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.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to our witness for being here with us.

I've been favourably impressed by the manner in which you have testified. You have been professional and cautious, and you do not overstate. Many times we see witnesses who are here to pursue certain interests of their own, and they are less cautious. So I thank you for that.

I note that you have both been careful to qualify your evidence by saying you are not jurists. I assume that neither of you is a lawyer. You are psychologists, so I mean this question in the best sense, just to understand where you're coming from. Have you actually read the bill we are here to study, Bill C-54?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank both witnesses for your testimony today.

Bill C-54 imposes a number of mandatory minimums, or actually expands a number of mandatory minimums. I couldn't be more empathetic, Professor Van Gijseghem, because it's very clear that the mandatory minimums are in the code already, have been for a long time, and there have been a number of them introduced, but it's very much a matter of calibration as to whether people think they go overboard, go too far, or don't.

If you look at the Library of Parliament's documents, you will read that those who like mandatory minimums say they act as deterrents and they perform an educational purpose by clearly communicating society's disapproval, and those who don't like them say that there's no deterrent effect and it's an inflexible penalty structure.

I'm going to ask you both your opinion on where your matrix is in this case. Do you think they're educational in purpose? Would they reduce sentence disparity across Canada? For instance, you might have some people getting lighter sentences in parts of the country for the same offence. But I want to ask you about the context here. When I look at this Criminal Code, it's like a textbook, and we try to order the offences by the degree of severity. Part 5 of our code is truly outdated, because it talks about very serious offences—sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assaults, and so on, very serious—and we go down to around section 170, public nudity, which I'm not suggesting is good or permitted or whatever, but clearly is not as egregious as sexual touching. But there's an interim part under “Corrupting morals” that now contains our child pornography offences. And this is really the battle here: we realize in this day and age that there's a proliferation of child pornography. And child pornography is even a title that's out of date. It's the capturing on film or in media of an abusive act towards a child who is defenceless and cannot consent to that act. That's a crime of the highest order in this whole section, I would say, this part.

If you take it that we feel the child pornography aspects, the child abuse images, are the worst parts of the crimes in this section, do you not think it might be appropriate under these aims for mandatory minimums to torque them up a bit? That is what this bill does in large regard. It moves things from 14 days, minimum, to 90 days in some of these very serious offences. It creates new offences about the reality of people procuring meetings with minors and so on. As academics, do you see a balance there? That's the first question.

Secondly, you talk about a pedophile as having a preference. I'm not sure if I understood that; perhaps you want to expand. Is it a condition that can be treated, can be cured, or is it as varied as any answer might be in that regard: it depends on the patient and it depends on the client?

Those are the two questions for each of you. I think you'd each have about a minute and a half or so.

[Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual]

I will briefly start by introducing myself for credibility purposes. My name is Hubert Van Gijseghem. I have been a psychologist since 1963. I got my PHD in psychology in 1970. I have had two parallel careers: one as an academic at the University of Montreal and one as a practitioner.

As a university professor, I obviously have the opportunity to teach and do research. Most of my research has been on sexual abuse, on victims and the consequences for victims, as well as on offenders. As a practitioner, my entire life, I have mainly been a clinician. As a clinician, I have had the opportunity to provide treatment, once again to victims as well as to sex offenders.

However, over the last 15 or 20 years of my career as a practitioner, I have focused solely on forensic examinations, in other words expertise for a number of courts in various jurisdictions. Like my colleagues who are here today, I have published some papers and books on the subject of sexual abuse.

I have been asked to say something intelligent on Bill C-54 regarding the protection of children against sexual predators and also to address whether or not mandatory minimum sentences are necessary or useful.

I read the legislative summary and was somewhat shocked by some passages. When I read arguments in favour of these types of prison sentences and read the arguments against them, I found myself in favour of almost all arguments. That is probably compatible with the type of doubt inherent in the scientific mind.

I am not a lawyer. I have little or no understanding of legislation, even existing legislation. Furthermore, I have little knowledge of case law on sexual abuse. So I do have some difficulty providing an opinion on the need for or use usefulness of mandatory minimum sentences.

