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.

[Carole Morency]

The proposed new offence in proposed section 172.2 addresses a gap in the existing law that the existing law right now addresses only through the luring a child offence, in section 172.1, where an accused communicates directly with a young person through the use of a computer system for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that young person. For example, if you have two adults--it doesn't have to be two adults--speaking directly to each other and their discussion is all about committing a sexual offence against a third person, a child, we can't catch that right now in the preparatory stages as we can with the existing luring a child offence.

So the first point I would make about the proposed new offence in proposed section 172.2 is that it is to address that gap.

Secondly, in terms of the scenario that the new offence could apply to, could attach to, the example that is given is the police undercover, and that's a possibility, but it's equally possible that you have adult A talking to dad B or to a tour operator somewhere else about providing a child for adult A to sexually abuse. In that case, there's a meeting of the minds. There's an agreement or there's an arrangement being made by those two people and there is perhaps an actual child in mind to facilitate the commission of the offence.

The proposed new offence wants to get at that before the child is actually sexually abused, much as we do now with the luring a child offence. It could happen, though, that you would have an undercover situation, as you've already described, where adult A is talking to someone, to adult B, about finding and having an opportunity to sexually abuse a child, and adult A doesn't know that adult B is an undercover officer. I appreciate the concerns about whether we are setting up this offence to normalize an entrapment situation. My written remarks in the undertaking to the committee were to attempt to reassure...or my comments were to reassure the committee that entrapment as a defence still remains alive now under the existing Internet luring offence and would equally under the proposed new offence.

Why are there all these defences? Because if you have two adults, adult A and adult B, who are actually communicating for that purpose, there's a meeting of the minds. When you have an undercover situation that doesn't fall within the entrapment scenario, a defendant could argue he didn't really mean it and he didn't really agree with me because, one, he's an undercover cop, and two, there isn't an actual child that he's going to make available to me.

So what the offence does is to parallel the approach we have right now in the Internet luring offence. As for the presumption you referred to, we have that right now in the Internet luring offence. On the reasonable but mistaken belief in age, we have that in section 150.1, and it's because it relates to the age of consent regime that we have. This offence is being superimposed on the existing age of consent regime.

So if the accused believes in his mind that he is communicating specifically for the purpose of finding a 10-year-old child so he can sexually abuse the child, his belief in the age is relevant. That's what this provision is doing to speak to that, because it has to put in the context of for the purpose of...it's going to be to commit a sexual offence against that child.

So what is different, and what you don't have in the Internet luring offence that you do have in Bill C-54 for this new offence, is the part you have pointed out in proposed subsection (5), which is that even if the other person is an undercover officer, or even if there isn't a real child that's being offered up, you could make out the offence. It does not mean that the defendant could not try to rely on the defence of entrapment under the common law, not at all. It is a common practice for police to go online in an undercover capacity, not to entrap--if it happens, the courts have said the defence is available--but to go into websites where offenders actually go looking for this kind of opportunity. They're talking with like-minded....

The committee heard from the OPP officer who said that this is a real concern. It's a real issue. I provided the committee with two cases, one where, in an Internet luring situation, the entrapment defence was available in the circumstances, and in the other where it was argued, but the court determined that it was unsuccessful and was not available in those circumstances.

So yes, the Department of Justice did walk through the scenarios of how this new offence might apply and who it might catch. The minister indicated in his remarks that the intention here is to get at the preparatory conduct, because you can't meet the threshold of a conspiracy offence unless you do something like this. When the Internet luring provisions were enacted in 2002, it was the same thing: it couldn't get at the attempt threshold, so the new offence was intended to address the situation before the steps got so far that the child was actually sexually assaulted or on the verge of being abused.

[Carole Morency]

Is it possible for a judge to simply adopt the wording of the condition? It is possible, but the condition as proposed by Bill C-54 also says “in accordance with conditions set by the court”. So number one, it's built into the condition.

