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.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak today about minimum sentences.

As mentioned last November, in response to a question from my hon. colleague from Mount Royal, this issue has been discussed on several occasions, not only in this House, but also before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

As a former minister of justice, he knows I cannot comment on a case still before the courts.

In May 2011, Canadians gave us a clear mandate. They want to live in healthy and safe communities. In our opinion, the government's main focus must be on victims of crime who, from a financial perspective, pay most of the price of crime.

The strong mandate this government received from Canadians in May 2011 included support for our commitment to table comprehensive legislation that would reintroduce several law and order bills, including those that proposed mandatory minimum penalties for child sexual offences and for serious drug crimes.

Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act, includes reforms from nine previous bills. Bill C-10's proposed amendments would make communities safer by extending greater protection to the most vulnerable members of our society, enhancing the ability of our justice system to hold criminals accountable for their actions, and helping improve the safety and security of all Canadians.

The government's approach is balanced. It addresses prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation, and respects the rights of the accused while also respecting victims' interests, as well as community safety. This approach reflects the reality that Canadians lose faith in the criminal justice system when they feel the punishment does not fit the crime.

It appears to me that the member opposite contradicts the position of his own party when he criticizes the proposed mandatory minimum penalties that this government proposes to better denounce serious crimes, a policy supported by premiers and attorneys general across Canada.

For instance, former Bill C-54, which has been reintroduced as part of Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act, and which proposes mandatory minimum penalties for sexual offences committed against children, received the support of all parties at third reading.

I often hear the opposition referring to studies that unequivocally demonstrate the ineffectiveness and excessiveness of mandatory minimum penalties. With all due respect, this is hardly conclusive. There is research that suggests mandatory minimum penalties are not effective. However, other research indicates there is evidence that mandatory minimum penalties have had positive effects on serious offences, such as impaired driving.

Another argument the opposition continually relies on to criticize either the use of mandatory minimum penalties or the restrictions on the availability of conditional sentences is the impact such proposals would have on prison populations and the related cost implications.

The government has always been clear that the cost of protecting victims far outweighs the cost implications of such reforms. Although there is a cost to having proportionate sentences, there is also a significant cost to victims and Canadian society as a whole.

In 2008, crime in Canada cost an estimated $99 billion, the majority of which, $82.5 billion or 83%, was borne by the victims. Victim costs include the value of damaged or stolen property, pain and suffering, loss of income, and health services.

This government has a clear and strong mandate to ensure that Canadians are better protected from dangerous criminals by ensuring that they are not permitted to serve their sentence in the comfort of their homes.

Mandatory minimum penalties will ensure clarity and consistency in sentencing, while at the same time ensuring that perpetrators of serious crimes do not reoffend during the period of incarceration.

It is time for all members to recognize the significant impact that serious and violent crimes have on Canadian communities and victims.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, let us review Bill C-10.

The hon. member has raised the issue of judicial discretion. Part 2 of the Safe Streets and Communities Act includes former Bill S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act. These reforms were introduced in three previous parliaments, passed by both chambers but never by both in the same session.

Bill C-10 proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to impose mandatory minimum penalties or MMPs for the offences of trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, production, importing, exporting and possession for the purpose of exporting drugs, all serious drug offences.

Drugs covered are schedule 1 drugs such as cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and schedule 2 drugs such as marijuana. These offences would only carry an MMP where there is an aggravating factor, including where the production of the drug constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard, or the offence was committed in or near a school.

Importantly, there is an exception that allows courts not to impose a mandatory sentence if an offender is eligible for and successfully completes a drug treatment court or DTC program. The program involves a blend of judicial supervision and incentives for reduced drug use, social services support and sanctions for non-compliance. There are six DTCs in Canada: Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver.

If there is no drug treatment court in a particular jurisdiction, the court can delay sentencing to allow the offender to attend another approved treatment program. The Canadian drug treatment court model was initiated by federal prosecutors looking to effectively deal with repeat offenders whose crimes were motivated by drug addictions. By assisting the offender to overcome addiction, criminal recidivism is reduced and success is being achieved.

