on the order paper. It is certainly not the opposition that forced the government to prorogue Parliament.

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, died on the order paper, and Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, on the faint hope clause, died on the order paper before being brought back this session. One committee meeting was held on Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, before it died on the order paper. Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), which is related to Bill C-59, the bill we are dealing with today, died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued. Bill C-58, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, died on the order paper. The prorogation of Parliament killed many bills.

Among the bills introduced by the Minister of Public Safety was Bill C-34, the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, which also died on the order paper. The bill to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act died on the order paper. Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, died on the order paper. Bill C-47, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations, died on the order paper. Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, died on the order paper. Bill C-60, An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, died on the order paper.

To date, no meetings have been held to discuss Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), was given first reading 51 days after Parliament was prorogued, and the committee still has not met to discuss that bill.

Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), was fast-tracked at committee in just one meeting and still has not reached second reading. Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, was given first reading 64 days after Parliament was prorogued, and the government delayed it for 26 days at report stage because of the debate on the short title.

Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, was given first reading 89 days after Parliament was prorogued, and we are still waiting for the next step. Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interception of private communications and related warrants and orders), was given first reading after 94 days, and we are still waiting. First reading of An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act took place 243 days after Parliament was prorogued. Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), was given first reading and nothing more.

Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children) only made it to first reading. Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act was introduced at first reading by the Minister of Public Safety 15 days after prorogation. Two committee meetings were held and nothing has happened since. As for Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, we are still waiting. After a few meetings on the subject, the minister was supposed to come back with amendments that he felt were necessary in order to make the bill more comprehensive and definitely more respectful. Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts was introduced for first reading 104 days after prorogation and we still have not met in committee to discuss it. Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act was introduced for first reading 232 days after prorogation and there it remains. Bill C-52, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations was also introduced for first reading 243 days after prorogation and we are waiting for the next step. The Senate introduced Bill S-7, An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act for first reading 49 days after prorogation and we are still waiting for the next step. Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts was introduced for first reading in the Senate 60 days after prorogation. Bill S-13, An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America was introduced for first reading 237 days after prorogation.

I am pointing this out to prove that it is not the opposition parties that are slowing the process down. For all sorts of unknown reasons, the government introduces these bill and then goes no further with them.

To conclude, I would like to question the justification for Bill C-59 and the fact that the Conservatives and the Bloc felt this was urgent enough to warrant this closure motion, which is an affront to parliamentary dialogue.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Make your speeches elsewhere, Minister.

Abuse is actually not in section 163.1. That's why I was asking. But I'll leave that for the technocrats who actually know the stuff.

I want to ask you about Inspector Naylor's comments yesterday. He seemed a very forthright, upright, law enforcement official. He suggested that we could always use more tools. Obviously, he was in favour. This is about the telecommunications aspect of making arrangements to commit a sexual offence, which is a very nice part of this legislation. We were reminded that Bill C-46, I think it was, was a bill that lived until your government killed it through prorogation, which would have given investigative powers. Can you tell me where we are with that, and whether you want to....

If we could all just lower the temperature on the hyperbole, I guess.... There's a mea culpa there.

I know that you're laughing, because you always do, Bob, but the point is that we want to get some things done. This is a good bill to get done, and so is Bill C-46. Where is it?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I want to ask Mr. Naylor something.

Inspector Naylor, I was specifically interested in your comments where you talked about the use of telecommunications to make arrangements to commit a sexual offence. I was drawn to the memory of Bill C-46 and some of the investigative powers that were in there. Of course that was killed by prorogation and politics and so on, but I think your phrase was that we could always use more.

I think we're interested in this committee, as most of us have been here a while, in what more we could do to help police forces. I suppose you're going to go down routes of telecommunication warrants and access, Internet service provider duties to provide information, which is also handled in another bill we've had. What did you mean by that? Do you remember saying that we could always use more?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Witnesses, I want to thank you for coming today.

I want to state that on this side we're very happy to see a piece of legislation like this. There's substantial agreement with the legislation. We've been here...we just passed our fifth anniversary, and we haven't seen this legislation before. There was a precursor in Bill C-46, which talked about some of the investigative powers that Mr. Naylor was talking about, but by and large we haven't seen a lot in this area. So we're five years down the road and we're tackling this issue.

By way of history, you know that previous Liberal governments brought in I think it was nine offences, mandatory minimums. So this ought not to be a political thing. It ought to be something where we realize that society has grown more in exponential fashion.... Criminals have become more sophisticated and there's a plethora of crime out there that the code is way behind on. I think we can agree with that, at least.

I'm very interested in some of the concepts. There won't be enough time to cover them. One is the definition of child sexual abuse materials. The definition this legislation hinges on is sexually explicit material for the two new offences, and I applaud the Department of Justice, I suspect, for the two new offences and how they're crafted. Normally we have the minister here first and the Department of Justice officials, but we'll get into that on Wednesday. I guess what I'm getting at, my first question, would be do you foresee, Mr. Rushfeldt, that child sexual abuse materials could be combined with sexually explicit material? That would be a question.

I know how these things run--we usually run out of time--so I'll get both of my questions on the floor.