However, I am a psychologist and I do believe that I have some knowledge, to a certain extent, of the sex offender population. I also know certain things about their dangerousness, the risk of recidivism, and the actuarial and other tools my colleague just referred to. That is within my area of expertise.

The first thing I would like to point out, from the outset, is that the sex offender population is not homogeneous. There are different types of offenders. All those who have tried to come up with a typology of abusers realized that there are in fact a number of sub-categories that are not necessarily comparable.

Given the heterogeneous nature of this group it is difficult to devise automatic or standardized measures. If we look at evaluative research, because at the end of the day that is what brings clarity to the issue of dangerousness or risk of recidivism, there are two types of evaluative research. One is the type carried out by those who promote therapy. Quite often, their results indicate that therapy works and has a certain rate of success. However, when you look at evaluative research conducted by independent researchers, results are far less optimistic.

As Dr. Quinsey mentioned, specifically for extra-familial abusers, not much rehabilitation is possible before a given age, in order words before aging itself has had an effect.

This evaluative research, and I am thinking of some research conducted by my colleague Dr. Quinsey and his team or other research done by my colleague Dr. Hanson, who is also here with his team, has effectively shown that, especially in the case of extra-familial abusers, there is no great improvement in the area of risk of recidivism or dangerousness, regardless of whether or not the individual has had psychotherapy. If there was psychotherapy, the type of therapy matters little.

This leads us to believe that therapy or an order given by a judge for a course of therapy, even though it may be seen as good news by all, cannot be perceived as an alternative to incarceration nor a substitute for punishment.

When we speak of therapy or when individuals get therapy and we feel as though everyone is pacified, the good news is often illusory. For instance, it is a fact that real pedophiles account for only 20% of sexual abusers. If we know that pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality, and if we agree on the fact that true pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation, everyone knows that there is no such thing as real therapy. You cannot change this person's sexual orientation. He may however remain abstinent.

Now, if we think of psychopaths, who, according to my own samples account for 15% of the sexual offender population, it might be worthwhile to point out that we have been trying for hundreds if not thousands of years to rehabilitate them, all for naught, at least for the time being.

Of course, everything I have just said also points to the fact that there probably are sexual offenders or types of sexual offenders who can be rehabilitated. Which ones? Is it the majority? I am not sure it will be the majority, but because some abusers can certainly not be rehabilitated and others can, it means that sooner or later we will have to come up with a careful differential diagnosis to determine which ones can be rehabilitated.

Is this feasible? Is it too expensive in terms of time, effort, or money? I do not know. There might be something to be done in the area of the presentence report. I have seen many presentence reports and I personally have often remained dissatisfied. Can a country afford far more in-depth and elaborate presentence assessments? That is probably up to you to decide.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Good afternoon everyone. This is the 48th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today we have witnesses on Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children).

We're very pleased this afternoon to have in our first hour two witnesses as individuals. The first is Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology from Queen's University; and the second is Hubert Van Gijseghem, who is a psychologist and a retired professor, formerly of the University of Montreal.

Gentlemen, professors, we generally allow an opening statement of about ten minutes, followed by a round of questions from all of the parties represented here.

We'd like to start with you, Professor Quinsey, for ten minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I don't want to go over the history that we discussed at the subcommittee meeting, but I think everyone knows that we had agreed in December to four meetings to study Bill C-54. We had a six-week break when people had ample time to review the legislation and propose witnesses. That apparently didn't happen in several cases.

We came back. We had another subcommittee meeting. We agreed to almost double the amount of time for review of the bill. We had an agreement to deal with it in seven, and now, at the very next meeting, we are being asked to increase the amount of time again. We have to live by our commitments at the subcommittee meeting or else the committee just cannot function on a reasonable basis.

We've been told by witnesses that this legislation is very important, and that every day we delay, children are being sexually abused. I believe this is legislation that people want us to deal with quickly.

