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.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate that answer.

I'd like to ask Mr. Rushfeldt a question.

Mr. Rushfeldt, as you probably know, this government is frequently criticized by the opposition and other people on the basis that mandatory minimum penalties we provide in various pieces of criminal justice legislation increase the cost of prisons and incarcerating people in Canada. What is your view on the increased costs of incarcerating offenders resulting from mandatory minimum penalties as proposed in this Bill C-54?

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

I'd like to ask you, through your experience working with sexually abused children, do you believe the passage of Bill C-54 would help to protect children? Secondly, could you give us perhaps some examples--obviously without names of cases that you know about--where you could tell us whether you think children who were abused would have been prevented from being abused had these provisions been in place previously?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Okay.

In terms of this type of approach, have you had any discussions with the Department of Justice on taking that approach, rather than the terminology they've used in Bill C-54?

[Brian Rushfeldt]

I think in response to whether the definition as such could include sexually explicit material, some of what is referenced, some of the new stuff, and changes in Bill C-54, I think it could. Changing the terminology really doesn't change the definition per se. It is a terminology change that I think is key, but the definition that comes in section 163.1 I think could be broadened at the beginning. I think it's somewhat outdated, perhaps, or minimal, and I think it can be an all-in-one definition, which could then capture perhaps some of the things you're suggesting, yes.

[Brian Rushfeldt]

All right.

I've given the clerk for translation two documents supporting the idea, including the CIRCAMP paper. I also included for your study, which you will receive at some point if you choose, a paper written by INHOPE, which is a European body similar to Cybertip in Canada. I encourage you to look at the first three pages of that report, which deal with the naming, description, and definition of child sex abuse materials.

In Canada, the federal ombudsman just a year ago released a report called Every Image, Every Child, which I hope you will take advantage of, because it is Canadian and it's current. In that 50-page report, the number one recommendation was to change the terminology in the Criminal Code from “child pornography”. Unfortunately, Bill C-54 neglects the issue. And there's no doubt in my mind that this bill actually is probably a bill that really should deal with that particular one, because it does deal with some of the other things from section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

I now want to address what we consider another problem with Bill C-54, in that it fails to address at all the most grievous of crimes under section 163.1, and that is the making of child pornography. The minimum sentence now in section 163.1 and the subsections for making child pornography, which are in force, are a mere one year on an indictable offence and an appalling 90 days for raping, abusing a child, making pornography, or making sex abuse images if it's a summary conviction.

Recently this committee, the House, and the Senate recognized the need to act with respect to the trafficking problem of under-age persons. As you know, Bill C-268 has passed, with a five-year mandatory sentence for those who traffic minors. I think if we can agree that trafficking of a minor is an outrageous crime that requires five years, then it's disturbing to me that we would think or allow the potential of a 90-day sentence for someone who sexually assaults, rapes, or abuses a child to produce these vile materials.

Failing to address the “making” section of 163.1 is a major injustice, I believe, to Canadians and certainly to the victims. It's known that when perpetrators are brought to justice, if justice is applied, it can often bring healing to the victims. Unfortunately, with the kind of sentence we currently have, and in fact I think even the ones suggested in Bill C-54, I don't think justice is being served well in Canada under those terms.

If we compare Canadian sentences to some other countries', it's not much wonder that the RCMP say that Canada has become a destination for pedophiles. In the United States those convicted of producing—producing—child pornography are given a mandatory sentence of 15 years, with a maximum of 30. For possession of child pornography, the minimum is five years, with a maximum of 20. Compare that to the 14-day minimum sentence in Canada for possession. I hope in your study of this bill you'll look at whether in fact judges in our country have ever imposed maximum sentences for child sex crimes under section 163.

My third point relates to the mandatory sentencing that is dealt with in Bill C-54 regarding the two subsections of 163.1 on possession and distribution. There are many examples that I could quote to you of unjust sentences in Canada, particularly when it comes to possession and distribution, where criminals have received as little as 14 days, sometimes slightly longer sentences, often to be served on weekends, or other meaningless conditions.

Some statistical research reports say that as much as 85% of people who possess and view pornography will at some point sexually assault a minor. Another report suggests it is 40%. If we use that lower figure of 40%, we still place an unacceptably large number of children at risk. While our current maximums are comparable to places like Australia and the U.K., our minimums remain shamefully weak.

While we appreciate the strengthening of the sentences in Bill C-54 and the addition of some of the new clauses, our major concern is that the mandatory minimum portions are still fairly weak. We don't believe that is going to provide appropriate safety for children.

Bill C-54 also doesn't really increase the minimum sentence for distribution. The current minimum is one year, and it will continue to be one year on the distribution issue.

Clearly, there must be changes made to Bill C-54 to accomplish meaningful protection and true justice for these defenceless children. We do, however, recognize that this is a great start, and I want to commend the government for bringing this forward. I believe this is the first amendment in a number of years to this section of the Criminal Code. I believe the Criminal Code is far behind the technology.

I'd like to close by saying that our first recommendation is to consider better terminology in the Criminal Code--something rather than “child pornography”. We might suggest “child sex abuse materials”, as has been made and suggested in some other districts around the world.