On a different topic, Ms. Dawson, what you argue all made sense to me, frankly, but some of what you say might argue in favour of retaining conditional sentences. We've heard over the years that conditional sentences, as they stand now, allow judges to craft a sentence service that frankly has more conditions on the offender with a view toward rehabilitation or treatment than even a parole situation, and certainly more than at the end of a sentence situation, where a person serves 90 days and is done.

So once we're finished with Mr. Rushfeldt, would you give me your opinion on whether conditional sentences should be omitted entirely or what vehicle you see, other than longer sentences, for the conditions in the community, in treatment, to put into effect the very wise things you said to the effect that you're warehousing an offender with a problem for 90 days--I think a number of people said that--and he's back out on the street without really taking the danger away from himself and from the community.

So perhaps we could hear from Mr. Rushfeldt for a couple of minutes and then Ms. Dawson after.

Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-54.

At the outset, I want to indicate that one of our previous members, Dawn Black, introduced a bill on this subject on two occasions. Then the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam reintroduced those bills in the last few months.

We are encouraged and happy that the government has taken the necessary steps to introduce Bill C-54. We intend to support the bill going to committee. Hopefully, we will be able to study the bill in committee and make whatever necessary amendments need to be done.

The government has recognized that children are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation. In its Speech from the Throne in March, it promised to increase penalties for sexual offences against children.

The proposed Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, supports the commitment in two ways: first, by ensuring that the penalties imposed for sexual offences against children better reflect the extremely serious nature of these acts and are consistent with one another; and second, by seeking to prevent child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that would facilitate their sexual offending or re-offending.

The proposed legislation amends the Criminal Code in a number of ways. It provides mandatory prison sentences for 7 existing offences relating to child sexual exploitation, including sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, incest where the victim is under 16 years of age, luring a child through the use of a computer and exposure. Also, the addition of mandatory prison sentences for these offences would also have the effect of eliminating the use of the conditional sentences or house arrest for any of these cases.

The bill would create two new offences. The new offences are aimed at certain conduct that could facilitate enable the commission of a sexual offence against a child. These offences would prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child.

This hybrid offence would carry a mandatory prison sentence of 30 days imprisonment and a maximum penalty of 6 months when proceeded on summary conviction and a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days imprisonment and a maximum penalty of 2 years when proceeded on indictment. In addition, it would prohibit anyone from using any means of telecommunications, including a computer system, to agree to make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child.

This proposed offence was previously proposed as part of former Bill C-46, Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, in the previous session of Parliament. This proposed hybrid offence will now carry a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days and be punishable by a maximum of 18 months on summary conviction and a mandatory prison sentence of one year and be punishable by a maximum of 10 years when proceeded on indictment.

The mandatory prison sentences for seven existing offences would be increased to better reflect the serious nature of these offences, as well as to bring greater consistency in sentencing in these cases. For example, the existing mandatory prison sentences for 3 child specific offences, which carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment when proceeded on indictment, would be raised from 45 days to 1 year.

The existing mandatory prison sentences for possessing and accessing child pornography, which carry a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment when proceeded by indictment, would be raised from 45 days to 6 months. The existing mandatory prison sentences for the indictable offence of a parent or guardian procuring their 16 or 17-year-old child for illegal sexual activity and for a householder permitting illegal sexual activity with a 16 or 17 year old, both of which carry a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment, would be doubled from 45 days to 90 days.

In addition, new restrictions are being created for offenders. These reforms would also require judges to consider prohibiting suspected or convicted child sex offenders from having any unsupervised contact with a young person under the age of 16 or from having any unsupervised use of the Internet.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to commence second reading debate on Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), also known as the protecting children from sexual predators act.

Bill C-54 fulfills the 2010 Speech from the Throne commitment to increase the penalties for child sexual offences. It builds on other concrete measures already taken by this government to tackle violent crime and in particular safeguard children against sexual offenders.

For example, the Tackling Violent Crime Act of 2008 raised the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years to better protect Canadian youth against adult sexual predators. This same act also provided all Canadians with better protection against dangerous offenders by providing police, crown prosecutors and the courts which much needed tools to more effectively manage the threat posed by individuals at very high risk to reoffend sexually and violently.

In addition to reflecting the government's unwavering commitment to tackle violent crime, Bill C-54 addresses something that is near and dear to the hearts of all Canadians, namely the protection of our children against sexual predators.

There are many issues on which parliamentarians may disagree but the protection of children against sexual exploitation should never be one of them.

The proposals in Bill C-54 have two objectives: one, to ensure that all forms of child sexual abuse irrespective of how they are charged are always treated as serious offences for sentencing purposes; and two, to prevent the commission of sexual offences against a child.

Currently an individual who commits sexual abuse and exploitation of a child victim can be charged and prosecuted under either child specific sexual offences or under general sexual offences that apply equally to adult and child victims. In deciding how to proceed, police and crown prosecutors take many factors into consideration, including the facts and circumstances of the case and which offence best applies to those facts and circumstances, including the intended penalty for the possible offences.

The penalties that are imposed for child specific sexual offences differ significantly from those imposed for the general sexual offences in one key respect. Twelve of the child sexual offences carry mandatory minimum penalties, whereas none of the general offences impose any mandatory minimum penalties. No less troubling, not all child specific sexual offences carry minimum penalties.

