Bill C-54 (Historical)

Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code
(a) to increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children;
(b) to create offences of making sexually explicit material available to a child and of agreeing or arranging to commit a sexual offence against a child;
(c) to ensure consistency among those two new offences and the existing offence of luring a child; and
(d) to expand the list of specified conditions that may be added to prohibition and recognizance orders to include prohibitions concerning contact with a person under the age of 16 and use of the Internet or other digital network, and to expand the list of enumerated offences that may give rise to such orders and prohibitions.

Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I could not get his attention. Perhaps he can finish his speech in response to questions and comment.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to listen to the comments of the member for Scarborough—Rouge River on Bill C-54.

I was intrigued by his observations that the government had introduced perhaps 15 Criminal Code amendments, which are fairly simple. The suggestion he has made, being a well-regarded lawyer who has been around the House for many years, is that perhaps the government could have proceeded by way of an omnibus bill. It certainly managed to that with the 980 page budget bill, which was not appropriate for that case. However, in this case, a revamp of the Criminal Code, putting all these amendments into one bill, would not only be appropriate, but would probably be the preferred way to do.

The other aspect of it is that the Criminal Code is 100 years old and is probably in need of a very large revamp as it is. Does the hon. member agree that perhaps the federal government should have engaged in consultation with the provinces and had a series of road show type hearings across the country about what should be involved in a total rewrite of the Criminal Code? The Conservatives could start by involving the opposition parties. By doing that, they would have a better possibility of having a productive Parliament and actually achieving something during the government's tenure in office.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made the point about the non-omnibus bill. It would have been a lot more efficient to have one.

In terms of reworking the Criminal Code in a big way, yes it needs it. The statute is very old. There are some pretty old sections in it. However, there are right ways and wrong ways to do that. Most jurisdictions have found that if they do not lay the groundwork properly, they do not seek the political consensus and they do not get the new rework through quickly, they get stoned to death. They get nickeled and dimed to oblivion.

I recall about 25 years ago when the state of Indiana did a rework of its Criminal Code. It was reputed that it did it the right way. We could do it here with the right kind of collaboration and laying the right groundwork. However, we should all agree that with these short parliaments we have now and minority governments, this would be very difficult to do, but some day we will get around to it.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, this legislation, the protecting children from sexual predators act, is supported by me as well as members of the House because so many of us have children, grandchildren and people in our families who we want to protect. I know the legislation would go a long day to doing that.

The hon. member talked about remote communities. I represent many remote communities, communities that do not have, as he described, access to court and jail institutions. However, removing these people from remote communities is absolutely essential. First, it would ensure the protection of the community. It would also allow the children against whom these crimes have been perpetrated some ability to heal by not having to see the perpetrator on a daily basis. In many of these remote communities, there are only several hundred people. There is a good chance that if the perpetrator is not removed, the children would continue to see this person on an ongoing basis. I am a strong promoter and believer that these people should be removed from those communities.

The member talked about whether five years was an appropriate sentence. I have met with victims of incest. We might find that people, especially victims of these horrible crimes, would agree five years is not long enough. In fact, it should be much longer, and I appreciate that.

In his description of mandatory minimum sentences, the member described the fact that they were deterrents as well as denunciations. However, he did not comment on the fact that these are good protections. We know sexual predators who are in the practice of victimizing children have a very high propensity to reoffend. If these people are put under house arrest and are sent back to the communities where they perpetrated their crimes, there is a very good chance they will continue to victimize children.

Would the hon. member agree with me that mandatory minimum sentences would do what he describes, act as deterrents and denunciations, but, more important, would provide additional protection of the community and children because these people would be unable to continue to perpetrate and victimize children?

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

Madam Speaker, I can agree in many cases that the member is accurate. My comments about mandatory minimums were not with respect only to sexual offence, but across the whole range of the Criminal Code.

He spoke about perpetrators committing sexual offences against children. If the perpetrator is convicted of some other criminal offence, not a sexual offence in relation to children, the mandatory minimum would removed that person from the family and put the individual in another jail in another place. That would be another impact on children. This has nothing to do with sexual offences.

The focus on the bill is sexual offences, protecting children against sexual offences. I think this has pretty wide support in the House. As we go forward on mandatory minimums, I want to ensure we target properly and get it right.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments about the mandatory minimums and the common expression for mandatory minimums being “deterrents”, in a general sense.

Let us look at the murder rates and how the mandatory minimum talks about 25 years imprisonment. Let us compare Houston to Toronto. One has the death penalty, one does not and one has a higher murder rate, which would be Houston.

Could he comment briefly on that?

The member mentioned section 26, but did not have time to talk about it in his speech. Perhaps he could start by making his comments on that section known to the House and to the public.