We all know there is a possibility that we won't be here beyond the end of March because of the threat of a possible spring election. I don't think any of us.... I think all parties have said that they think certainly a large part--if not all--of this bill is important and they support it. I think it behooves us all as members of Parliament to do our utmost best to get this legislation passed and back to the House and, hopefully, sent off to the Senate before the threat of any spring election that might occur around the end of March.

[Dr. Stacey Hannem, Chair, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association]

Thank you.

I'm speaking today on behalf of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. I am chair of the policy review committee. I am also a professor in the criminology program here at Wilfrid Laurier University. I've spent the past nine years working and researching within circles of support and accountability, which is a community-based reintegration program for released sex offenders.

My perspective today is representative of the viewpoint of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and it's also based on my own experience in my work and my research.

We'd like to emphasize that the CCJA sincerely supports the efforts being made to protect children from sexual abuse. Our comments today are not reflective of our disagreement with the spirit of this legislation, but we do have some very real concerns with some particular measures that it contains.

We believe very strongly that any changes made to the legislation need to be based on research, research that demonstrates that these changes are going to work, that they are actually going to give the effect of preventing child sexual abuse or reduce the recidivism--or for any other crime, for that matter.

We have some concerns with Bill C-54. Our concerns rest on three basic fundamental problems with this legislation.

Number one, as has already been alluded to, there is a lack of evidence in research to support the idea that mandatory minimum sentences will deter crime; that is, the preponderance of research has found that regardless of the length, the severity of the sentence, we are not seeing real deterrence from these types of measures.

In fact, in 2002, Gabor and Crutcher did an analysis of existing research and literature for the Department of Justice, which found only very marginal deterrent effects for drunk driving and regulatory firearm offences. This...[Technical Difficulty--Editor]...deterrent effects for more serious or violent crimes. Furthermore, the longer the sentence, as has been suggested, as has been stated, the more potential there is in fact for a reversal of the reduced recidivism that we want to see.

What we do know is that mandatory minimum sentences cost taxpayers money. They result in more people being sent to prison for longer periods of time. In some cases, they result in sentences that are fundamentally unjust, that is, they do not address the specifics of the case, and as Dr. Marshall eloquently pointed out, the very wide variety of offences that might fall under the category of incest, for example.

We are very concerned. Historically, we have taken a stance as a committee, as an association, against the use of mandatory minimum sentences because we simply don't see any reason for this expenditure of public funds with very little result.

The second major problem we have with Bill C-54 is the potential within the changes to the judicial order which restrict access to technologies such as the Internet and computers needed for ex-prisoners on parole. We feel there is a potential there for this change to have a detrimental effect on an ex-offender's ability to reintegrate, to obtain employment, or to pursue education.

We find that the change in the wording to say that they can't be using computers or technology for any reason at all except in an express judicial setting is simply just beyond the pale in terms of the impact it could have on these individuals' ability to be able to function in a society that depends so highly on technologies. As you can see, here I am talking to you from Brantford.

Anecdotally, I've worked with an ex-offender who did federal time. When he got out he went back to school, pursued an undergraduate degree, and is now pursuing a master's degree, none of which would have been possible if he had not been able to use a computer or the Internet.

I would very strongly urge the committee to consider maintaining the original wording of that clause, which states that computers and technology are not to be used for the purposes of communicating with individuals under the age of 16. It seems to me this is a fair restriction of that liberty.

The third problem we have with Bill C-54 is the new offence that is being created of making available sexually explicit material to a minor for the purposes of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence. We find that this particular offence category is very broad and in fact is probably too broad to be appropriately enforced. To ensure that miscarriages of justice do not occur, in the written brief that was submitted to the committee, we point to the fact that in watching the news we see numerous incidents of parents who are concerned about sexually explicit content provided to their children in sex education classes. I ask you, is there a potential here for a parent to perhaps suggest that a teacher is luring students...? It has to be up to the courts to sort out what the intent of that teacher was, but by that point an individual's life and career might have been utterly destroyed.

It is unclear why this providing of explicit material wouldn't fall under existing child luring legislation. It's also unclear how this legislation is going to protect children. Because research tells us that the majority of adolescents have already encountered pornographic or sexually explicit material on the Internet, either on purpose or by accident. I don't think that this provision is going to protect children in the way that it is suggested that it will.