Bill C-54 proposes to change this to ensure that mandatory minimum penalties apply in all sexual assaults where the victim is a child. Some may think that this discrepancy is relevant in practice, perhaps thinking that the majority of child sexual assaults are charged under the child specific offences and therefore are subject to mandatory minimum penalties. Sadly, this is not the case.

In 2008, 80% of all sexual assaults of children reported to police were charged under the general sexual assault offence in section 271 of the Criminal Code, sometimes referred to as a level one sexual assault; 19% were charged under one of the child specific or other sexual offences, such as for example section 151, sexual interference; and the remaining 1% were charged under the two most serious general sexual assault offences, levels two and three sexual assault, namely sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm under section 272, and aggravated sexual assault under section 273.

From a sentencing perspective, this means in 81% all sexual assault cases involving child victims in 2008, there was no mandatory minimum sentence.

I recognize there are some who will say that this does not matter because irrespective of the starting point, the sentence ultimately imposed must reflect the facts and circumstances of each case and must always denounce and deter child sexual abuse.

In our view, that is simply not good enough. This government and the majority of Canadians take the position that the deterrence and denunciation of the sexual exploitation of children must be strong and it must be consistently reflected in the sentences imposed in all of these cases. This means that the starting point for any sentence calculation must be a sentence of imprisonment and not a conditional sentence of imprisonment or house arrest as it is sometimes called.

This is the first thing that Bill C-54 proposes to do to ensure consistency. It proposes to impose a mandatory minimum penalty in all sexual offences where the victim is a child. Bill C-54 proposes to add mandatory minimum penalties to seven offences that do not currently impose mandatory minimum penalties.

I apologize to those who are listening, but the content is not the type of thing that anyone really wants to talk about. These offences are: section 155, incest; subsection 160(3), bestiality in the presence of or by a child; section 172.1, Internet luring of a child; section 173(2), exposure to a person under 16 years; section 271, sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age; section 272, sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing bodily harm where the victim is under 16 years of age; and section 273, aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age. It is unfortunate that we even have to contemplate these things.

The second thing that Bill C-54 sentencing reforms would do is ensure that the mandatory minimum penalties, MMPs, imposed are commensurate for each offence and consistent with other offences.

Take for example the child-specific offence of invitation to sexual touching in section 152 of the Criminal Code. It is a hybrid or dual procedure offence. When proceeded with summarily, the offence carries an MMP of 14 days and a maximum of 18 months. On indictment it carries an MMP of 45 days and a maximum of 10 years. Clearly, these MMPs do not adequately reflect the correct starting point for calculating the sentence for that offence.

The MMPs for sexual touching are also inconsistent with those provided in other offences, such as making child pornography in section 163.1(2), which carries an MMP of 90 days and a maximum of 18 months on summary conviction, and an MMP of one year and a maximum of 10 years on indictment.

Accordingly, Bill C-54 would impose higher MMPs for seven existing child-specific sexual offences: section 151, sexual interference; section 152, invitation to sexual touching; section 153, sexual exploitation; subsection 163.1(4), possession of child pornography; subsection 163.1(4.1), accessing child pornography; paragraph 170(b), parent or guardian procuring unlawful sexual activity with a child under 16 or 17 years; and paragraph 171(b), householder permitting unlawful sexual activity with a child age 16 or 17 years.

As an example, for the offence of sexual interference in section 151, where the maximum penalty on indictment is 10 years, the proposed MMP would be increased from 45 days to one year of imprisonment. For the offence of possessing child pornography under subsection 163.1(4) where the maximum penalty on indictment is five years, the proposed MMP would be increased from 45 days to six months' imprisonment. On summary conviction for the same offences and for which the maximum penalty is 18 months' imprisonment, the proposed MMP would be increased from 14 to 90 days.

Bill C-54 also seeks to prevent the commission of a sexual assault against a child. It does so through two types of reforms: through the creation of two new offences and by requiring courts to consider imposing conditions prohibiting convicted or suspected child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that may facilitate their offending.

Many child sex offenders engage in practices that will facilitate their offending. For example, they may seek out occupations or recreational activities that put them in close contact with children. They may befriend children who they perceive to be in need of friendship or even financial help and then exploit that friendship by engaging in unlawful sexual activity with the child. They may provide the child with aids, such as sexually explicit materials to lower their sexual inhibitions, or they may make arrangements with another person that will result in the commission of a sexual offence against a child.

Bill C-54 proposes to better address this preparatory conduct by creating two new offences. The first offence would prohibit a person from making sexually explicit material available to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual or abduction offence against the young person. Child sex offenders often give such material to their victims to lower their sexual inhibitions and/or to show them the conduct they want the child victim to engage in, or to make the child believe that other children do this too.

It is already an offence to provide such material for any purpose where it constitutes child pornography. Bill C-54 would make it an offence to provide other sexually explicit material to a young person for this purpose. The offence would apply to transmitting, making available, distributing or selling such material to a young person for this purpose and would apply whether it is provided directly in a face-to-face encounter or over the Internet.

Bill C-54 proposes a clear definition of “sexually explicit material”, a definition that is consistent with its use and interpretation in the child pornography section 163.1 of the code, and voyeurism section 162 offences. The proposed new offence would clearly only apply when the material is provided for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an enumerated sexual or abduction offence against that child.