The second recommendation is to legislate mandatory sentences. We would like to see a three-year mandatory sentence for accessing or possession, a five-year sentence for distribution, and seven to ten years for those criminals who make child sex materials. The making of this stuff is similar and analogous to the concept we use in first-degree murder. These are deliberate, planned, and executed acts against children. They don't happen by chance. What these people are doing is very deliberate.

We believe that incarceration is critical. I know there are people--possibly in this room--who don't agree with mandatory sentences. But in all the discussions I've had with people across Canada, no one has suggested any better method than incarceration for people who commit these crimes. We simply cannot protect children as long as these people are out wandering the streets in our communities.

It has become clear in our assessment of a whole number of Canadian cases that sentences are failing to protect children from sex criminals. So I appeal to you as the lawmakers to take the actions necessary to ensure that the removal of predators from society is for a period appropriate to the crime committed.

I would add, as a former social worker who did some work in some areas of addictions, etc., that a 90-day sentence is not long enough to do remedial training and help a child sex offender. You cannot treat that individual properly in 90 days.

I speak on behalf of the 84,500 Canadians who in the last four months have signed a petition that the House will be receiving within the next couple of weeks. All of those people are pleading with you as lawmakers to act decisively and expeditiously to correct the part of the Criminal Code that's outdated and inadequate, due to Internet technology and the crisis of escalating sex crimes against children in Canada and around the world.

We ask that you do this expeditiously, as I just heard in the House in question period some rumblings again about an election. I hope this bill can get back to the House and put through before an election, because I think our children are clearly more important--and important enough. I know you passed the pardon bill for the Homolka case within two days, so surely within two to five weeks something like this is capable of getting through the House. I ask that all parties work together on that.

Thank you for receiving our comments, the brief we presented, and the reference documents.

[Brian Rushfeldt, President, Canada Family Action Coalition]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to share some information today that I hope is going to be helpful in your study of Bill C-54.

Over the past ten years, Canada Family Action has been working hard to ask for better protection of children from pedophiles. And we were highly involved in the age-of-consent lobby.

I'd like to commend the government, and that means all parties, for the work they're doing and for the recognition that the child pornography law in Canada, as it's called in the Criminal Code, must be updated and changed. However, I do have to say that we're disappointed with some of the things in Bill C-54. The first one, and my focus, is basically section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

The first major issue is a concern about a total lack of the mention of or the dealing with the term “child pornography”. That term frames for us, for you as lawmakers, for courts, for judges, and for everybody else how we view the horrific crimes of child sex abuse against defenceless children.

Child pornography is an extremely meaningless and in fact misleading term in reference to this kind of crime. As one law enforcement officer said to me, these are not pornographic images we view; these are rape and abuse images that we view. They are images of sexual exploitation and sex abuse.

Research indicates that of those arrested with these materials in their possession, 39% had images of children from ages three to five. Eighty-three percent of these people had images of children age six to twelve. And perhaps the most horrific crime of all, 80% of the images possessed by the people charged, arrested, and convicted were of actual penetration of either a boy or a girl.

Let me quote from an article published by CIRCAMP, which is a European Commission funded network of law enforcement agencies across Europe, including Europol.

A sexual image of a child is “abuse” or “exploitation” and should never be described as “pornography”. Pornography is a term used for adults engaging in consensual sexual acts distributed legally to the general public for their sexual pleasure. Child abuse images are not. They involve children who cannot and would not consent and who are victims of a crime.

I've given the clerk a couple of documents--

[Detective Inspector Scott Naylor, Child Sexual Exploitation Investigations, Ontario Provincial Police]

Thank you. Just by way of introduction, my name is Scott Naylor, and I'm the manager of the child sexual exploitation section with the Ontario Provincial Police.

I will be reading from some notes here. Mr. Chair, Madam Clerk, and justice sector colleagues, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-54, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act.

From the perspective of the Ontario Provincial Police and members of the provincial strategy to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation on the Internet, this bill has the potential to add to the legislative tools we've been provided to keep our communities and our citizens safe, particularly the most vulnerable section of our population, our children. I'll say more about the provincial strategy in a moment.

Investigating child sexual abuse is what I consider to be one of the toughest and most heartbreaking, yet one of the most rewarding assignments a police officer can ever experience. The members of the OPP Child Sexual Exploitation section and our municipal and provincial government partners who investigate child luring, sexual abuse, and exploitation on the Internet work exceedingly hard to protect children and to identify victims from the most heinous activities imaginable. There is no greater satisfaction than to be able to secure the safety of our children and remove them from the harm, abuse, and exploitation they face through Internet predators.

Child luring, sexual exploitation, and sexual abuse on the Internet is organized crime, plain and simple. The provincial strategy to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation on the Internet was created in response to the Government of Ontario's request that police develop a coordinated, province-wide approach to combat Internet crimes against children. The goal of the provincial strategy was for the province to respond to this growing issue as a cohesive, united team, rather than having municipal police services develop different approaches to deal with child pornography, luring, and sexual abuse on the Internet.