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

Madam Speaker, the point I wanted to raise in relation to section 26, for which I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to do so, is the section refers to one of these prohibitions during and post-sentence where a person is convicted. It states:

prohibit the defendant from using the Internet or other digital network, unless the defendant does so in accordance with conditions set by the judge;

What is a digital network? We are fishing around in the new age of technology. A digital network could involve a hearing aid that a person is wearing. It could involve a telephone. Even when we watch T.V., we are watching something that is a part of a digital network.

I want to ensure we have our terminology right. The intent is clear and I support it. I want to ensure when we use these terms, we use the right ones.

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

Madam Speaker, the member suggested that the government should have introduced perhaps one bill instead of 15 separate bills. I would simply like to remind the hon. member that the government has extreme difficulty pursuing any one of the 15 bills.

He is a member of the justice committee and he will know that his party objected to Bill S-6, the faint hope clause bill. The Liberals claimed that they were going to reintroduce it in a future government, if they were ever to form a government.

Can members imagine what would happen if all those bills were combined into one bill? It would never get through Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I did not say one bill; I said a few. I think I mentioned the number three, or perhaps four. We have to get 15 down.

The member has partly made my point. He says they have trouble getting one bill through. Then they have trouble getting 15 bills through. If they would reduce it to three or four bills, they would only have trouble getting three or four bills through and we would get through this stuff a whole lot more quickly.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-54, which was introduced by the Minister of Justice on November 4 and which amends the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), also known as the protecting children from sexual predators act.

It is important for the people listening to us to understand the scope of this bill, which I will summarize in five points. The bill increases or imposes mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children; prohibits anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child; prohibits anyone from using any means of telecommunications, including a computer system, to agree or make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child; ensures consistency among those two new offences and the existing offence of luring a child; and expands the list of specified conditions that may be added to prohibition and recognizance orders to include prohibitions concerning contact with a person under the age of 16 and use of the Internet or other digital network, and to expand the list of enumerated offences that may give rise to such orders and prohibitions.

New technologies are forcing us to rethink the offences set out in the Criminal Code. The Bloc Québécois believes that the all-important fight against crime—especially when the victims are children—must be realistic. Crime rates in Quebec have been dropping over the past 15 years, as they have in Canada.

Some of the measures proposed in this bill definitely warrant attention, such as the creation of new offences or new restrictions imposed on delinquents. But, once again, this bill contains minimum sentences. That is not a surprise, but the Bloc Québécois has always maintained here in the House that minimum sentences are ineffective and unfair by nature.

It is important that those watching us understand. We have inherited our justice system from our ancestors. The Criminal Code has always been based on maximum sentences. Judges use case law and the circumstances of each case—in criminal law, each case is unique—to determine the most appropriate sentence for the individual before them and for the crime committed. That is how our ancestors founded criminal law and passed it on to Quebec and Canadian society.

In recent years, with increasing media involvement, there has been a strong tendency to use the Criminal Code as a substitute for judges through the imposition of minimum sentences. This has been even more evident since the Conservatives took power. The trend is to not let the judge determine the penalty but to set fixed sentences in the Criminal Code. This trend is purely a matter of partisan opportunism. When something is reported in the media, it is amplified, tempers flare and people think that the sentence is never stiff enough for the crime committed, especially when the media get involved.

Our ancestors left us a justice system that was sheltered from such impulsive public reactions. As our societies evolved, things have changed. When I came into politics in 2000, the Internet was around, but it was not as efficient as it is today. With social networking, some situations end up online so quickly that the public finds out even before the media can report on it.

What does this mean? It means that the public develops an opinion before the police even start handling a case or before it can even be reported on properly.

You may say that our ancestors did not have that, which is true, but they still left us a historic form of logic. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the justice system allows the judge to determine what sentence is appropriate for the crime committed, in light of all kinds of factors. For example, the judge must consider whether it is a first or second offence, and so on. This is what has developed from what our ancestors left us. The case law or jurisprudence changes and evolves, and judges adapt.

The government wants to introduce minimum sentences because it thinks that the system is not fast enough. It thinks that our legal system is slower than people want it to be. However, once again, it seems to me that popular opinion is being artificially manipulated by the media, by all media. Some of them have completely different interpretations. That is important. When something happens and we hear about it at home via the Internet, Facebook, Twitter or some other channel, initial versions of events may differ from those conveyed by the media. Then, once all the facts are laid before the court, there is often a huge difference between people's first impression of events and the court's interpretation in handing down a verdict. The courts analyze each case, review the evidence and get to know every little detail about the crime, how it was committed and the person who committed it.

Once again, I want to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois wants to study this bill in committee. The new offences seem appropriate to us because technology has evolved. People make contact through the Internet, not necessarily physical contact. But some virtual contact may become physical, and that should be condemned. We have to create new sentences.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois has some serious reservations about minimum sentences. During the committee's study of this bill, we will call the necessary witnesses to help the Conservatives understand that minimum sentences are not necessarily the best solution.