This “for the purpose” criteria is used in the existing Internet luring of a child offence in section 172.1, and was recently interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the R. v. Legare decision of 2009 as applying to preparatory conduct that helps to bring about, or make it easier or more probable for the young person to participate in the prohibited conduct. The proposed new offence would be subject to mandatory minimum penalties and a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment on summary conviction, and two years' imprisonment on indictment.

The second new offence proposed by Bill C-54 would prohibit using telecommunications, such as the Internet, to agree or make arrangements with another person to commit one of the enumerated sexual or abduction offences against a child. This offence was previously included in Bill C-46, the investigative powers for the 21st century bill, that the Minister of Justice had introduced in the previous session of Parliament and that died on the order paper on prorogation.

In addition to the new MMP and a more accurate marginal note or title for this proposed offence, it has also been modified from the former Bill C-46 version to ensure consistency with the other new offence being proposed by Bill C-54, and with the existing luring a child offence of section 172.1, all of which follow a similar approach.

For example, the listing of offences in each of these three offences will now all be consistent. Similarly, all three offences would be added to the child sex tourism provision in subsection 7(4.1), which would provide extraterritorial jurisdiction for a Canadian prosecution of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who engages in one of the enumerated child sexual offences while abroad.

Coordinating amendments with Bill S-2, the protecting victims from sex offenders bill, are also proposed to ensure consistent treatment of these offences for the purposes of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, and DNA provisions in the Criminal Code.

This proposed new offence would fill a gap in our existing law. Currently the existing prohibition against the Internet luring of a child, in section 172.1, applies to communications between the offender and the child. This new offence would apply to communications between, for example, two adults who arrange or make an agreement that would in essence result in the sexual assault of a child. The new offence would better address this preparatory conduct and help to prevent the commission of the actual sexual assault against a child.

Bill C-54 also seeks to prevent convicted or suspected child sex offenders from having the opportunity to facilitate their offending. Finding access to a child or the opportunity to be alone with a child is a key for many child sex offenders. An increasing number of child sex offenders also use the Internet and other new technologies to facilitate the grooming of victims or to commit other child sex offences.

Currently, section 161 of the Criminal Code requires a sentencing court, at the time of sentencing a person convicted of committing one of the enumerated child sexual or abduction offences, to consider imposing a prohibition against the offender from frequenting places where children can reasonably be expected to be found, such as a playground or schoolyard, or from seeking or holding paid or volunteer positions of trust or authority over children, or from using a computer system for the purposes of communicating with a young person.

Section 810.1 of the code provides a comparable direction vis-à-vis conditions that could be imposed as part of a recognizance or peace bond against a person who is reasonably believed to be at risk of committing one of the enumerated child sex or abduction offences.

Bill C-54 proposes to expand the list of enumerated child sex offences to include four procuring offences. It would also broaden the list of prohibitions by directing a court to consider prohibiting the person from having any unsupervised access to a child under the age of 16 years, or from having any unsupervised use of the Internet. The objective of these conditions is to prevent the suspected or convicted child sex offender from being provided with the opportunity to sexually offend against a child or to use the Internet to facilitate such offending.

In summary, Bill C-54 builds upon numerous past and current legislative reforms and initiatives to better protect all children against sexual abuse and exploitation.

It proposes sentencing reforms to ensure that all sexual assaults against a child victim are equally and strongly denounced and deterred through consistent and coherent mandatory minimum sentences. It also proposes reforms to prevent the commission of sexual assault against children.

I hope that all hon. members will support the expeditious enactment of these reforms to provide children with the protection they need and deserve.

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

And now I feel like speaking French.

My suggestion is this. If this bill were in force for a period of time before the government moves on its former Bill C-46, we might have enough experience to know whether the 21 days is enough. If experience shows that it isn't enough, you can suggest that the government, whichever one it may be, extend the time and amend the legislation.

Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to speak today on Bill S-2, which is an exact copy of Bill C-34 as amended by the Standing Committee on Public Safety during the last Parliament.

We were in favour of Bill C-34 in principle and the witnesses we heard—I was also on the committee at the time—reinforced us in our position. We proposed some amendments that were adopted. By the way, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, with whom I worked on this file.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill on the sex offender registry. It is further proof that when we work on bills, we work on them one at a time in a constructive spirit, without engaging in the demagoguery and Conservative grandstanding to which we have become accustomed.

First, I would like to remind the House that the current Sex Offender Information Registration Act came into force on December 15, 2004.

Bill S-2 is intended to make the sex offender registry more effective and helpful to police forces in their preventive efforts as well as during investigations of sex crimes.

It aims, therefore, to register more people convicted of sex crimes and to include more information about them, especially their DNA.

Bill S-2 also imposes further obligations on the individuals listed in the registry if they move or expect to be absent from their homes for an extended period.

Some changes were made. Specifically, in addition to adding more offences that result in inclusion on the registry, clause 5 of the bill changes the procedure through which the courts order inclusion on it.

In the case of what are called direct sexual offences, the current system gives the crown attorney a choice of whether or not to ask for the person to be included on the registry after being convicted of the offence.

With the new registry in Bill S-2, this is no longer in the hands of the Crown. As soon as someone is convicted and sentenced for a sex crime, he or she must automatically comply and be included on the registry. I want to make it clear that this applies to sex crimes.