Police services in Ontario, through the OACP—the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police—and the OPP, subsequently developed a systematic, victim-driven, all-encompassing approach to the prevention of child sexual abuse and exploitation on the Internet. The provincial strategy aims to effectively address the complete picture of child sexual abuse and exploitation, from the onset of the investigation to offender apprehension and management, effective prosecution and sentencing, victim identification support, and prevention and awareness.

Prior to the provincial strategy, there was no mechanism in place for the vital coordination of intelligence and for investigative support and information sharing. The OPP child sexual exploitation section administers the provincial strategy. The strategy consists of 54 officers from the OPP and 18 municipal police services, with representatives from the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Ministry of the Attorney General, including two designated crown attorneys and a victim services coordinator. Other municipal police services in Ontario have also been involved in assisting with investigations and in making arrests in their respective communities as well.

I can state without question that the investigators assigned to this duty are among the most committed and professional police officers you will find anywhere. They are united by a single purpose: to protect children from being lured into dangerous situations by Internet predators.

Our investigations have also required recent interaction and participation from law enforcement agencies in Canada, and abroad from such agencies as Interpol and including jurisdictions in Europe, Asia, and South America. This global activity matches the way legitimate commercial business is done today in Ontario and in Canada. The exception is that the commodity being traded among these borderless criminals is living, breathing human beings— children in Ontario, Canada, and around the world, children of our communities.

The Internet-based dangers of child luring, sexual exploitation, and abuse are so pervasive that it takes excellence in police work and multi-jurisdictional partnerships to ensure successful investigations. It also takes collaboration with our broader justice-sector partners to bring these criminals to justice. It also takes strong partners who are united by a single goal, to ensure that the victims are brought to safer environments and get the help and services they need and deserve.

Our relationships with our partner agencies are stronger than ever. I want to note our appreciation for the support of senior levels of government in providing us with the legislative tools and resources that we need. We could always use more, but your support is vital to our success. But we are not there yet.

Our caseloads from the past year are testament to that fact. From August 2006 to December 2010, members of the provincial strategy completed 11,537 investigations and laid 3,897 charges against 1,303 individuals. The age of those accused of these vile acts, predominantly male, range from mid-teens to those well past 60 years of age. As staggering as those numbers are, I am also able to report that through our investigations in 2010 and early this year, 121 victims have been identified and rescued. That means more children have been saved and are removed from dangerous situations.

Given the background from an investigative perspective, I'm here to support Bill C-54. The bill provides additional offences that can be laid by police officers that relate to the provision of sexually explicit material to children and the use of telecommunications like the Internet to facilitate the commission of sexual offences against children. These two offences are generally already known to investigators as contributing factors in most of the sexual abuse cases involving children that are already being investigated. However, these have only been considered as aggravating factors in a prosecution until now. While the new offences may have some implications in terms of increasing investigative time or processing charges, this legislation is very much needed and the OPP believes it will serve to better protect those who are most vulnerable, our children. The new offence with respect to providing sexually explicit material transforms what has been considered an aggravating factor in sentencing into an offence, which is also associated with mandatory minimum sentencing. The OPP supports the creation of this offence, given that pornographic materials are often one of the most commonly used methods in grooming children.

On the second new offence, with the evolution of technology the Internet is becoming one of the most commonly used means of luring children for the sole purpose of sexually abusing them. These factors are already part of many sexual abuse investigations, so only a minimal increase in terms of investigative time is likely to be required. While this offence may lead to new investigations where allegations of sexual abuse have not yet been made, this is not anticipated to be significant, and the offence offers increased protection to our children and our youth. The OPP supports increased minimum sentencing for child-specific offences, which eliminates conditional sentencing.

Strong deterrents are necessary as a first step to deter perpetrators from preying on our children, particularly those who are in a parental role or are responsible for children through kinship. The OPP welcomes the proposed new measures, which would require judges to consider conditions that would prohibit suspected, charged, or convicted child sexual offenders from having unsupervised contact with children, as well as unsupervised use of the Internet, when issuing a recognizance to such persons. This legislative change allows charges to be laid if there was an identified breach of this condition. It also puts the onus on the court to impose conditions that restrict Internet use or unsupervised contact with children upon receiving information. Not that long ago, a somewhat similar directive was made that required family court judges to consider past domestic violence prior to making any determination regarding custody and access.

Laws alone won't solve this problem, and we acknowledge that. In Ontario, the Ontario Provincial Police, our police community, and media partners have also taken advantage of many opportunities to continue with the other sometimes forgotten prong of this initiative: education and raising awareness of our kids, their parents, guardians, and caregivers. We unashamedly use the media's help to reach them, and we've had great success in doing this over the last four years. Our private sector partners to keep children safe from harm include traditional media: YTV for one on the educational side with their interactive Internet safety games and promotional announcements. YTV's animated educational and Internet safety public service announcements have been viewed by over 8.75 million people. An initial Internet safety game was played by over 54,000 players, all young people. A second Internet safety game will be launched through YTV's website next week as we observe Safer Internet Day on February 8.

Our partners also include avenues of social media. Facebook Canada helped us with a recent enhancement of the Ontario amber alert so that it would reach even more people when a child is abducted.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're all committed to preventing abuse against children, from our skilled investigators to our technical support staff to front-line officers who execute warrants to the investigators who are called upon to view literally thousands and thousands of horrific images. We also count on our investigators and community service officers to be there to offer hope through greater education and greater awareness.