Bill C-10 also aims to further restrict the use of house arrest and conditional sentences never intended to apply to serious and violent crimes. Bill C-10 includes amendments that explicitly state that a conditional sentence is never available for offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life, for offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that result in bodily harm, involve the import, export, trafficking and production of drugs or involve the use of a weapon, or for specific serious property and violent offences punishable by 10 years and prosecuted by indictments such as criminal harassment, trafficking in persons, motor vehicle theft and theft over $5,000.

Do the critics of our law reform agenda really believe that an offence with a maximum sentence of 14 years should ever be served in the comfort of the offender's home, even under the strictest of conditions? Do these critics believe that drug traffickers should serve a conditional sentence? This government is committed to ensuring that conditional sentences are only an option for appropriate offences. This will result in some offenders serving time in custody. Some will receive other types of sentences. This is as it should be.

Bill C-10 also proposes to denounce all forms of child sexual abuse through the imposition of new and higher mandatory minimum penalties and the creation of two new offences to target conduct which facilitates sexual offending against children. These amendments were included in former Bill C-54, which had been passed by this House with all party support and was at third reading debate in the Senate when it died on the order paper last March. I would be surprised if these reforms are not still strongly supported.

The government intends to keep its promises. One such promise is to better protect our most vulnerable, including children. There will always be critics, but we will be quick to defend our public safety approaches because we do so for the--

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act. I welcome all of the proposals in the bill. I believe their enactment, both individually and collectively, will make a significant contribution to safeguard all communities across Canada.

I will first address the impact for victims of violent crime.

In my riding of Etobicoke Centre, there is a family named Cikovic. The parents are Vesna and Davorin. Vesna is a piano teacher and Davorin works at CBC-Radio. Their son, Boris, attended high school in Etobicoke at Scarlet Heights.

The Cikovic family were refugees from war-torn Sarajevo, with Boris arriving in Canada as an infant. This family worked to escape the horrors of a war where former neighbours preyed upon each other and visited atrocities upon each other in every form imaginable. The family settled in Canada, grateful for the new start they had and grateful for the opportunities that Canada had provided their son.

As Boris grew up in Canada, he became the all-Canadian kid, an athlete and gifted hockey player, a leader on the ice, helping less skilled players score and achieve rather than allow his own talent to dominate. He mentored his teammates. At so young an age, he showed maturity and wisdom that was returned by his large circle of friends with great affection and strong bonds that developed in elementary school and endured through high school and what would have appeared to be beyond university and throughout life. Boris was a leader and one that this close circle rallied around. He was a natural and his future appeared limitless. Then, on a night in 2008, Boris and his friends were transiting a local park, were accosted and he was shot and killed while being robbed of his backpack and valuables.

The Cikovics are victims, devastated by the tragic loss of their only son who had natural gifts and talents and was on his way to becoming a model Canadian success story.

What of the Cikovic family in this? Do is care that Statistics Canada says that crime is down, as the members opposite often cite? I asked the Cikovics that and their response was a resounding no. I challenge any member opposite to look that family in the eye and quote that statistic. The Cikovics are not vengeful people, but they are entitled to justice for their son.

Of the many provisions in Bill C-10, victims of crime would have the ability to present statements at Parole Board hearings. If attending the hearing, the victim may comment on the harm or damage resulting from the offence and its continuing impact, including concerns for his or her safety and the possible release of the offender. Even if the victims does not attend, the Parole Board may authorize presentation of the statement in an alternative format.

Also authorized to present a statement are the persons described to have been harmed or suffered a loss due to the act of the offender. This includes any safety concerns and concerns regarding the offender's potential release. This provision provides victims with empowerment and a role in the corrections process.

Other areas include the elimination of pardons for violent crime and measures that protect the public from violent and repeat young offenders.

Today I speak for a family that has been tragically victimized and I speak in the name of Boris Cikovic who can no longer speak for himself, but today in the House his voice is heard.

I will focus my remaining remarks on Bill C-10 proposals that address child sexual exploitation and violent crimes in part 2 of the bill.

As members know, these proposals were originally introduced as Bill C-54, protecting children from sexual predators act and with all party support had been passed by this chamber in the last Parliament. Bill C-10 has reintroduced these proposals with some additional sentencing enhancements that are consistent with and reflect the overall objectives of these reforms.