Furthermore, the new clause eliminates the exemption that applied when the offender established that the impact of his or her inclusion on the registry, including on personal privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the protection of society.

In other words, when a direct sexual offence is committed, registration is automatic. Individuals convicted can no longer justify that their inclusion on the registry would be disproportionate to the penalties they would suffer in their private lives or regarding their liberty.

For other designated crimes, those known as serious crimes or conspiracy to commit a sex offence, thus more indirect crimes, at that point it is up to the Crown prosecutor to determine whether to ask the court to include the individual on the sex offender registry.

Clause 40 of Bill S-2 also makes an important change regarding how the registry can be used. Under current legislation, the registry can only be used when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a sex offence has been committed. Bill S-2 allows police to consult the registry for prevention purposes.

In addition, if this bill passes, there will be a correlation among offences that lead to inclusion on the sex offender registry and the sex offender's obligation to provide a sample of bodily fluids in order to add his or her DNA to the national DNA data bank.

Now I would like to talk a little about money. As my Liberal colleague and my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin mentioned, this will call for a lot more analyses, whether for investigations or for prevention.

In its last budget, the government announced $14 million over two years for DNA testing. In fact, in April 2009, in committee, we met with the directors of two major laboratories, one in Quebec and the other in Ontario. The third laboratory in Canada is the RCMP laboratory. Mr. Prime, from the Centre of Forensic Sciences, and Mr. Dufour, from the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale, told us in April 2009 not only that was there no agreement with the federal government, but that they also had to do a huge number of tests with very little money. Unfortunately, it might take over a year to get results.

On March 18, the minister met with us at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We asked him questions about this, but we did not get many answers. I have also spoken with a few officials, who have confirmed that there was still no agreement with Quebec and Ontario. They were not even able to tell us how much of the $7 million would be going to the laboratories in Quebec and Ontario.

If we look to previous funding, it was approximately $2 million per laboratory. We might imagine that there is really no increase. With this bill, whether or not it is intended, there is going to be a major problem if we do not invest more money in forensic laboratories. We are certainly going to see increases.

I will be told that this is nothing new. We see all the bills they are introducing. We see people being increasingly treated like criminals. They want to have longer sentences, but they are investing billions of dollars in just anything, be it for a G8 or for a G20. Obviously we will have to invest billions of dollars in correctional services and for public safety. When a decision is made to incarcerate people, they have to be sent somewhere. I hope it will not happen as it usually does, that they will invest in bricks and mortar, but nothing will be put into programs. In correctional services, at present, 2% or 2.5% of the total budget is allocated to programs.

I will continue on the subject of Bill S-2. The present legislation provides that the database may not be used where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime of a sexual nature has been committed. With Bill S-2, the database can be searched. But it will cost, and it will cost a lot.

The Bloc Québécois believes that police forces must be given tools that, on the one hand, effectively prevent and fight crime and, on the other, do not trample the fundamental rights of Quebec and Canadian citizens.

The proper protection of our children requires a number of tools. One of them, which is important and seems fundamental to me, is the Internet. Unfortunately, it is also the tool of choice for the child pornography industry. I will provide some statistics in support of my comments.

It is estimated that more than 65,000 people—I find this to be a conservative figure as I believe the number to be much higher—exchange child pornography, both photos and videos, on the Internet. In February 2009, the Ontario Provincial Police dismantled a child pornography ring involving 31 people in different Ontario communities.

Mr. Stewart, of the OPP child sexual exploitation section, stated: “Unfortunately, I believe there's thousands of children we're not getting to, and that's particularly difficult.”

In 2004, 480,000 child pornography sites were identified in the world, compared to 4,300 in 1996. In addition to movies, more than five million images of sexually abused children are circulating on the Internet. The pictures are becoming increasingly explicit and feature younger children and the use of violence. Many movies are shot live for the entertainment of pedophile clients and they show abominable sexual abuse of children under the age of seven.

In addition, it is estimated that there are between 50,000 and 100,000 organized child pornography rings, with a third operating in the United States and a portion in Russia. Are we immune to it? No, and I will cover that. We also have a large number of these types of sites. I am not talking about individual sites or images put on the Internet by a “family man” who abuses his child. I am not talking about amateurs, but about organized professionals.

According to research conducted by Cybertip.ca from 2002 to 2009, 57.4% of images on Internet sites containing child pornography depicted children under 8 years of age; 24.7% showed children aged 8 to 12; and 83% were of girls. More than 35% of the images analyzed showed serious sexual assaults. Children under 8 were most often depicted being abused through sexual assault (37.2%), and 68.5% of extreme sexual assaults occurred against children under 8. Canada is in the top three. That is amazing. According to Statistics Canada figures, we rank third in the world among countries that host child pornography sites. The United States ranks first with 49.2% and Russia, second with 20.4%. Who is in third place? We are, with 9%.

We also have people who produce child pornography in Canada. A police officer told me he had even seen images of assaults on newborns. We have to wonder.

I mention this because Bill S-2, which is a rehash of a previous bill, is not the only bill that targets this sort of crime. There are also Bills C-46 and C-47, which still have not been reintroduced here in the House.