Members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity to express our thoughts and suggestions from the front lines in the battle against Internet predators and for providing the opportunity to comment on potential new tools to make our children and our communities safer. I wish you every success in your deliberations on Bill C-54.

I'll leave you with this one quote: “Every child matters, everywhere.”

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting 44 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Monday, January 31, 2011. Happy new year to all of you. It's good to be back.

Just by way of explanation, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, December 6, we're considering Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children).

Typically we have the minister to start off our review. Unfortunately, the minister wasn't available until Wednesday, so I took the liberty of scheduling in four witnesses today.

We have, first of all, from the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness, Ellen Campbell as well as Sanderson Layng. Welcome to you.

We have, from the Ontario Provincial Police, Detective Inspector Scott Naylor. Welcome.

We also have, representing the Canada Family Action Coalition, Brian Rushfeldt. Welcome.

And finally we have, from my hometown of Abbotsford, Catherine Dawson. I understand you're representing yourself, although you can certainly explain which organizations you're affiliated with.

We'll begin with the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness. Please start, Ms. Campbell.

Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-54 purports to deal with child sexual abuse. To some degree that title is accurate, although significantly overblown.

I know we were hearing some of this in questions and comments in the last member's debate, but there is no question that there is a need for Parliament and the government at the federal level, being responsible for the Criminal Code, criminal legislation, and the whole criminal justice system, to establish reforms in this area. By that I mean legislative reforms. That is Parliament's responsibility.

I want to be very clear, though, that the role we can play at the legislative level in terms of its effectiveness in preventing this type of crime is small in comparison with what our courts, meaning judges, prosecutors and police in particular, could be doing with added resources. The role we are going to be playing in the discussion and debate around this bill, and hopefully, ultimately passing, probably with some significant amendments, will help our police and prosecutors in particular in doing their jobs. There are some provisions in this bill that do that.

On the other hand, the bill is all too typical of the approach by the government to the criminal justice system, to think entirely in terms of punishment and deterrence, even when all of the evidence shows that it does not work in making our society and streets safer, and in particular, in preventing future crime. There is absolutely no evidence.

It is interesting that one of the ministers was asked by a local reporter to provide studies that showed that deterrence works. The minister sent several articles, two of which actually advocated that deterrence did not work and the other one was totally inconclusive. That was the best evidence the minister could come up with.

The government does not drive its legislation, whether in the criminal justice area or elsewhere, by the facts or the evidence but purely by ideology. The government's ideology is very narrow in terms of how it thinks it can make the criminal justice system work better and it all centres on punishment.

We see in the bill a huge number of additional mandatory minimums, which I will come back to, but before I do, we have to set the context with regard to who we are dealing with. As I said earlier, this bill is about the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children. There is no question that it is going on and has gone on forever in society. What the Conservatives see when they are addressing this type of perpetrator is the classic, stereotypical pedophile, people who do not have the ability to control their violent tactics and sexual urges.

About five years ago we were dealing with another bill under the Liberal administration that dealt with sexual abuse. In the course of those hearings, three witnesses, who by any standards and recognition had the best credentials in the country, gave testimony. They were experts specifically in the field of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, sexual crimes against children.

I want to be very clear. These were not people who are soft on these perpetrators, but they were extremely knowledgeable. All three of them took a quite similar approach in terms of the analysis of who we are dealing with and how best to deal with them.

They broke down the perpetrators into three categories. First is the stereotypical one, and they are there; they are not made up. They are not just figments of the Conservatives' imagination, but they are a very small proportion. These are the ones who we lay people would refer to as being hard-wired. Basically all three of these witnesses, two of whom were psychiatrists and one was a psychologist, said these people are either impossible to deal with in the sense of any treatment or any way of bringing them back from their totally reprehensible conduct, or very difficult to almost impossible. But it was a relatively small percentage of all the perpetrators of the crimes that are committed.

They then said there is a second category that is workable but very difficult.

Then there is the final category. Usually they are young offenders, individuals over 18, so they are in the adult criminal justice system, but still relatively young. Oftentimes it is their first offence of a sexual nature against other children and they are treatable relatively easily. By that I mean counselling, supervision, mentoring, and in some cases, penalties from the criminal justice system, but are treatable.

In fact, what came out in terms of the percentages was that the hard-wired perpetrators account for probably 5% to 7% of all the child sexual abuse crimes that are committed in this country. The middle group is 30% or 35%, or maybe 40%. The balance is as much as 50%, the ones who are treatable.

Having set that context, we then look at the bill and what the government has done here, with a few exceptions, is to take sections of the code where there already are mandatory minimums, but from the government's perspective, they are not tough enough, and it is increasing these.

With regard to those, there are a couple of exceptions and I want to be clear on this, where in fact we may be dealing with hard-wired convicted persons and those mandatory minimums are appropriate. However, the vast majority of the mandatory minimums that the government is introducing here, either as new ones, and there are five or six new ones, or the other 15 or 20, are simply increases.