In addition to these individual problems I've mentioned, the CCJA is also concerned with the cumulative impact of passing ineffective criminal justice legislation. Every time we pass a new law that does not deter, that does not reduce recidivism, money and effort are put into enforcing ineffective legislation, thereby taking money away from programs that might actually be effective. So you're claiming to be protecting Canadians from victimization and abuse, but in some cases the legislation that has been passed may in fact have the opposite effect by undermining various things might work.

As has been suggested already today, we need to put more money and more resources into appropriate programming and treatment for individuals who have been convicted of sexual offences. Over and over again, this has been demonstrated to work. As has been stated, at one point for Canadian programs, as Dr. Marshall suggested, Canada was on the world scene, and other countries were emulating our approach. Now I'm afraid that the resources have been so stripped that this is no longer the case.

We need to have money for counselling programs to treat the victims of sexual abuse. The money spent on prisons and incarceration, which are ineffective, could be much better placed in helping victims. We need consistent support for programs and initiatives that have been shown to be effective at reducing recidivism rates of sexual offenders. The circles of support and accountability are just one example of those types of programs that, like psychiatric and psychological treatment programs, have also been demonstrated to be effective.

We need education for parents and teachers about the warning signs of sexual abuse and sexual deviance. We need resources to support concerned adults in obtaining help for children who might be at risk of being abused or becoming abusers. We need resources and support for children's aid societies across Canada that deal with abused children on a regular basis and are often powerless to do anything.

These are the sorts of things that will actually prevent victimization. It could make a much larger difference in the long run.

It is the opinion of our association that the proposed changes contained in Bill C-54 will not have the desired stated effect of reducing victimization and deterring sexual predators.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 47 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Wednesday, February 9, 2011.

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).

I've asked the clerk to distribute the steering committee report for approval at the end of our meeting, so we'll leave maybe 10 minutes' time at the end. Monsieur Ménard also has a comment to make about our Monday meeting at that time.

To help us with our review of Bill C-54, we have three parties. First of all, appearing as an individual, we have Mr. William Marshall, director of Rockwood Psychological Services.

Welcome to you, and my apologies for us being late. We had a little bit of a delay with our bus. Thank you for staying around.

We also have, by video conference from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, representing the office of the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island, Randall Fletcher, sexual deviance specialist.

Welcome to you.

We also have, by video conference from Brantford, Ontario, representing the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, Stacey Hannem, who's the chair of the policy review committee.

Welcome to you as well.

I think you've been told about the process here. Each of you has 10 minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions from our members.

Mr. Marshall, perhaps you could start.

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

Thank you.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here this afternoon.

It is never easy to broach subjects like the one we are dealing with as part of our study of Bill C-54. Quite often, we are forced to draw comparisons between cases of incest and of violence against women. I am from Quebec. A number of extensive awareness campaigns have been launched to encourage women to report spousal abuse. It is my professional experience that the victim often withdraws her complaints before the case goes to trial because the husband is her and her children's sole support. The wife is then beaten by her husband the following week.

The Government of Quebec formally decided that once a complaint had been filed, it could not be withdrawn, regardless of the positions taken. When a woman files a complaint, she cannot withdraw it. The situation is much the same for children because they are afraid. It is very hard for them. It is not easy for someone to admit that she was abused by her father for 10 or 15 years. Understandably, it is a truly terrifying prospect for them.

A lawyer who knows the system a little and who represents the accused will go and see the Crown prosecutor. He finds out that there will not be a trial and the client pleads guilty. The judge then asks the two lawyers if they can suggest anything. They may suggest a minimum sentence of three years in prison, even if the offender is liable to 15 years in prison. A man abuses his daughter for nearly 15 years, but no one wants a trial. They argue that the victim will be spared from having to testify, that a costly trial will be avoided. However, no one is thinking about this terrified child who is denied justice.