Since 1999, police forces across Canada have been calling for a law that would respect human rights, of course, but would force Internet service providers to reveal the IP addresses of their pedophile clients and to have the technology to keep that information.

On April 22, during his testimony before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Mr. Sullivan, who was then the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and who had been appointed by this government, answered my question. I asked him what he thought about the fact that these bills still had not been reintroduced. He answered, “...if I were the Prime Minister today the Internet bill would be my absolute priority; it would be number one in the justice reform areas.”

Mr. Sullivan perfectly described the problem resulting from the fact that this legislation is not on the books. I will read what he said. It is horrible.

Right now, depending on where you are in the country and what ISP company you're working with.... Some ISPs will actually cooperate with law enforcement, and some won't.

We've heard about cases from law enforcement. They have an IP address. They actually are able to trace the guy to where he lives, and they go, because he's trading in child pornography.

They actually found and arrested the person. He had with him his 11-month-old son, who he was sexually abusing. Now, law enforcement had no information that this was taking place. They had no idea that this child was in that situation. Had they not tracked him down, that child today, four years later, would still be undergoing sexual abuse. The longer we delay these initiatives to give law enforcement the tools, the more kids are going to be abused. I think that makes everybody angry.

I find that disappointing, especially since we know how many years it can take to develop a bill. It is high time that this be passed.

The former victims' ombudsman lamented the fact that in 2007 the former public safety minister and member for Okanagan—Coquihalla did not want to follow up on repeated requests from the police to adapt investigative tools to the current Internet reality. However, in fall of 2009, the Conservative government finally introduced Bills C-46 and C-47 to respond to this Internet loophole. And what did the Prime Minister do? He prorogued the House and these bills died on the order paper. How convenient. It was put off until fall and then they prorogued a few months later, as if by chance. And they did not reintroduce them.

The Conservatives say that pedophiles are a priority and that this is a serious issue. As usual, they are serving up the same old announcements, about victims and children. They are grandstanding for everyone, trying to score political points. They are not really fighting crime. Have they reintroduced the bills? No. Why? That is the million-dollar question given that this government says that it wants to protect children and fight against crime and criminals.

Here is the question we must ask ourselves: what interests are preventing this government, which claims to be a champion when it comes to cracking down on pedophiles, from bringing back the old bills C-46 and C-47 so that we can study them in committee and improve them? Police forces have been waiting for 10 years now, and this government, despite advice from the former victims' ombudsman, has still not dealt with an issue that the ombudsman and I both believe could save children's lives. Ask any police officer; they will all say the same thing.

There is something else that just does not make sense. In my riding, and probably in other ridings in Quebec and Canada, the government is letting pedophiles live in halfway houses and community correctional centres near elementary schools and daycares. That makes no sense. I have asked three different public safety ministers about this. Three public safety ministers later, nothing has happened. That is absurd. Can a government that makes a huge show of introducing big, important bills not send a simple directive to community correctional centres through Correctional Service Canada? These centres are not even private; they belong to the CSC. The government cannot even send out a simple directive to ensure that there will no longer be pedophiles near elementary schools.

The government is waiting for another scandal to break out. Then they will react, just as they did with Olson and Karla Homolka. They will react by saying that the matter is very serious and that they want to introduce a bill.

That is shameful. According to the former ombudsman, every month that goes by, children could have been saved, as I said before.

As we speak, children are being attacked on the Internet, and pedophiles are living near schools. I would like to know when the government will take real action to properly protect our children.

[Chantal Bernier]

In the legislative drafting, sometimes we are consulted, but in the case of Bill C-46 and Bill C-47, we had been consulted throughout the years in the preparation of this legislation. But then it was tabled and we reacted after it was tabled.

[Chantal Bernier]

In Canada, of course, as you know, the efforts in that regard took the form of Bill C-46 and Bill C-47, which died on the order paper. That would not allow interception of communications without a warrant. What that would allow is for an Internet service provider to give the law enforcement authorities or national security authorities the customer name and address behind an IP address. That is the effort that the Canadian government has made to have some widening of—

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sullivan, your Every Image, Every Child report is key. Right now, children are being sexually assaulted, and at a younger and younger age. The violence they suffer is increasingly brutal, and the images are being shown on the Internet. The report says that 750,000 pedophiles are online at any given time, and that 37% are family members and 36% are acquaintances. So they are people who can be caught easily. They are not in Thailand or other countries where they cannot be located.

Correct me if I am wrong. In the 1990s, almost 5,000 images were said to be on the Internet, and today there are millions of images and videos. Currently, police officers have to make a request to obtain an IP address. IP addresses are essential. Let's talk about Bills C-46 and C-47. Bill C-46 sought to require Internet service providers to have the technology to keep information, and Bill C-47 made it possible to obtain IP addresses. Both bills died on the order paper, Mr. Sullivan.

As we speak, children are being assaulted. Police have been waiting for 10 years, and nothing has happened. Are you angry? I am, because these two bills did not come back up. Do you think that is normal?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your attendance today and for the jobs you perform in keeping Canadians safe.

I just really have one line of questioning, and that is with respect to two pieces of legislation that were before the House and are likely to be reintroduced in some form. They appear in your paper, Superintendent Shadgett, and that's the old Bill C-46, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, and Bill C-47, the Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act. They were good bills, in my view, but they were not without their problems as they made their way through the House and one of them into committee. They are going to be reintroduced, and what I am concerned about is whether they contain everything that law enforcement needs.