The people that the government is going to go after, on whom the mandatory minimums are going to be imposed, fit into that larger category, first offenders, people who in fact can be treated. What is going to happen is what is happening already. They are going into the provincial system, because there are no mandatory minimums in here of more than two years. All the mandatory minimums run from 30 days up to one year.

All these people are going to go into provincial institutions, and in most cases, are going to go into local jails and spend their time there after conviction. They are going to get absolutely no treatment. They are going to be exposed to other more serious criminals, some of those serious pedophiles, the hard-wired ones. They are going to learn new techniques to be able to access, for instance, child pornography and the whole pedophile network. So they are actually going to learn how to perpetuate, when they come out, the crimes that they went in for. They are going to get absolutely no treatment, because for the short periods of time that they are there, none of the provinces have programs in place that will provide them with any treatment. They are just not there long enough.

So the mandatory minimums are going to do nothing in terms of preventing these individual criminals from committing crimes in the future. In fact, in every argument we have made, we will actually be exposing society to a greater number of crimes because of the length of time that they are going to be spending in custody.

I want to go through a number of these sections. Clause 3 of the bill moves the mandatory minimum from six months to one year if it is an indictable offence.

Currently if it is a summary conviction offence, which is the Crown making the decision that the offence is not very serious and will proceed in that way, it is now moving to what is now a mandatory minimum under that section, from 14 days to 90 days. In reality, of the 90 days, the person will get a at least a third of the time off, if not two thirds of the time. So instead of spending 7 days in jail, he or she will spend 30 days in jail.

Other than the Conservative Party saying that it is tough on crime and trotting out victims' groups for photo ops, in those circumstances this bill does nothing to prevent that criminal, who has committed and been convicted of a crime, from re-offending, or in effect build in some real prevention mechanisms to see to it that that person is given the proper counselling, the proper supervision, the proper mentoring so that they do not go back out and re-offend under the same types of circumstances.

Going through clause 4, again an indictable offence, currently an offender would spend 45 days in custody and that is being moved up a year. For a summary conviction it is 14 days to 90 days, and we can just go through section after section.

This is not about being at all serious about dealing with this perversion in terms of adults perpetuating oftentimes quite serious violent acts and at the very least minimally violent acts on children.

How do we properly deal with this? All of the evidence we have shows that these silly mandatory minimums have nothing in the way of a preventive mechanism in them. There is none whatsoever.

As a legislature we are going to be able to say that we think this is bad and we want the judge to give more difficult or harsher penalties. The reality is that if we leave this to the judges, in some cases they will impose even harsher sentences and in other cases it will be less.

However, they will also see to it, if it is a probationary order, that once the offender is out of custody that a probation order in fact has meaningful provisions in it so that the supervision, mentoring, counselling and treatment, psychological and psychiatric, is in fact imposed, and in the vast majority of cases, especially in that 50% of files, is successful in preventing and seeing to it that the person does not commit another crime of this nature.

It is a major problem with this legislation. As we have heard from other members of my party, there are other parts of this bill that we have been pressing both the Liberal administration, when it was in power, and the government for well over a dozen years to push for a real, strong, clear mechanism within the Criminal Code to deal with the luring of children under 16 years of age, over the Internet, by telephone and in any number of ways.

The government is moving on this. Currently the luring provision in the code that it is amending talks about just a computer, and now what it is proposing to do is to expand that into telecommunications, using that terminology. It is still too narrow. There are other ways and there are going to be other ways. Anyone who would stand in this House and suggest that we have gotten all means of technology for communicating under our control and use is being extremely naive or ignorant of where we are going with our technology.

We need broader language. It is kind of interesting. One of the sections in this bill, an amendment to the existing code, is really giving judges more authority to restrict communications. In looking at the way communications is defined, it is a very broad wording. It basically says one cannot communicate with anybody under 16 years of age.

We need that kind of wording. That is what was in the NDP private members' bills, talking about communications by any means if the intent is to lure a child, anyone under the age of 16, into a sexual relationship. We need that kind of broad wording.

The government has been extremely narrow in its expansion and that is one of the reasons we will be looking to amend this bill when it gets to committee, and clearly it is going to get to committee. The government is now moving from just a computer definition to a broader telecommunications definition, but it is still not broad enough. I believe that in the future, and even now with some of the material, we may have any number of instances where people may be charged under this section but come forward with technical defences that it will not fit within the definition of telecommunications.

We need to call expert evidence at committee as to ways we can look at technology as it is now and broaden it beyond just the telecommunications wording. Hopefully we would have someone with vision who can look down the road to the next 10 to 20 years and come up with wording that will catch the future developments in our ability to communicate, especially in this kind of criminal activity. That is one area where I believe we do need amendments.

The other concern we have with this bill is that we think there may be an attempt on the part of the government to get around the Sharpe case. As members will recall, that was the individual from British Columbia who was ultimately able to convince the court that it was not pornography that he had produced. However, the government is moving from the current definition of child pornography to saying that it is an offence to use sexually explicit material in the course of this type of offence under various sections that are in this bill and in the code more generally. In effect, it is a crime.