Number two, you're quite right in terms of looking to what's in section 161 right now, which is only a condition against using a computer system for the purpose of communicating with a young person. That condition was added in 2002 when the Internet luring offence was created, because that offence was addressing the use of the means, the computer system, to communicate with a young person.

But what Bill C-54 recognizes is that offenders use the Internet computer systems for all sorts of reasons. Yes, they use it to communicate directly with a young person, and we catch that already, but they use it also to offend, in their offending pattern, whether it's to access child pornography, for example....

So the idea with Bill C-54 is to require a court to turn its mind to this each time it is sentencing a person who is convicted of one of these child sex offences and to consider whether in that instance, with the offender before them, given the nature of the offending pattern and the conduct before the court, there should be a restriction on that individual's access to the Internet or other technology that would otherwise facilitate his or her reoffending.

Courts right now do this as a matter of practice with, for example, probation orders. What the offender may do in that situation, for example, is to say, “I need to have access to the Internet for my job because my job is this...”. So the court routinely will build into that. Again, often it's under supervision determined by the probation officer--or they can designate another adult who is aware of the individual's offending history--to ensure there's adequate supervision.

Could more be provided to give greater direction to the court? I guess the concern is that the more specific you are, the greater the risk you might leave something out. The intention was to leave this in the hands of a sentencing court to determine what's appropriate in the circumstances, with submissions by the crown in terms of how you better protect the community from this offender and also by the defence counsel in terms of what's needed in that specific instance.

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

Thank you.

Maître, I'd like to know, just for better clarification, given the existing wording in the section of the Criminal Code that we're discussing today through the amendments in Bill C-54, does the amendment that my colleague Mr. Lee is proposing in any way enhance the legislation for the courts and for the judge? Does this make it any clearer, or is it redundant?

As the wording now stands, both in the Criminal Code and in Bill C-54's clause 8, it's worded well enough and is clear enough that it would allow a judge to limit, to specify, and to expand or not expand orders that he or she may issue to an offender in the sentencing. Does this enhance in any way or is it essentially redundant or not needed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I'll call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 50 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is February 28, 2011.

All of you have the agenda before you. We're dealing with two different bills.

First of all, we'll complete clause-by-clause review of Bill C-54, which we started before the break. Once clause-by-clause is completed, we'll continue our review of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

We have with us a number of witnesses.

From the Department of Justice, and standing by to help us, we welcome back Carole Morency, acting general counsel, criminal law policy section, as well as Matthias Villetorte, who is also counsel with the criminal law policy section.

When we last adjourned, we had completed discussion of an amendment to clause 3, which was negatived. We returned to clause 3. There was some debate that took place about clause 3. I'm wondering if there is any further debate on clause 3 before I move to the question.

Mr. Comartin.

Opposition Motion--Documents Requested by the Standing Committee on Finance

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today regarding two important matters.

To begin with, I would like to explain to members how crime affects us all and how it is to some degree impossible to gauge the full cost of crime.

Secondly, the steps that we are taking to fight crime cannot be measured or determined solely by their cost. We have introduced wide-ranging legal reforms in an effort to respond to the concerns of victims and to mitigate the human costs associated with crime. These are major investments, and not only on a financial level.

Crime costs victims dearly; I would go so far as to say that it costs them very dearly. Of course, crime is very costly for all Canadians, but we know that it is the victims of crime who have to shoulder the bulk of this cost.

According to a recent study by the Department of Justice, the total cost of Criminal Code offences was estimated at $31.4 billion in 2008. Since there are no data available for many variables, we know this to be a conservative estimate. Still, it equates to a per capita cost of $943 for that year.