Part 2 seeks to better protect children and youth from sexual predators in two ways: first, by proposing sentencing enhancements to ensure that all sexual offences involving child victims are consistently and strongly condemned; and second, by creating new offences and measures to prevent the commission of a child sexual offence.

Bill C-10 has been reported back to the House of Commons after having been thoroughly studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, without any amendments to its child sexual exploitation reforms. Indeed, part 2 proposals received strong support by witnesses appearing before the justice committee, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance, KINSA, as well as the minister of justice and attorney general for New Brunswick who said:

I believe strongly that crimes against children deserve strong sentencing. We believe the changes proposed in this crime bill will make it possible to achieve that objective.

I could not agree more.

Bill C-10 proposes to enhance the sentencing or penalties for sexual offenders involving child victims in two ways. It proposes to impose seven new and nine higher mandatory minimum penalties as well as higher maximum penalties for four child specific sexual offences.

These amendments are needed because, currently, the Criminal Code only imposes MMPs on 12 child specific sexual offences and none at all in the general sexual offences where the victim is a child. For those offences that already impose MMPs, these are inconsistent or simply inadequate. The effect of imposing MMPs in only some but not all sexual offences sends an inconsistent message that not all child sexual offences are serious and perhaps even that some child sexual assault victims are less victims than others.

Imposing inconsistent and inadequate MMPs is equally problematic. For example, currently the Criminal Code imposes a mandatory minimum penalty of 45 days for the offence of sexual interference of a child, even though the maximum penalty or indictment is 10 years. Bill C-10 proposes to fix this by increasing this MMP to one year.

To my mind, and I think to all of us here, the current inconsistent and inadequate approach to sentencing in child sexual abuse cases is wrong. Who among us does not agree that children are the most vulnerable in our society and that all children are deserving of equal protection against all forms of child sexual exploitation? As I noted earlier, Bill C-10 also seeks to prevent sexual assault against children. It proposes two new offences criminalizing sexual assault against children that police witnesses were particularly against.

The first new offence would prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that young person. Child sex offenders often use adult pornographic material to groom their victims, for example to lower their victims' sexual inhibitions with a view to making it easier to sexually exploit them. Though any such use of child pornography is already prohibited, this is not the case for adult material. Accordingly, this new offence would fill a gap. The proposed new offence would impose a mandatory minimum penalty consistent with other parts of the bill.

The second offence proposed by Bill C-10 would prohibit anyone from using telecommunications to agree or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child. This offence is modelled on the existing “luring a child” offence of the Criminal Code that prohibits the use of a computer system to directly communicate with a child for the purpose of facilitating a sexual offence against that child. However, as the “luring a child” offence only applies when communication is with the child victim, this new offence closes the gap where the communication is between two other persons to facilitate the commission of a sexual offence against a child. This offence would also impose a mandatory minimum penalty.

As well, Bill C-10 would impose a condition on convicted child sex offenders or on suspected child sex offenders, a recognizance or peace bond under section 810.1, prohibiting them from having any unsupervised access to a young person or unsupervised use of the Internet. Preventing a known or suspected child sex offender from having the opportunity and tools to commit a child sexual offence should protect other children from being victimized.

I urge all members to support the swift enactment of Bill C-10 so that Canada's children will be protected against sexual exploitation.

Motions in Amendment

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today about Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act, to highlight that this bill is a reflection of our commitment to tackling crime, increasing public safety, and restoring the confidence of Canadians in the justice system.

The people of Canada know they can count on us to deliver on our commitments. Bill C-10 includes nine bills from the previous Parliament. Many critics of the bill argued that the bill was too big and too difficult to understand. I would note that the bill has had a thorough review in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. There has been no difficulty at all in understanding what these reforms seek to do. While not all members share the government's approach, I think all members of the committee would agree that their voices have been heard and we have had a respectful exchange of views.

As has been noted many times, all of these reforms have been previously introduced in Parliament. Many were previously studied and some even passed by at least one chamber. These bills were at various stages in Parliament in the last session, have been debated and studied in this session, and the public and stakeholders as well as members of Parliament are by now very familiar with these proposals.