The worry I have is that we may be exposing a number of defences here that are not needed. We will probably need to look to constitutional experts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other people from the arts and culture community on whether this would expose us to a long run of litigation, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court. We need to determine whether this is an end-run around the Sharpe case, and I do not think there is any reason to do that. We are trying to get at the perpetrators of these crimes. I think this is dangerous as it may refocus attempts to seriously get at those hard-wired perpetrators. They are the ones we really have to be after.

Also, and I do not see the bill addressing this at all, a good deal of child pornography is produced by organized crime. There does not seem to be anything in this bill that is really addressing that in terms of the production of that material.

There are a couple of sections in here specifically on the age of consent, and this goes back to other bills that we have worked on. We supported raising the age of consent; however, the Conservatives at one point were prepared to criminalize as many as 800,000 of our youth in this country, by raising the age of consent. If the sexual act was between people who were within five years of each other, it would be a criminal act. We built in that defence, but there are a couple of sections in here where I think we may be faced with the same problem. We would be criminalizing sexual activity between people who are within four or five years of each other, who may be about the same maturity age, but one is chronologically younger than the other. I think we have to take a look at that and build that defence into a couple of these sections as well.

I see my time is up and I will be happy to take questions.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, there were pieces of legislation that the opposition had already agreed to.

The government tries to say it has a tough on crime agenda, or a crime agenda, and we sit here wondering what crime agenda does it really have. If it were really tough on crime, if it really cared about issues, if it really cared about the safety of Canadians, the safety of kids, it would not be proroguing Parliament on a regular basis, because the legislation on the order paper disappears. Private members' bills do not, but those other ones go to zero.

Yes, there has been an impact on Bill C-54 and Bill C-22, and these are the bills that really need to be reinforced and introduced quickly, because we need to protect kids.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), is to increase the mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children.

I will digress a little and explain what a child is. A child is any person from the age of 0 to 16 years. It was the Liberal opposition that pushed this age of consent and finally drove the government to pass this legislation.

Bill C-54 was introduced on November 4 by the Minister of Justice. It would increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children.

When one looks at the various changes to the subsections of the Criminal Code and one looks at the minimum penalties for different offences, it is important that the bill, which we support, goes to committee. A lot of issues need to be addressed and a lot of witnesses need to be called. It is important that everybody speaks from the same page because children are a very important asset. We have heard about heinous things being done to children. Not a day goes by without hearing a report on sexual activities against children. It is important that the bill is sent quickly to committee so we are able to really put into effect protection for children.

The bill would impose mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children. It would also prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child.

With the proliferation of things going back and forth on the Internet at such high speeds, it is very important that we look at this issue very critically. With the providing of sexually explicit materials to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against the child, one needs to figure out how that child would be implicated, how the adult was involved and one needs to figure out through what means this was done.

The bill would also prohibit anyone from using any means of telecommunication, including a computer system, to agree or make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child. Too often we have seen the ramifications of child pornography where children are used as sexual toys for the pleasure of adults who have absolutely dehumanized them.

This is an important aspect of the bill because we need to understand how we would catch the perpetrators, how we would ensure that children are protected and how we would ensure that a child understands because children aged 0 to 16 are naive and vulnerable. They are our asset that needs to be protected. They believe in people.

I attended a memorial service for the victims of the December 6 massacre. I listened to Stevie Cameron talk about girls, about the fact that children are taught that they can do anything possible, that they are the masters of their destiny, and about how we protect these children and then suddenly somebody takes their life away.

With this bill, I am hoping we are able to not only ensure that the laws are in place but that we have a mechanism in place that will enforce the protection of our children, not only in Canada but worldwide because if we look at what is happening in today's age, we see child trafficking across the globe.

If we look at the sex trade or visitors who go to places like Thailand to have sex with little children, it is pornography that gives them that problem. It is the access to pornographic sites on the Internet that dehumanizes the poor child. Therefore, it is important that when we are looking at all of these aspects we are consistent in our enforcement, in what we do.

The third thing that the bill will do is ensure consistency among those two new offences and the existing offence of luring a child. Here I would like to bring to bear what happened to Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. They were unsuspecting kids who were lured by a pedophile, and we reflect upon how this bill may have protected them or given a harsher sentence to Karla Homolka.

The fourth thing that the bill would do is expand the list of specified conditions that may be added to prohibition and recognizance orders to include prohibition concerning contact with a person under the age of 16 and the use of the Internet or other digital networks, and expand the list of enumerated offences that may give rise to such orders and prohibitions.

That brings me to what has been happening currently. Our kids go onto computers and they are more computer savvy than their parents. They access Internet sites and the parents are probably not aware of it. These may be latchkey kids or they may be kids whose parents are at home, but when they are locked in their rooms and they are on Facebook, they have no idea who they are communicating with. It is important that we have checks and balances in place that go after the providers of Internet services to ensure the protection of these kids, to ensure the traceability of the information.

The protection of children is a priority for the Liberal Party. As a party, we have stood firmly against the proliferation of online child pornography for over a decade. In 2002, the former Liberal government made it illegal to deliberately access a website containing child pornography, rather than just having possession of such materials, and it was the Liberal government that put into place Cybertip.ca, an online reporting tool for child pornography. Cybertip is an important tool because, as I mentioned, with the Internet and its proliferation, it is important that we know how to trace the source, to ensure that our children are safe, to ensure that we find the children who have been abducted for the purpose of the sex trade, and to find the perpetrators.