We know that victims are those most directly affected by crime. Of the $31.4 billion in costs, $14.3 billion are the direct result of crimes committed. This $14.3 billion covers medical care, hospitalization, loss of income, school absenteeism, and theft or property damage. More specifically, the drop in productivity accounts for 47% of the total cost borne by victims. Theft or property damage accounts for 42.9% and health care costs account for the remaining 10.1%. These costs are only the tip of the iceberg since they represent recoverable and identifiable expenses, such as those resulting from loss of property or medical care. There is nothing about this that is hard to understand.

The intangible costs such as fear, pain, suffering and decreased quality of life far outweigh the material costs. It is difficult, well nigh impossible, to precisely measure the cost of the emotional and psychological suffering caused by crime, and yet it is important to try to do so.

Research has shown that victims of violent crimes experience stress after being victimized. A crime can influence how victims view the world around them and how much they trust others. It can cause pain and suffering. We know that the psychological effects of crime-related trauma can last a long time. Because of a lack of data, early studies of the costs of crime did not take into account the pain and suffering experienced by victims. The situation is starting to improve because the intangible costs to victims are much too high to be ignored.

According to the results of the study by the Department of Justice, which I mentioned earlier, the intangible costs to victims total around $68.2 billion. Thus the total cost of crime in Canada in 2008 would be $99.6 billion. If we take into account intangible costs, the costs borne by victims represent 82.8% of the total costs. It is a fact that crime is costly for the victims.

The victims are the people most affected by acts of violence, but other people suffer as well. Family members mourn the death of a loved one or must put their daily activities on hold to accompany victims to court or to doctor's appointments, for example.

Governments provide various victims' services and compensation programs to directly help victims, and they work on strategic plans on these issues.

The third-party costs take all these costs into account. In 2008, the total third-party costs were about $2.2 billion.

Why do we need to know the cost of crime and the cost borne by the victims?

We know that no amount of money can adequately compensate a victim of crime or his family, especially when it comes to homicide. No one would choose to die in exchange for $2.5 million or would agree to an assault on his child in return for $10,000.

It is important, though, to establish these estimates. We know that resources are scarce and that programs such as those to increase the number of police officers on the beat or provide funding for health and welfare, to improve the environment, or to build highways and parks are always competing with one another for a share of the public purse.

There must be several facets to our attempt to allay the enormous costs incurred by the victims of crime.

Our government is determined to enhance the safety of all Canadians and raise their confidence in the justice system. That is important. We want to start by dealing with the main concerns of crime victims, those people who have discovered how the system works as a result of an unfortunate experience and have told us that changes are needed. We listened to them.

Canadians are proud of their justice system. It is admired the world over for its fairness. There is always room for improvement, though. Our government is determined to ensure that our justice system continues to be the envy of the world and, most of all, that it is valued in Canada.

In 2006, our government set out its plans for changes to the criminal justice system, and over the last five years, those plans have been realized. It was not easy to ensure that the key changes passed. We were and still are a minority government.

It is easy, though, to see that Canadians support our program to fight crime.

Canadians agree that the personal, financial and emotional consequences for crime victims and the public are too severe and that measures to make Canadians safer, hold offenders responsible and raise confidence in our justice systems are worth the investment.

Allow me to describe a few key legislative changes that illustrate how concerned we are about crime victims and the people of Canada in general.

Our changes were intended to make the punishment fit the crime a little better, something that crime victims and many other people had been demanding for a long time. Changes were made to protect children, our most vulnerable victims. Some changes focused on issues that affect Canadians in their daily lives, such as automobile theft, identity theft, drug-related crime, fraud and street racing.

I would remind the House of Bill C-25, the Truth in Sentencing Act, which was introduced on March 27, 2009 and passed three months later on June 8, 2009. The bill received royal assent on October 22, 2009, and the changes came into force on February 22, 2010.

In general, these changes limit the credit for time served in preventive detention to a one to one ratio. A maximum ratio of one and a half to one applies only when circumstances warrant. A maximum one to one ratio applies to the credit accorded offenders who broke their bail conditions or were denied bail because of their criminal record. No higher ratio is allowed than one to one, regardless of the circumstances.