I will review the new jail sentences included in this bill. It covers 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. There are provisions that create two new offences. I want to take the time to mention these because I find them interesting.

The first is to 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—once again, this is the minimum sentence—and a maximum penalty of 6 months when proceeded on summary conviction, and a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days—once again, this is the minimum sentence.

The second is to prohibit anyone from using any means of telecommunications, including a computer system, to agree or make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child. This new offence was previously proposed as part of former Bill C-46 in the previous session of Parliament. This proposed hybrid offence would now carry a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days—once again, this is a minimum sentence.

I would like to reiterate that we concur with the new offences that have been added. However, we question the idea of mandatory prison sentences that even a judge cannot interpret or adjust based on the seriousness of the situation.

At first glance, we need to make sure in committee that the measures related to these two offences will facilitate the work of police, since that is the goal. The Bloc Québécois has always acted responsibly in this House and, in particular, it was the first party to fight organized crime, among other things, by requiring the reversal of the onus of proof for members of organized crime groups.

Before the Bloc Québecois intervened, the state had to prove that goods in the possession of organized criminals were not acquired legally. The onus of proof is now reversed thanks to the Bloc Québecois, which succeeded in convincing Parliament that such should be the case. Now, when a crime is committed by members of an organized crime group, these individuals must prove that the goods were acquired using money earned doing legal activities. If they are not able to prove that such is the case, the goods are automatically considered to have been obtained illegally.

Inevitably, this has had a considerable impact on the seizure of assets belonging to criminals who are members of organized crime groups. I think this has, among other things, made the job of police officers in Quebec a little easier. There was Opération Printemps 2001, the Carcajou squad and the whole fight against organized crime led by the Parti Québécois government of the day, which practically guaranteed the disbandment of organized biker gangs like the Hells Angels and other groups. They have been practically obliterated. Authorities were able to arrest their leaders, because they could not prove that their assets had been lawfully acquired.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois's approach has always been responsible and effective. Our approach puts faith in the justice system. We learned this approach and this trust in the judicial system from our predecessors. Judges are supposed to be the most competent individuals in the legal community. They are the best qualified to determine the appropriate sentence based on the crime committed and the criminal history of the person on trial.

We even demonstrated our sense of responsibility in this House with our plan to deal with economic crime. During the recent economic crisis, several white collar criminals profited from the largesse of many people who were not very knowledgeable.

When the economy is doing well, everyone makes money and the hope is to make more than everyone else. That has always made me laugh, especially when it comes to our bankers. There are organizations that were even paying bankers to give talks. The major bank presidents of this world were giving talks and getting paid to do so.

Then, like sheep, they were all fleeced. They all lost money. No one saw the financial crisis coming. They relied on their junior staff and passed themselves off as geniuses when everything was going well. The worst part is that in the wake of this crisis, they continue to earn their big fat salaries. That is just wrong.

The Bloc Québécois has its own way of fighting economic crime. First, we have always maintained that parole after one-sixth of a sentence needs to be abolished. One of the reasons for public cynicism is the fact that a person sentenced to six years can be eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of his sentence.

In other words, that person can be released after one year. When someone spends months behind bars before the trial, that time counts for double. We have always wanted to abolish this two-for-one rule. In my example, the six-year sentence would be reduced to one year because the offender is eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of the sentence. Having already spent two months in prison, the offender would get a four-month credit. Even though the offender gets a six-year sentence, he will have only eight months left to serve before being released.

This is out of the hands of the judiciary. Politicians are the ones who decided on parole and the two-for-one rule. Judges apply sentences, and if the person is deemed eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of the sentence, then he will be paroled. In the case of economic crimes, we are saying in no uncertain terms that there should not be any parole after one-sixth of the sentence. If the person was sentenced to six years, he must serve six years, period. Nor should any time count for double.

We wanted to amend the Criminal Code provisions on confiscating the proceeds of crime in order to include measures covering fraud over $5,000, reorganize police forces, and require that banks report irregularities in trust accounts. All these responsible measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois were not accepted or took some time to be acknowledged by the Conservative Party.

All that to say that we have always anticipated what the people want, while respecting the legacy our ancestors left us. The legal system is a legacy. The Bloc Québécois's position will not change and it will always hold the same opinion about Bill C-54. The new offences to be added, which are often made necessary by new technologies, are a no-brainer. They have to be created, especially when children are concerned.

My beautiful little grandson is just 14 months old. If anything at all were to happen to him, I would be tempted to take the law into my own hands and I would have to restrain myself. It is our job, as decision-makers, to protect these beautiful children. It is awful that new technologies can corrupt our children and even subject them to sexual crimes. We must support these new sentences and this means of fighting crime that targets children.