Making laws without having the tools or the means to enforce them does not make for good law, so I hope that when this legislation goes before committee, it will be calling on numerous witnesses so that they can have a wholesome discussion and a wholesome production. I am pleased to see that Bill C-54 introduces a series of new minimum penalties for crimes against children, but as I mentioned, the bill has so many other permutations and combinations that it is important that it be looked at properly at committee. The Liberals will be supporting this legislation to go before committee, in order to hear from a variety of witnesses, and we will assess at that time whether the Conservatives have introduced sufficient penalties or whether additional amendments are required.

As I mentioned earlier, what comes to mind here is the Paul Bernardo case. When he and his wife abducted two kids, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, it horrified Canadians. It horrified the whole country to know that such heinous crimes could be committed, that we had such disturbed individuals in our midst.

My question would be does the bill do enough to ensure that what happened with Karla Homolka, who was able to reduce her sentence through plea bargaining, cannot happen again? We all want safe communities. We all know that there are sick minds that access the Internet and pornographic sites that dehumanize children and women. This dehumanizing makes victims be treated as objects of pleasure.

If one looks at the five things that the bill has introduced, I would love to see a very strong enforcement tool that would allow police officers, or people who are given the duty to ensure enforcement, to be able to access the material, to be able to trace the source, be able to ensure that protection takes place, be able to facilitate that information whether it be across Canada or with Interpol or other agencies, because this type of crime, as I mentioned earlier, is not only done in Canada but is worldwide.

Children being abducted for the purpose of sex slavery is a horrendous crime and it is a crime against all children. In countries in the developing world where they do not have the same protection we need to ensure that when we enforce legislation we have a global approach to it because the globe is where we need to look at. A troubled mind will do anything.

We need to also invest in areas like mental health and education. The Liberals unconditionally supported Bill C-22, which would make the reporting of Internet child pornography mandatory for Internet service providers and other persons providing Internet services. In fact, we believe that the government took too long to bring this to bear and we need to ensure that if we are serious about crimes against children, if we are serious about protecting them, if we are serious about ensuring that children have safe lives, that we live in safe communities, that we are not always looking over our shoulder, or over the Internet to ensure the safety of our children, then we need to see that Bill C-54 be sent quickly to committee and be looked after.

Today, December 6, is a day of remembering the 14 women who were gunned down by a crazy person. These were students at university. Violence against women is not just violence against women themselves, but it is violence against children as well. When a woman is abused it affects the child and the psychology of that child. It affects the whole family. It makes the family dysfunctional. Violence against women that results in death at the hands of a spouse, or common-law partner, or a deranged person still makes society unsafe.

It is important that the government not speak from both sides of its mouth. If we want smart solutions for violent crimes then we need to ensure that our gun laws are strict, that registration is there, that women and children are protected.

I would urge the government not to just see things in silos but to take a holistic approach to this bill. I would ask the government to ensure that we have a wholesome discussion on the bill and that we find a solution relevant to the whole community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from December 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

I want to say at the outset that the NDP caucus will be supporting this bill and will be encouraged to see it make its way in due course to committee. I think there is potential for an amendment or two along the way.

There is a possibility of a charter issue. We would not want to pass a bill through and then see it successfully knocked down by a charter challenge. I believe there are ways to deal with that at committee. The member knows that our critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, is certainly on top of that issue and will be bringing that up at the committee stage.

The bill creates mandatory sentences for seven existing offences related to child exploitation, including sexual assault where the victim is under the age of 16 years, section 271; aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, section 273; incest where the victim is under 16 years age, section 155; luring a child through the use of a computer, section 172.1; and exposure, subsection 173(2).

Bill C-54 also creates two new offences of making sexual explicit materials available to a child and agreeing to or arranging to commit a sexual offence against a child. As well, the bill expands the list of conditions that may be added to prohibitions and recognizance orders to include prohibitions concerning contact with persons under 16 and the use of the Internet.

By way of explanation for past history, the substance of this bill has in fact been introduced by former and current colleagues of mine in the House. As a matter of fact, on May 13 of this year, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam reintroduced legislation to strengthen laws to protect children against child luring and abuse. That was just a few months ago. That was a rework of bills previously introduced by Dawn Black, a former member of this House. So the NDP has a history of concern for this issue, and more than concern but actually doing something about it by introducing legislation in this House.

I know my time is limited today and I do want to follow up on several points.

A very important point was made by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River. Not only today but on previous occasions, not only that member but another member of his caucus, also a lawyer, have noted that the Criminal Code has been around now for over 100 years. It is basically being held together by sticky tape. We simply keep amending the Criminal Code, with little bits and pieces here and there over many years and many decades. Even the language is out of date.

It is way overdue that a government, and maybe not this government but perhaps a future government, will have to pull out the Criminal Code and sit down and start working on a revamp. The revamp can happen by the government announcing it, and in co-operation with the provinces, having hearings across the country and getting many groups involved. In many ways I think that would have been a more sensible way for the government to proceed overall on crime and perhaps it would have done better with the public as result.