Despite this familiarity, it is worth noting the elements and the origins of Bill C-10, in other words, the nine bills that were introduced in the last session of Parliament. As the Minister of Justice indicated at second reading debate, some changes have been made to this bill due primarily to the need to co-ordinate the merger of several bills into one and make consequential amendments to effect these changes. In some cases, other modifications were made, all of which are consistent with the objectives of the bill as originally introduced.

The former bills now included in Bill C-10 are the following.

Bill C-4, which proposed to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to ensure that violent and repeat young offenders are held accountable through sentences that are proportionate to the severity of their crimes and that the protection of society is given due consideration in applying the act.

Bill C-5, Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act, which proposed to enhance public safety by modifying the circumstances that would permit an international transfer of an offender.

Bill C-16, which proposed Criminal Code amendments to prevent the use of conditional sentences, or house arrest for serious and violent offences.

Bill C-23B, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, which proposed to amend the Criminal Records Act to expand the period of ineligibility to apply for a record suspension, currently referred to as a pardon, and to make record suspensions unavailable for certain offences and for persons who have been convicted of more than three offences prosecuted by indictment.

Bill C-39, Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act, which proposed amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, to support victims of crime and address inmate accountability and responsibility and the management of offenders.

Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, which proposed Criminal Code amendments to better protect children against sexual abuse, including by increasing the penalties for these offences and creating two new offences aimed at certain conduct that could facilitate or enable the commission of a sexual offence against a child.

Bill C-56, Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act, which proposed to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize immigration officers to refuse work permits where it would protect vulnerable foreign nationals against exploitation, including sexual exploitation.

Bill S-7, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which proposed reforms to allow victims of terrorism to sue terrorists and supporters of terrorism, including listed foreign states.

Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act, which proposed amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences, including when offences are carried out for organized crime purposes, or if they involve targeting youth.

The maximum penalty for the production of some drugs would also be increased. These amendments also proposed to allow a sentencing court to delay sentencing while the offender completed an approved treatment program.

Bill C-10 was studied by the justice committee over several weeks and over 90 motions to amend the bill were considered. While very few were passed and many were completely inconsistent with the principles underlying the bill, each motion was given due consideration.

I would also note that over 80 motions have been proposed at report stage. Many of these motions seek to completely undo or gut the proposed amendments.

As I noted at the outset of my remarks, Bill C-10 reflects our government's commitment to restoring public confidence in our justice system. Clearly, the motions proposed at report stage demonstrate that this commitment is not shared by other members of the House.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the elements of the bill that provide for mandatory minimum penalties and that restrict conditional sentences. The reality is that these reforms are carefully tailored and targeted to offenders who commit the most serious offences.

Should offenders convicted of arson receive a conditional sentence allowing them to serve out their sentence at home under certain conditions? Should an offender convicted of an offence with a maximum sentence of 14 years ever be permitted to serve that sentence in the comfort of the offender's home?

Even under the strictest of conditions I think all Canadians would agree that no matter what the conditions of house arrest may be, it is simply not appropriate for serious offences. Bill C-10 reforms will make that crystal clear.

I would note that motions to amend the proposed reforms to the conditional sentencing provisions were made at committee and again at report stage. Without going into detail, those motions sought to permit conditional sentences to be imposed without regard to any criteria to limit their imposition as long as certain other exceptional circumstances existed about the offender. Such sentences are not appropriate for some offences regardless of the offender's particular circumstances.

Conditional sentences were never intended to be used for the most serious or violent offences. Our reforms will clarify this once and for all and will provide the clear parameters for use of conditional sentences or house arrest.

As I noted, part 2 of the safe streets and communities act includes former Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act. These reforms have been introduced in three previous Parliaments and have been passed by both chambers but never by both in the same session.

Despite our repeated debates and committee study of these reforms, there still remains much misunderstanding about the mandatory minimums for serious drug offences. As noted by other speakers, the minimum mandatory penalties are tailored to serious drug offences where aggravating factors are present.