This amendment to the Criminal Code was welcomed by those who were appalled by the two- or three-for-one sentencing credits being given to offenders who were detained before their trials.

Victims of crime welcomed this amendment, which is designed to guarantee that offenders serve their sentences. Victims do not want revenge; they want sentences to fit the crime. Bill C-25 addressed this concern.

Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, which dealt with the faint hope clause was recently passed by the House and the Senate and will soon be ready to receive royal assent. It will abolish the faint hope clause for individuals serving a life sentence for murder. Those who commit murder after this bill comes into effect will no longer be able to avail themselves of the faint hope clause. Family members of murder victims have been calling for the abolition of this clause for many years. We listened to them.

Our government is committed to abolishing the faint hope clause, which allows murderers who are serving life sentences to apply for parole after serving 15 years of their sentence rather than 25 years. As you can well imagine, murder victims' families could not understand how a life sentence could turn into parole after only 15 years. It was absolutely scandalous. As I said earlier, victims are not acting out of revenge; they just want the sentences to be reasonable. We listened to them.

I would also like to remind the House about Bill C-48, the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, introduced on October 5, 2010. This bill deals with multiple murders and responds to the legitimate concerns of victims of crime, who feel that every homicide victim has to count and every sentence handed down to a murderer has to fit the seriousness of the crime. Life imprisonment means spending life in prison. It is impossible to give multiple murderers multiple life sentences since we have only one life. Nonetheless, Bill C-48 will allow a judge to impose consecutive periods of 25 years with no chance of parole for each murder conviction. For example, a person found guilty of two murders—the easiest case to understand—might have to spend 50 years in prison before being eligible for parole. Bill C-48 was passed by the House and is currently at second reading stage in the other place. This bill is another example of our goal to make the punishment fit the crime and to ensure that offenders are held accountable for their actions against victims.

I also want to talk about other reforms centred around victims. I am sure that my colleagues in this House will recall Bill C-21, the Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, which was introduced in the House of Commons on May 3, 2010 and passed by the House on December 15, 2010 and is currently before the other place. Bill C-21 provides a mandatory minimum sentence of two years for fraud over $1 million. As pointed out in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member, many cases of fraud involving large sums of money already end in prison sentences greater than two years.

I would also like to point out that Bill C-21 has been long awaited by victims of white collar crime. These reforms will do more than just add a minimum sentence. They will allow the court to issue an order prohibiting people who have been found guilty of fraud from having any authority over anyone else's money or property in order to ensure that they do not defraud others. Restitution for victims of fraud will be given greater importance, and the courts will be allowed to take into account community impact statements concerning the repercussions of the fraud. Community impact statements will be a vital tool that will serve to remind the court, the offender and the public that these crimes have negative repercussions on communities and on the victims who suffer direct financial losses.

We listened to victims.

Who among us has never had their car stolen or does not know someone who has had their car stolen? Car theft is common. It is a real scourge. It has a huge impact on our daily lives. Victims of car theft feel huge frustration that is compounded by the fact that the thief is not held to account. Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), also called the Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act, was broadly supported and received royal assent on November 18, 2010. That bill will come into force soon.

These changes create new offences related to motor vehicle theft; altering, removing or obliterating a vehicle identification number; trafficking in property or proceeds obtained by crime; and possession of such property or proceeds for the purposes of trafficking. In addition, it provides for an in rem prohibition on the importation and exportation of such property or proceeds.

Bill S-9 also sets out mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders.

I will spare you the details of the bills aimed at amending legislation that have been passed by the government. The list is too long. However, I want to point out some, in particular the ones meant to protect our children.

For example, Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service requires Internet service providers to report any child pornography on their network. A breach of that requirement could lead to a series of increasingly higher fines and the person could be put in prison for a maximum of six months for a third infraction and for each subsequent offence. Bill C-22 was widely supported in the House.