By way of an example, I once again want to mention what happened in a similar minority government in Manitoba with Gary Filmon. Gary Filmon was a very smart premier who knew early on that the way to get legislation through the legislature was not to bully, fight, cajole and threaten like this government does. His approach on any controversial issue, such as Meech Lake and Charlottetown, was to call in the leaders.

The leaders were Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party who is now a senator; and Gary Doer, who is now a Conservative appointment as ambassador to the United States. Those leaders worked together very well. They dealt with the smoking ban. As a matter of fact, the smoking ban was actually introduced by a Conservative member who was in opposition under an NDP government.

I am just pointing out that the practice set up by Mr. Filmon not only followed through his government in a minority situation, but because it worked so well, he continued doing it for the rest of his tenure as a majority Conservative premier. When former premier Doer took over, he had a majority government and ultimately did not have to listen to the opposition, but he kept doing what had been working in the past.

I have not had the time to go back and look at the minority government of Lester Pearson, but we are getting dangerously close to the current government being in office almost as long as the Liberal government of Lester Pearson. The difference is that while this government has accomplished almost nothing because of its antagonistic views toward the opposition, the Lester Pearson government actually accomplished many things. It got medicare, it unified the forces, and it brought in a new Canadian flag. These were not just simple issues that it had to deal with. These were very controversial, divisive issues in the country at the time. Yet after six years, the Lester B. Pearson government was able to show a lot. It was actually a beacon.

My question always to the government is this: why can it not learn from best practices? It does not have to go overseas to check this one out. It is right here in its backyard. There is its own Gary Filmon in Manitoba and it can check out what happened there. There is also the Lester B. Pearson experience.

I know that when premiers and prime ministers become elected to office, the game changes for them. They start thinking in terms of legacy and what they are going to show for their time here. I have no idea why the Prime Minister would have frittered away literally five years. The member opposite is trying to bring in some changes to question period and things like that, which he has to fight his own members to get through.

However, just to get back to the bill at hand, the fact of the matter is that Bill C-54 recognizes that children are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation. The government committed in March of this year, during its Speech from the Throne, to better protect children by increasing penalties for sexual offences against children. The proposed bill, which would be called the “Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act”, supports this commitment in two ways: it ensures that the penalties imposed for sexual offences against children better reflect the extremely serious nature of these acts and are consistent with each other; and it seeks to prevent child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that would facilitate their sexual offending or reoffending.

The legislation would amend the Criminal Code, and I want to say that there has been a sea change in our attitudes towards these sorts of offences over the years. Many years ago, these offences were happening probably at the same rates as right now, but it was swept under the carpet and it was hidden. We have to thank people such as Theo Fleury and certainly Sheldon Kennedy, two hockey players who have come forward with their previous experiences.

Even before that, I recall Senator Sharon Carstairs, who was leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party at the time, appearing before the legislature in a very emotional manner and telling us how she was abused as a child. There was not a dry eye in the house. It probably made some people uncomfortable. It was certainly groundbreaking. Up until that point, I do not think any politician would have done something like that. She explained her situation and people were very happy that she did.

My example of the case of hockey coach Graham James, Theo Fleury and Sheldon Kennedy just masks part of the problem. Graham James abused dozens if not hundreds of boys who are still afraid to come forward. We are seeing only the tip of the iceberg here. It is important to have role models, people to come forward and talk about their experiences. Hiding the abuse leads to more problems for the individual along the way.

We have gone through the whole residential schools issue in the native communities and all the abuse that was involved there. We know about the abuse that has gone on in church organizations. Up until the 1970s it was probably whispered about. There was no openness about the whole issue. However, people who were abused are now coming forward and are finding that they are being embraced by society. They are not being rejected and vilified the way many thought they would be. They have come forward.

This is a very good bill.

I do want to make some observations on the sex tourism issue. It is important for the government to get tough on criminals in this country. Having said that, we do not want to be exporting our problems somewhere else. We have laws against sex tourism, and it is debatable. Some people say they are not being enforced properly, that they are not tough enough. The laws have to be enforced and have to be toughened if necessary. The government has to show a clear example here that this type of activity will not be tolerated and will be punished.

We have to do work throughout the world to try to influence governments in some of these areas like Thailand and other countries where sex tourism is flourishing, to have them bring in similar laws and enforcement in their jurisdictions. I recognize that it is a never-ending game because, like the Internet issue, the problem gets solved in one place but simply goes somewhere else. That does not mean we should not try to work on this issue.

With the few minutes I have left I want to talk about the role of the victims and why we should be supporting victims, particularly in situations like this.

In 1970-71, among many initiatives, for example, the guaranteed annual income program and state-run auto insurance, the Manitoba government under Ed Schreyer, the very first NDP government in Canada, set up what is known as the criminal injuries compensation act. That act has been operating as a fund for the last 40 years, providing compensation to victims of crime, so that if someone is a victim of being attacked and beaten up, for example, he or she receives compensation from this criminal injuries act. Ontario has one as well.

It is incumbent upon the Conservative government to set up a national fund. The federal government should set up a national fund if it really believes in helping victims of crime, which it certainly talks about a lot.

[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?