Importantly, the amendments include an exception that allows courts not to impose the mandatory minimum sentence if an offender successfully completes a drug treatment program or DTC, as it is referred to. The program works with individuals who have been charged with drug-related offences who meet certain eligibility criteria to overcome their drug addictions and avoid future conflict with the law. It involves a blend of judicial supervision, incentives for reduced drug use, social services support and sanctions for non-compliance.

There are currently six drug treatment courts in Canada. They are located in Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver. The same exception applies for other programs, so that a court could delay sentencing to allow the offender to attend another approved treatment program.

This last point seems to have been overlooked by some members and we all share the concern about the need for mental health resources. However, the Criminal Code already permits a court to delay sentencing to permit an offender to attend an approved treatment program. This could be a program for mental health issues, anger management or other similar issues. This already exists in the code.

I will conclude by saying that the government is committed to public safety and improvements to the justice system, and will continue to deliver on the promises that we have made to Canadians.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I want to address a comment that was made by Mr. Gottardi, who said that there has been little previous review and that this is undemocratic.

Mr. Gottardi, were you aware that former Bill C-4, Bill C-5, Bill C-16, Bill C-39, Bill C-23B, Bill C-54, Bill S-7, Bill S-10, and Bill C-56, which are the primary components of this legislation, had 49 days of debate in the House of Commons, 200 speakers, 45 committee meetings, and 123 hours of committee study with 295 witnesses who appeared?

Can you square that circle for me, to say how there has been very little study of this legislation?

[The Honourable Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Rob Nicholson]

Thank you very much. I'm pleased to be here with Catherine Kane, from the Department of Justice, who I think you know very well from all the different pieces of legislation we've had.

I'm pleased to address the members of the committee, as they begin their review of Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act fulfills our government's commitment to quickly reintroduce legislation to combat crime and stand up for victims and law-abiding Canadians. As you know, Canadians gave us a strong mandate to bring forward measures that will better protect society and ensure criminals are held accountable for their actions.

Bill C-10 combines nine bills that were not passed in the previous Parliament. All of them have been debated in the House of Commons and/or the Senate.

I am pleased today to be joined by my colleague, the Honourable Vic Toews, the Minister of Safety, to outline the important measures contained in this bill. I will speak to parts 2 and 4 of the bill. Minister Toews will speak to parts 1 and 3 of the bill.

As I previously stated, while the text of Bill C-10 is certainly longer than most, the fact remains that these reforms have been debated, studied, and in some cases passed by at least one chamber. I encourage all members of the committee to consult the parliamentary record that exists for all of the previous bills.

I'll take a few moments to highlight a number of the measures.

Part 2 of the Safe Streets and Communities Act includes former Bill S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act. As you may know, it proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to impose mandatory penalties for the offences of production, trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting, or possession for the purpose of exporting a schedule I drug, such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, and schedule II drugs such as marijuana.

As you may be aware, this is the fourth time the bill has been introduced. They've been passed by both chambers, but obviously never by both in the same session. This bill is in exactly the same form it was in at the dissolution of the last Parliament.

Part 2 also includes reforms previously proposed by the former Bill C-16, the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act. The reforms would explicitly state that a conditional sentence is never available for offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life; offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that result in bodily harm, involve the import and/or export, trafficking, and production of drugs, or involve the use of a weapon; or the listed property and violent offences punishable by 10 years and prosecuted by indictment, such as criminal harassment, trafficking in persons, and theft over $5,000.

This is the third time these reforms have been introduced by our government. On each prior occasion, they received second reading approval in principle and scope.

I note there have been a few technical changes made to the list of excluded offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years. These include changes to include the recently enacted new offence of motor vehicle theft and to coordinate the proposed imposition of a mandatory sentence of imprisonment in section 172.1, the luring of a child, with the conditional sentences amendments.

The last component of part 2 is on the reforms previously proposed by Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act. These reforms seek to consistently and adequately condemn all forms of child sexual abuse through the imposition of new and higher mandatory penalties. They also seek to prevent the commission of sexual offences against children through the creation of two new offences. We also seek to require the courts to consider imposing conditions to prevent suspected or convicted child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate or further a sexual offence against a child.

Bill C-54 had been passed by the House of Commons with all-party support. It was at debate on third reading in the Senate when the opposition parties unfortunately decided to force an election. I was very disappointed that this important bill then died on the order paper.