It goes without saying that Bill C-22 addresses the concerns of victims of crime. We listened to them. The bill aims to reduce the number of new victims of Internet child pornography. The federal ombudsman for victims of crime was very clear on the need for such a law; we created that ombudsman's office.

Before I conclude, I would be remiss if I did not mention Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), also known as the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, which was passed on November 4, 2010.

These amendments will help us better protect children from sexual exploitation because of two new infractions, namely providing sexually explicit materials to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against the child and agreeing or arranging to commit a sexual offence against a child.

These amendments will also require the court to consider attaching conditions to sentences for offenders found guilty of committing a sexual offence involving a child and offenders suspected of having committed this type of offence to ensure that they are not in contact with children under the age of 16 and that they do not use the Internet without supervision by a designated person.

This will allow for a more consistent enforcement of sentences for sexual offences involving children.

Bill C-54 is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member, and I suggest that, when it is returned to the House, all members show their support for protecting children by ensuring that this bill is passed quickly.

The government is proud of what it has accomplished for victims of crime and for the people of Canada. We are listening to victims of crime and to other stakeholders in the justice system, and we are making reforms that address the needs and concerns of Canadians.

Our government has listened to victims.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'm asking on Bill C-4, Bill C-5, Bill C-16, Bill C-17, Bill C-21, Bill C-22, Bill C-23B, Bill C-30, Bill C-35, Bill C-37, Bill C-38, Bill C-39, Bill C-43, Bill C-48, Bill C-49, Bill C-50, Bill C-51, Bill C-52, Bill C-53C-54, Bill C-59, Bill SS-6, Bill S-7, Bill S-10.

What are the costs? What are the head counts? What are the implications? Why won't you give them to Parliament?

[Carole Morency]

Sometimes it happens. There's no question that we've had opportunities in recent years to engage in discussions through existing FPT fora, but I'm not personally aware of issues having been identified on Bill C-54 through those FPT fora.

[Carole Morency]

Yes, the matter was costed out, and yes, the advice was provided to inform the decision, but as I've already noted as well, the bulk of the reforms that are presented or proposed in Bill C-54 fall within the areas of what's already in the Criminal Code now for mandatory minimum penalties. Increasing from 14 days to 90 days is an increase within that timeframe, but—

[Carole Morency]

As the question has noted, yes, the proposed increase in time means the sentences would remain under two years, which would mean provincial time, so what Bill C-54 is doing is adding to what is already there.

Have officials done an assessment of what the implications might be? Yes, we have. That information was provided, and the decision you see is reflected in the bill before you. I am aware that there is the motion on costs for crime justice bills and that it is being debated in the House; that might be another opportunity to get the other information more specifically.

And no, in the course of developing Bill C-54, there were not specific consultations on that aspect; however, that said, it is fair to say that over the course of the work we do in the area of criminal law reform, we work closely with our provincial and territorial counterparts, and over the years it is generally fair to say that there is support for measures to strengthen criminal law responses to child sexual abuse. When there is disagreement, whether it's here or in other fora, it tends to be about how you achieve it.

That said, there is generally support; however, we did not consult specifically on Bill C-54.

[Carole Morency]

That's correct. Bill C-54 does not change anything in the Criminal Code as it applies right now to what we refer to as the age of consent and a close-in-age exception, so it does apply. If a person over the age of consent engages in consensual sexual activity, it is not an offence. If the person is below the age of consent--14 or 15 years old--and the other person is less than five years older, it is not an offence if it is consensual.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Thank you for the introduction to your amendment. I have a draft ruling from the chair before the rest of you intervene here.

It's a ruling, not a draft ruling; it's a ruling.

Bill C-54 amends the Criminal Code to increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences involving children. This amendment proposes to allow for the court to exercise its discretion and select a lesser punishment than the minimum provided for by the bill.

As the 2009 second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 766, Principle and Scope: An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of the concept of discretion is contrary to the principle of Bill C-54 and is therefore inadmissible.