A lawyer may be called upon to defend a 72-year-old man who abused his daughters for 15 years. This person arrives at the courthouse, pleads guilty and leaves immediately in a wheelchair. He does not receive any penalty whatsoever. Incredibly, these things happen. Lawyers refers to these as “sweet deals”.

I don't know if you have any children, but if you do, look them straight in the eye. It is incredible to see what is happening. Young girls are being abused for 15 years and being treated no better than dogs, and people are trying to convince us that minimum penalties should not be imposed. I'm sorry, but minimum penalties are necessary because this is the only way to get the message across. The members of the legal profession are beginning to understand. When a person commits a serious offence, we will send a clear message to the public. That is what I wanted to say. I practised law long enough to know that something is wrong with the system.

Mention was also made of mandatory minimum penalties. DUI offenders have long been subject to such penalties. Interestingly, the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec supports tougher minimum penalties because they mean fewer accidents and fatalities. This was a government decision. So then, minimum penalties are good. Minimum penalties are imposed in murder and firearms possession cases and interestingly, this approach works well. Why should the approach be any different in this case? This is the point I wanted to make.

You have to understand that this bill is intended not only for Conservatives. We are working for all children, whether they are the children of Bloc members, of Liberals, of New Democrats or of Conservatives like ourselves. We are not acting solely out of partisan concerns. We are also parliamentarians. In my opinion, it's ludicrous to waste our time on this. We should be banding together and unanimously endorsing this bill aimed at protecting our children.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Ms. McDonald, you mentioned that many of the provisions of Bill C-54 will prevent a child from being victimized. I assume you continue to agree with that statement. Do you think that increased penalties for some of these offences will also help to prevent children from being victimized?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Kennedy, you mentioned in your comments that many of the provisions in Bill C-54 will contribute significantly to the protection of children. Do you stand by that comment?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

No, I don't need names, but I would be grateful to know how many submissions your organization received from its members regarding Bill C-54.

And how many lawyers were involved in the preparation of your submissions for today?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Sorry to interrupt you, but I have to stick with Bill C-54 because that's the bill we're here to study today.

How many lawyers did you speak to regarding Bill C-54?

[Michael Spratt]

Bill C-54?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

How many submissions did you get from your members regarding Bill C-54?

[Karyn Kennedy, Executive Director, BOOST Child Abuse Prevention and Intervention]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and honourable committee members.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-54, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act.

My name is Karyn Kennedy. I'm the executive director of BOOST Child Abuse Prevention and Intervention, and I'm here with Pearl Rimer, manager of research and training at BOOST.

BOOST is located in Toronto and has offices in Barrie and Peterborough. For the past 30 years, BOOST has provided programs and services to children, youth, and their families who have experienced abuse, and we have worked collaboratively with our community partners to improve the prevention, investigation, treatment, and prosecution of child abuse.

BOOST has provided services to tens of thousands of children and youth and has trained more than 50,000 professionals across the province. We're seen as a leader in the field of child abuse and as an advocate and a voice for victims.

I'd like to address several sections of the bill, beginning with the two new offences, and offer a quote based on research from my colleagues at Cybertip.ca:

There needs to be a shift in the way we view the problem and a solution of child abuse images on the Internet. The truth is that sexual abuse begins in the offline world.

BOOST supports the bill's recognition that sexual crimes against children that begin on the Internet are extremely serious and need to be prevented before they result in hands-on offences.

With respect to the two new offences, the creation of these laws is important because it recognizes the concept of grooming and the connection between it and the ways technology can facilitate sexual offences against children. By acknowledging this, the law will more effectively protect children, as there will be more opportunities to make arrests and interrupt the grooming and planning process before it proceeds to offline, hands-on sexual acts or potentially traumatizes a victim because of the content of the online communications by the offender.

Because of intervening earlier, not only will further offences be prevented, but education to child and youth victims and their families can be provided that will further reduce risk to children and youth. In addition, where treatment is indicated, it can be offered to address the negative impact of the crime on victims.

It's well known that sex offenders use technology as a common strategy to make sexually explicit material available to desensitize children and to normalize inappropriate sexual acts with children. We know from the research by Wolak, Mitchell, and Finkelhor that approximately one in 25 youth will receive an online sexual solicitation in which the solicitor tries to make offline contact, and in more than 25% of these incidents solicitors will ask youth for sexual photographs of themselves.