We've made some changes since that time, as you will see, to increase maximum penalties with a corresponding increase in mandatory minimum sentences to better reflect the nature of the offences, including making or distributing child pornography or a parent or guardian procuring his or her child for unlawful sexual activity.

These changes are consistent with the government's objectives for the former Bill C-54. As well, the two new sexual offences proposed by this part would be added to schedule 1 of the Criminal Records Act to ensure that persons convicted of either offence are subject to the same period of ineligibility for a record suspension, currently referred to as a pardon, as they are for other child sexual offences.

Finally, part IV of the bill proposes to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to strengthen the way the system deals with violent and repeat young offenders.

These measures include highlighting protection of the public as a principle, making it easier to detain youth charged with serious offences pending trial, ensuring that prosecutors consider seeking adult sentences for the most serious offences, requiring police to keep records of extra judicial measures, and requiring courts to lift the publication ban on the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences when a youth sentence is given. These reforms were previously proposed in Bill C-4 , Sebastien's Law.

The former Bill C-4 was extensively studied by the House of Commons standing committee through 16 meetings at the dissolution of the previous Parliament. The bill includes changes to address concerns that have been highlighted by the provinces regarding pretrial adult sentencing and deferred custody provisions in the bill. For example, changes to the pretrial detention provisions respond to the provinces' request for more flexibility to detain youth who are spiralling out of control and pose a risk to the public--by committing a serious offence if released--even if they have not been charged initially with a serious offence. The test for pretrial detention would now be self-contained in the act, without requiring reference to the Criminal Code, which is currently the case.

Other technical changes include removing the proposed test for adult sentences and deferred custody and supervision orders and returning to the current law's approach. For example, the former bill referred to the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which some provinces found more difficult to meet. That has been removed. The bill continues the current approach of leaving it up to the courts to determine the appropriate standard of proof.

Under Bill C-10, deferred custody and supervision orders will not be available if the youth has been found guilty of an offence involving or attempting to cause serious bodily harm.

In closing, most of Bill C-10's reforms have been debated and studied, and some have even passed. The few new elements I've outlined are consistent with the objectives of the former bills, as originally introduced, or make some needed technical changes. I urge the committee to work with the government to support the timely enactment of the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

We are taking action to protect families, stand up for victims, and hold individuals accountable. Canadians can count on our government's commitment to fulfill its promise to pass this comprehensive bill within the first 100 sitting days of this Parliament.

Thank you very much.

I would ask Minister Toews now to deliver his remarks.

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

We all know that the safe streets and communities act proposes a wide range of reforms to strengthen the law's response to several things: child sexual abuse and exploitation, serious drug and violent property crimes, terrorism, violent young offenders, offender accountability and management, and the protection of vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation.

As many hon. members have noted, the bill brings together in one comprehensive package reforms that were included in nine bills that were put before the previous Parliament and that died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament for the general election.

I will itemize these. These former bills are: Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders); Bill C-5, Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act; Bill C-16, Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act; Bill C-23B, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act; Bill C-39, Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act; Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act; Bill C-56, Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act; Bill C-59, Abolition of Early Parole Act; Bill S-7, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act; and finally Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act.

Many hon. members have participated in several hours of debate today and ongoing debate from the last Parliament to now. It is clear that some do not share the same views as the government about the need to address crime in our society, the need to increase public safety, the need to better balance the role of victims in the justice system and the need to make offenders more accountable.

My remarks here today need not repeat what some of my hon. colleagues have already noted about the key features of Bill C-10 and the importance of these reforms. I propose to briefly comment on the important reforms proposed in Bill C-10 as they relate to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act came into effect in April 2003. The reforms now proposed in Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act, have been shaped by consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. After five years of experience with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, a review was launched by the Minister of Justice in 2008. This began with discussions with provincial and territorial attorneys general to identify the issues that they considered most important.