But do we need a system of minimum penalties that goes against the justice system left to us by our ancestors? According to that system, judges are the best able to decide, not journalists or members of Parliament, because they are subject to public pressure and want to establish a fair system to be passed on to future generations. We need a proper debate on this, and that is what will happen when this bill is sent to committee. We will have to hear from expert witnesses to find out how minimum penalties have been used in other societies. The Americans have used them. There are examples from other parts of the world that can show whether minimum penalties have prevented, reduced or solved the problem of crime.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading to ensure that it can be studied in committee and that it meets everyone's expectations.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech and I am pleased to hear that his party will at least support sending this very important bill to committee.

He raised the issue of mandatory minimum penalties. Of course, we have heard this from the Bloc before, but I am a little confused because a few weeks ago when we were debating Bill S-9, the bill on auto theft, there was a mandatory minimum penalty of six months for a third conviction offence of auto theft. In the House a member of his party, in fact I think it was the justice critic for his party, said that the Bloc was not rigidly ideologically against mandatory minimum penalties, and as an example, the Bloc was going to vote in favour of the bill because those members think six months is reasonable. Then when the bill went through committee, the Bloc moved a motion to have that deleted because the Bloc members decided they were in fact ideologically opposed to mandatory minimum penalties.

Perhaps the member would like to explain why including a mandatory minimum penalty for accessing child pornography and sexual exploitation of children and moving the minimum on summary conviction up from 14 days to 90 days, and on indictment from 45 days to six months is outrageous. Perhaps he could also comment on the impact on people's faith and confidence in the justice system when they see child sexual predators spend a minimum of 15 days in jail.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc's position has not changed. As I said in my speech, it is based on Quebec and Canada's legal history, on the legacy that we inherited from our ancestors. Our version of justice puts trust in the judiciary. In contrast, we see that the Conservatives do not trust the judiciary, which is quite disturbing. The Conservatives' unfortunate approach is like that of the Republicans in the United States—replace judges with people who think as they do. We have been quick here, and they have not dared do the same in Canada. Their other option is to amend the Criminal Code and add minimum sentences wherever possible.

I understand the hon. member. We can look at an offence and have witnesses testify, and see justice has been done. The judiciary should still be trusted. That has always been our approach. And it will be the same with the bill before us: it will go to committee, we will bring witnesses forward and we will study how the bill can contribute to our society's evolution.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier today when the member for Scarborough—Rouge River was making his presentation, he indicated that he had added up all the amendments to the Criminal Code and found that the government has 15 amendments to the Criminal Code. He stated that the government could have simply created one omnibus bill and brought it before the House, in much the same way the government seemed to be able to do with the last two budgets.

That brings us to the next suggestion. The Criminal Code is now 100 years old and is in serious need of a complete revamp. Perhaps the government should come clean with the citizens of Canada and approach the provinces and look at public hearings on a complete rewrite of the Criminal Code.

Is that a reasonable suggestion for the government to follow, or does the member think the government is simply interested in bringing amendments out one at a time for short-term political gain?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that we should at least consider what the hon. member is suggesting because the harsh reality behind the 15 bills introduced by the Conservative Party—the real and most troublesome reason for the bills—is that the Conservatives are taking advantage of events that get a lot of media attention. They have many other bills to work on, but they wait for newsworthy events in order to score political points. They want to use public outcry and disapproval, stirred up by the media, to make political gains. It is all the sadder because, often, once the event is over and new polls are taken, everything settles down. Everything returns to normal.

As I was saying, we cannot sweep away the legal philosophy we have inherited from our ancestors just because something happens and causes a public outcry. I believe this philosophy is deeply rooted and that things tend to calm down afterwards. What is dangerous is allowing a party such as the Conservative Party to take advantage of single events that are sensationalized by the media, especially since the government is in a minority position. The Conservatives have a great deal of difficulty being accepted all across Canada and it is even worse in Quebec, where disapproval of this government is evident. It is even more terrible because it is as though they were using the public, without its knowledge, to try to win an election. That is hard to take. As for our colleague's proposal, completely overhauling the Criminal Code, I believe it is worth at least a look.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder about the hon. member's reaction to the question from the parliamentary secretary from Mississauga—Erindale who asked how one would feel if a person who assaulted a child got only the minimum 15 days.

I would be willing to bet the parliamentary secretary my personally autographed copy of Bill C-54 that he does not even know the average sentence that has been given out to offenders who have committed offences against children. He does not even know, yet in our debate he is challenging with the question of how one feels about a 15-day sentence, without any facts or statistical data at all. That is not a good way to debate public policy.

How does the member feel about that?