For these legislative changes to be effective, training is needed for police, crown attorneys, and the judiciary in order to define what grooming is and how to gather and use the information. These new laws will send a clear message that the government intends to keep up to date on how sex offenders commit crimes against children. Technology is continually advancing, and quickly. By prohibiting anyone from using any “means of telecommunication”, a broader definition has been put forward that is inclusive, as technology changes.

These crimes on their own may not seem so terrible, but the ultimate goal of these offenders is to commit a further hands-on sexual offence, facilitated by technology. New research is emerging that connects online offenders to offline contact offences. Based on official records, approximately 15% of online offenders have had previous contact offences against children; however, based on self-reporting, Hanson and Babchishin reported that 56% of online offenders admitted to committing hands-on offences, and Hernandez and Bourke reported that 85% of online offenders admitted to committing offline offences against children.

Research also tells us that the majority of offenders who produce child abuse media are known to their victims; 50 percent of all sexual abuse images—i.e., child pornography—is made by family members. To quote Taylor and Quayle:

Child protection is of the utmost importance given that those who produce child sexual abuse images are generally adults who care for, or have regular access to, a child. A lack of contact with a child is probably the most significant factor limiting the production of child pornography.

This makes opportunity a central factor in this crime.

This brings me to the issue of supervision. The emerging research connecting online offences to hands-on sexual offences emphasizes the importance of the court's ability to allow access to a child by an offender only if supervised and to permit the offender use of the Internet only when supervised. On the surface, these prohibitions appear to be credible strategies to protect children. However, the implementation, enforcing, and monitoring of these conditions need to be in place. Who will make sure that offenders with these supervision conditions don't go into an Internet café or use their cellphone and BlackBerry to connect to the Internet? There needs to be a clear mechanism for how and by whom supervision will be provided.

Another key consideration is that in reality, the Internet is a fundamental part of everyday life. Once offenders have been released from prison, how are they expected to find employment? If the government does not put monetary and personnel resources together with this condition, then the opposite of what this bill is trying to accomplish may occur. Offenders may become socially isolated and more stressed, potentially leading to recidivism and the victimization of more children and youth. Supervision by an individual who is also Internet savvy is essential.

For offenders who are in a position of trust or authority, a child protection agency may also be involved. It will be critical to have a mechanism linking family court and criminal court, where supervision orders have been imposed by either or both the child protection and criminal systems. Many luring cases involve victims who are not within the offender's family, and some cases involve adolescents. Under these circumstances, it's unlikely that a child protection agency will be involved. This puts more pressure on the court to ensure that offenders comply with the supervision orders and that there is a clear accountability to the public.

Supervision orders mandated by the court under this new legislation could potentially have no time limits, which further adds to the difficulty in ensuring that the conditions are adhered to, as supervisors may change over time. And there needs to be a mechanism to review the orders if a situation changes.

I'd like to also speak to mandatory minimum sentences. The increase in length of mandatory minimum sentences is positive and will be seen by victims as an indication that the crime is a serious one with serious consequences. The impact of any sexual offence is different for every victim. And from the perspective of victims, including mandatory minimum sentences for all child-specific sexual offences sends the message that there are no underlying values as to which sexual victimizing offences are more serious than others. From the victim's perspective, the experience is very individual. The law takes into account that all sexual offences against children must be taken seriously.

The increase in some mandatory minimum sentences and the addition of others may also increase the possibility for more treatment options while in custody and provide greater opportunities to engage offenders in treatment as well as conduct treatment-related research so that we can have a better understanding of sexual offences against children and online offences and their connection to offline crime.

In summary, I'd like to conclude by saying that as a community agency that provides services to victims of child abuse, Bill C-54 addresses many issues that are critical to the protection of children from sexual offenders. And while there are still some areas, such as supervision, that we feel require further work, we believe that the bill will contribute significantly to the safety of children from sexual offenders.

Thank you.