In May 2008, the Minister of Justice began a series of cross-country round tables, often co-chaired by provincial and territorial ministers, in order to hear from youth justice professionals, front-line youth justice stakeholders and others about areas of concern and possible improvements regarding the provisions and principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Input from individuals and organizations was also provided through the Department of Justice website, in letters and in in-person meetings. The results showed clearly that most provinces, territories and stakeholders believe the current youth legislation works well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes. However, there were concerns about the small number of youth who commit serious, violent offences or who are repeat offenders who may need a more focused approach to ensure the public is protected.

Clearly, the message was to build upon the good foundation of the law and make much needed improvements and the reforms proposed in Bill C-10 reflect this. Although the Youth Criminal Justice Act is working well for most youth, particular elements of the act need to be strengthened to ensure that youth who commit serious, violent or repeat offences are held accountable with sentences and other measures that are proportionate to the severity of the crime and the degree of the responsibility of the offender.

There have been concerns voiced from many sources and this government has responded. The reforms included in Bill C-10, previously included in Bill C-4, known as Sébastien's law, would enhance our fair and effective youth justice system and result in a system that holds youth accountable for their criminal misconduct and promotes their rehabilitation and re-integration into society in order to promote the protection of the public.

In addressing amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it is important to note that the act's preamble specifically references that Canada is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Youth Criminal Justice Act also recognizes that young persons have rights and freedoms, including those stated in the charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights. Nothing in Bill C-10 will impair these rights of young persons.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act provides for a range of responses that relate to the seriousness of the crime. These sentences also address the needs and circumstances of the youth and promote rehabilitation.

Amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act will ensure that young people under 18 who are serving a custody sentence will serve it in a youth custody facility. It will no longer be possible to put young people in adult prisons or penitentiaries, where the correctional regime is more suited to adults and where young people could all too easily become vulnerable to older, more hardened criminals. It is in the interests of the protection of society that young people become rehabilitated, and this amendment is aimed to ensure that this takes place.

While a sound legislative base is an essential part of ensuring that Canada has a fair and effective youth justice system, it is also essential to address the conditions that underlie criminal behaviour if we are to achieve any long-term or meaningful solution to the problem. Conditions such as addiction, difficult childhoods, mental health, fetal alcohol syndrome, or longer-term marginalization will continue to pose challenges to solving the problems of youth offending.

Our government has implemented various programs to assist in addressing these issues. The national anti-drug strategy has a significant youth focus. On the prevention front, the government has launched a national public awareness program and campaign to discourage our youth from using illicit drugs. The government has made funding available under the youth justice fund for pilot treatment programs that will assist with the rehabilitation of youth who have drug problems and are in the justice system, and for programs that are working toward preventing youth from becoming involved with guns, gangs and drugs.

Partnering with health, education, employment and other service providers beyond the traditional system, we can all work together. For example, through the youth justice fund the Department of Justice provided funding to a pilot program called Career Path, which offers a comprehensive specialized service for youth in the justice system who are at risk or are involved in gang activities. The program offers youth educational training and employment opportunities by connecting them with an employer who will also act as a mentor to facilitate making smart choices, foster pro-social attitudes, build leadership skills and gain valuable employability skills as a viable option to gang membership.

The reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act are essential and responsive and should be supported as a key part of a broader effort on the part of the government to prevent and respond to youth involved in the justice system.

I would like to bring it a little closer to home, if I may.

This is the story of Ann Tavares, of London, who suffered a huge loss in November of 2004 when Stephan Lee stabbed her son 28 times. Steven Tavares was an innocent victim who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His death irreparably scarred the lives of those who loved him forever. That loss is what happened.

To compound her tragedy, her son's killer was found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder and sent to an Alberta hospital the following year. He was conditionally released in May 2008 and is now living in Alberta. All of this happened without notification to the victim's family or the public at large.

Suffering such a loss might have destroyed an individual. However, this became an impetus for Ann's quest to make others aware of what happened to her son and the lack of justice for this heinous crime. She has lobbied tirelessly against the inequities of the system, a system the government is trying to fix.

Ann strongly felt that there needs to be a connection between mental illness and crime. Specifically, she felt that the insanity defence needs to be banned. She felt that to say a perpetrator is not criminally responsible is too subjective. Mental impairment is a defence that anyone can claim. If someone commits a crime, that person should be punished.