I ask that question with somewhat of a futuristic perspective in mind. I know technological advances in the BlackBerry are happening every day, and it's hard to keep up with the e-criminal and his or her ability to encrypt messages. Getting a warrant and then trying to decrypt them in time, often you are falling behind. Before we put these pieces of legislation back in the House, do they need to be improved? Is there something missing?

[Superintendent Peter Shadgett, Director, Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario]

Good afternoon. I'm Peter Shadgett. I am pleased to be here to talk about organized crime issues in the province of Ontario from the perspective of Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario.

I received a call from the director of Criminal Intelligence Service Canada on Tuesday. He asked me to talk specifically about the uniqueness of CISO in relation to all the other criminal intelligence services across the country, so I thought I would start with that today. If you're following along in my document, you'll see, a couple of pages in, “An Integrated Response”. That is where I'll begin.

Public safety in Ontario does not depend primarily on federal agencies but upon the actions and activities of local municipal, regional, provincial, and federal police and on those public sector agencies responsible for enforcement and investigation. This is particularly true in the current intelligence-led policing environment.

CISO is the critical element in the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services efforts to address organized crime at the local, provincial, and national level through participation with other provincial bureaux through CISC. It's the oldest criminal intelligence service in Canada, and due to its partnership with law enforcement and its reporting relationship to the Government of Ontario, it is also the most flexible and unique. Created in 1966 as a partnership between the Government of Ontario and the provincial law enforcement community in response to concerns expressed in the Ontario Royal Commission on Organized Crime, CISO was established to ensure central co-ordination of intelligence data on individuals and organizations involved in organized crime.

The mission is to promote intelligence-based unified action on organized crime in Ontario. Its vision is to promote a unified intelligence enterprise across the province and ensure safer communities for all the citizens of Ontario.

Our strategy is to unify and transform police, regulatory, and special interest group information into intelligence products and services that promote knowledge-based action by policy-makers, police leaders, investigators, and intelligence personnel.

CISO is the conduit by which criminal intelligence pertaining to serious and organized crime in the province is shared, analyzed, and communicated through its various databases and among its 120 partner agencies.

Mandated by a constitution, CISO is composed of a governing body, representing the executive decision-making level in the form of chiefs of police or managers of various member agencies; an operating body, representing the various intelligence unit commanders or their designates; and a provincial bureau, which is in effect a dedicated all-source fusion centre from which it strives to provide to its 120 partner agencies a strategic situational awareness on organized crime and other serious criminal offences.

In order to facilitate this free flow of criminal intelligence information, the CISO provincial bureau is positioned within the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The director reports to both the assistant deputy minister for public safety for administration and to the governing body operationally.

The provincial bureau is uniquely situated because of its ability to apolitically analyze and disseminate criminal intelligence based on information forwarded to it by various member agencies at the federal—both Canadian and U.S. agencies—provincial, and municipal levels.

The provincial bureau administers a number of program areas on behalf of CISO and the government dedicated to the continuous evolution of intelligence-led policing across Ontario. These include but are not limited to a dedicated intelligence training program, which facilitates the development of a cadre of professional intelligence officers, technical officers, and covert operatives and analysts for all police agencies in Ontario; a technical resource program dedicated to assisting partner agency collection efforts through the provision of highly sensitive, highly technical, and highly expensive surveillance and collection equipment; the Ontario-based administration of the ACIIS system; the provincial undertaking to digitize historic and current operational intelligence files; the only dedicated joint forces funding program in Canada, a program that oversees the delivery of annual funding to organized crime investigations and related joint forces projects, by which CISO funds up to 50% of all operational expenses related to organized crime investigations, with at least two other funding partners from the policing community funding the rest of the operating expenditures, as well as salaries for investigators, analysts, et cetera. Also, there's the integrated analytical services program, designed to provide a tiered, strategic, all-source analysis to partner agencies on provincial and national priorities relating to organized crime.

The public policy objectives of the government are enhanced by providing for a province-wide coordinated response to community safety and security matters arising from organized crime. The local and provincial policing priorities and needs are best met through joint and cooperative action developed throughout the CISO partnership.

As one example of how this partnership works, I would like to draw your attention to the CISO training program. The Government of Ontario's contribution to this program, its investment in this program, is the funding of three full-time equivalent employees to manage it. These FTEs are positioned at the CISO provincial bureau and deployed to the Ontario Police College. However, the human resources required to stay on top of critical and emerging training priorities, including significant expansion of the number of intelligence training courses and the implementation of a province-wide outreach program that provides training for 300 students annually, could not be handled by these three FTEs alone. The partnership supports the training by providing instructors and/or lecturers free for each course as it is delivered. It also commits to mentoring and developing newly trained police officers upon their graduation from the training.

This method of sharing and integrating the cost of training across the CISO partnership is the cornerstone of success of the CISO program. It is but one example of how CISO has maintained a high-level rating for service delivery, consistently achieving a 100% satisfaction level, based on the provincial customer satisfaction survey results.

CISO endorses three main priorities, which are key to the effective and efficient disruption and suppression of organized crime networks.