That's my ruling.

Go ahead, Monsieur Ménard.

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

Clause 2 of the bill is amending the provision that we commonly refer to as the “child sex tourism provision” in the Criminal Code. This provision provides Canadian authorities with extraterritorial jurisdiction to assume an investigation and prosecution of a Canadian citizen or resident who travels abroad and commits one of the enumerated offences that, if it had been committed in Canada, could have resulted in the person's being charged and prosecuted here. That law has been in place since 1997.

Bill C-54 is adding the new offences to the provision. We're adding the two new offences being proposed by Bill C-54 as well as doing some other housekeeping, because with Bill C-54 we're trying to ensure consistency across the board. The provision would also be broadened to add the section 171 offence of “Householder permitting sexual activity” as well as the “Luring a child” offence, which is currently a Criminal Code offence but is not listed in the section before you, as well as the two new offences.

With this, the intention would be that if a Canadian goes abroad and commits one of these four offences that are not now listed, it is possible to have a Canadian prosecution. It is always subject to whether the Canadian is charged and prosecuted for that offence abroad; if not, a Canadian court could assume the jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We are reconvening the meeting. We're continuing our consideration of Bill C-54 and we're now moving to clause-by-clause consideration.

We welcome to our table Matthias Villetorte and Carole Morency, representatives from the Department of Justice,.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed, so I'm going to call clause 2. There are no amendments proposed to clause 2.

Go ahead, Monsieur Petit.

(On clause 2)

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have studied the statistics that you provided to us and I am really very concerned. Indeed, we have been presented with Bill C-54, a bill that will apply from one end of the country to the other, and on which we are getting ready to vote. I am concerned by the number of offences in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

Colleagues, I am on slide 3.

Do you have the statistics for Nunavik, which is a region in Northern Quebec? I am not talking about Nunavut, but of Nunavik.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 49 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and for the record, today is Wednesday, February 16, 2011. This meeting is being televised.

You have before you the agenda for today. We're continuing our review of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children). After we hear three witnesses who are before us right now, we'll move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Before we move forward, there are two items.

We received a communication from a witness who testified at last Wednesday's meeting with a clarification of his status. Mr. Randall Fletcher was shown on the meeting agenda as representing the Office of the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island. You may recall that the chair sought to confirm his representation of the AG during Mr. Fletcher's testimony, at which time Mr. Fletcher appeared to confirm that he understood his presentation had been reviewed by the minister. Last Thursday, Mr. Fletcher sent a clarifying note to the clerk. I'll read it verbatim:

Prior to my videoconference presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights yesterday I advised the person I report to about the request to present. I was not certain if this was being passed on to the minister and had not had a chance to pursue the matter before the presentation. When I was introduced as representing the Department of the Attorney General for P.E.I., I thought perhaps there had been some communication to that effect, as I had not represented myself as doing so in my own communications. As of this morning I believe that the matter was not put before the minister and would like to clarify that the opinions I expressed in the session may, or may not, represent those of the department. I will attempt to get further clarification on this but do not want any current misunderstanding to continue.

That's the end of his quote. That's just for the record. He wanted us to ensure that it was on the record.

The second item, before we move to our witnesses, is that you have before you the eighth report of our Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. At that meeting we decided to move to Bill C-4 next, meaning the Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments, and it was agreed that we were going to ask approximately 21 witnesses to either come for a first time or to return for further testimony. We've agreed that the panels will consist of no more than three groups apiece per hour. That's your eighth report. I believe it accurately reflects what we settled on there.

Do we have a mover for that report? It is Monsieur Lemay.

(Motion agreed to)

Moving to our witnesses, we have with us Julie McAuley, Craig Grimes, and Mia Dauvergne. They are representing Statistics Canada and are all coming back to testify.

You know the process. I don't know if you've prepared remarks. Would you like to start? Then we'll open the floor to questions from the members.