Similar to the OPP practice in terms of lawful access, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, Bill C-46, and the Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act, Bill C-47, passed first reading in June 2009. These are important developments in the area of lawful access and are integral to the success of ongoing police efforts to combat organized crime.

Intelligence-led policing requires police agencies to work together at the operational, tactical, and strategic levels and to share responsibility, authority, and accountability at each of these levels. It requires a strategic approach to anticipate, prevent, deter, or efficiently respond to routine front-line policing requirements and to more sophisticated threats, such as an escalation in street violence and organized crime. Making sound decisions on the basis of incomplete information is inherently problematic, and the more imperfect the information, the more difficult it will be to make good decisions. Sharing of information in this environment is an imperative critical to the success of police efforts.

Accordingly, CISO strongly endorses the ongoing use of the automated criminal intelligence information system, or ACIIS, as an interim measure. The platform supporting the system is antiquated, which leads to data entry, support, and retrieval difficulties. The proposed Canadian criminal intelligence model and the newly proposed Canadian criminal intelligence system as a national intelligence base with ongoing research and development are very welcome initiatives. However, funding is always an issue, and as this is inherently a national police service initiative, it is CISO's position that it should be funded appropriately at that level.

Additionally, there are still-valid arguments that suggest that the institutional model under which police services operate is too compartmentalized and has proven to significantly hamper the flow of information from federal police agencies such as the RCMP to other federal, provincial, and municipal partners. Specifically, matters of federal security clearances, national security databases, and restrictive reporting structures inhibit true integration and effective information sharing. This needs to be remedied to ensure that full intelligence sharing takes place.

Finally, CIROC, the Canadian integrated response to organized crime, was established in 2007 as the operational component of the Canadian law enforcement strategy to combat organized crime. The mandate of the CIROC program is to coordinate a strategic plan for fighting organized or serious crime through the integration of Canadian police efforts at the municipal, provincial/territorial, regional, and national levels. The goal is to operationalize intelligence produced by CISC in partnership with the CIS provincial bureaux.

A key objective of the CIROC program is to increase inter-provincial cooperation as it relates to intelligence sharing and operational coordination in Canada. CIROC is building the foundation that will enable law enforcement agencies across the country to share information in a more timely, reliable, and efficient manner. It is expected that this improved communication will translate into enhanced operational success.

The Ontario pilot project took place over the past year. This project is part of a joint undertaking between Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, CISO, and the CIROC national committee. As with any new initiative, operationalizing the Ontario CIROC project has been a dynamic learning process, requiring the fine tuning of original concepts along the way as stakeholders adjust to the new ways of doing business.

The pilot has revealed a number of key findings that have pointed the way to critical steps to be taken. Among these lessons are the need to establish a communications strategy that reflects the complex nature of the CIROC project as it unfolds; the need for a greater number of police services to adopt intelligence-led policing as an all-encompassing operational strategy, as opposed to strategy utilized by simply an intelligence unit; and the need to clarify and expand the role of the local CIROC liaison officers, who are integral to the success of the project, and any other staff or officers involved in the process.

CISO fully endorses the continuation of the pilot in Ontario, with continued support from CISC, and suggests the development of further pilots in other provinces across Canada.

In summation, informed decision-making is the ultimate goal of intelligence. Combined efforts in Ontario continue to work toward bridging not one single intelligence gap, but rather multiple intelligence gaps. A more comprehensive picture of the impact of organized crime and the development of strategies to disrupt it requires that law enforcement achieve a more complete understanding of the criminal actors involved, the connections between and among criminals and their organizations, the activities carried out by those criminal actors and their organizations, as well as the social and economic conditions that motivate them and create opportunities for offences to be committed.

CISO is a model for alternative service delivery that should be viewed as a potential model for other government and policing operations and recommended as a partnership prototype for other provinces in the battle against organized crime.

The focus of CISO is centred on a number of activities central to combatting organized crime, and if you implemented this across the country, you would include analysis and interpretation of organized crime enforcement operations; exchange of intelligence information at the operational level through program delivery and electronic databases; funding and specialized support for joint force multi-jurisdictional criminal investigations; ongoing development of expertise and best practices through a centralized intelligence training program; undercover operations support; proactive development investigator knowledge as it pertains to legal developments, trends, and methods pertaining to lawful access; and providing a coordinating mechanism for the police community and the government to work together to address organized crime problems.

Thank you.

[Graeme Norton]

Yes, there could also be device manufacturers.

That's not necessarily something we oppose. If there's information that's disappearing into the ether and there's a legitimate interest in that information, there may be a valid purpose for building that type of capacity into the infrastructure. It could hold that information, at least as long as required, to conduct legitimate law enforcement investigation.

There are provisions in the previous Bill C-47, I believe, that would require companies to have that capacity. In Bill C-46 I believe there was legislation that would create a preservation order power that would allow that information to be preserved until law enforcement could go to a judge and determine whether or not they should appropriately have access to it.

We don't have a problem with the preservation aspect, as long as it's for a short period of time. After that it will be destroyed once the decision has been made whether or not there needs to be access by law enforcement. If there does and there's an appropriate test met to meet that standard, then that's fine. If it doesn't, then the information can be destroyed as it otherwise would have been. It doesn't need to be retained for six or seven years.