She believes mental illness should not absolve someone from the crime they committed. The punishment needs to be based on the severity of the crime, and a fixed minimum time needs to be served before they are put back into the community. However, Ann did want good to come of her tragic situation. In addition to the punishment, she felt that the perpetrator should get mental health treatment, and that to protect innocent victims like her son and the community at large, such criminals should not be released into the community until they have been certified as not a risk to others.

I would like to expand on that through the questions and answers, if I might, Madam Speaker.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-10, the government's so-called Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Indeed, of the many ways in which the Conservative government is moving Canada backward, few initiatives do more to achieve this than Bill C-10.

In my riding of Davenport over the last two years, this is one of the issues that has come up most often. There is concern over the government's obsession with spending billions of dollars, and by the way, compelling the provinces to do the same, on a crime bill that will largely not make our streets any safer and will not contribute to building stronger communities.

I live in a riding where in the last two years we have seen schools close, recreation centres close, daycare centres close. Programs to help settle new immigrants have been gutted. Bus routes, used primarily by folks doing shift work, have been cut. Senior services are in dire need of new investments. I live in a city where 70,000 people are on a waiting list for affordable housing.

While the essential services that are needed to create strong, vibrant, safe streets and communities are being choked, the government can find billions upon billions of dollars for an experiment on crime prevention which has failed in every jurisdiction where it has been attempted. It utterly failed, as we know, in the United States.

Members should not get me wrong. It is not that people in my riding are not concerned about crime. They are concerned about crime. Indeed they are, but I am reminded of a conversation I had with some residents who were concerned about drug dealers taking over the local park. I am concerned about that too. It was not that they were just concerned about the dealers. To a person, these residents complained not so much that there are not enough prisons to lock the dealers up, but that there are not enough programs for young people to get involved in. With nothing to do and few local job prospects, young people are vulnerable to falling into gang culture and criminal elements. Bill C-10 does not address this fundamental foundational issue around crime prevention.

While I listed all the closures in my riding, and I could list more, there are things that are being built and opened in my riding. In the riding of Davenport there are two brand new police stations being built as we speak. Many are hopeful, as am I, that these new police stations in our neighbourhoods will help with some of the crime issues that people are dealing with, but the problem underlined in my riding is writ large in Bill C-10: there is no balance.

In communities across the country investment in social infrastructure is desperately needed, yet we are told that we are heading into a period of austerity and that there is no money. Well, there is money for some things, but when ideology trumps common sense, we get nasty pieces of legislation like Bill C-10.

Instead of a national affordable housing strategy that would provide a framework to provide stable affordable housing, a key determinant to health and a primary building block for safe communities, the government will spend over $500 million this year alone on new prison construction. That is the housing strategy for Canada.

While the government squeezes middle and working class families and small businesses, it is happy to spend over $162,000 on average annually for each new prison cell in this country, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Instead of investing in getting at the roots of poverty, mental illness and addiction, instead of focusing on a comprehensive pan-Canadian job strategy--and rolling over for the oil and gas industry is not a cross-Canada jobs program--the government wants to spend close to $3 billion a year locking up more people, providing fewer programs to rehabilitate them, all the while draining our public coffers, our precious resources, that could truly create safer streets. Indeed, prison costs are up 86% since the Conservatives took power while the crime rate continues to fall to its lowest level since the 1970s.

The government has racked up the biggest fiscal deficit in the history of Canada. Instead of being smart with taxpayer money, it plays politics and lets its dated right-wing ideology continue to craft bad public policy.

For example, a single new low security cell is going to cost $260,000 to build. A medium security cell is going to cost $400,000. A maximum security cell is going to cost $600,000. For goodness sake, even the annual cost of an inmate in a community correctional centre is now over $85,000 a year. Does this make fiscal sense?

As the income gap gets wider and wider in our country, the government hectors Canadians about belt-tightening, while its spends and spends on a prison expansion scheme about which both the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, among many others, have serious concerns.

The government does not actually want to hear what Canadians think about this omnibus bill. If it did, it would not have limited debate on the bill. Bill C-10 packages up nine government bills from the previous Parliament and presents them to the House and to Canadians as one whopping bill. Then it says that it wants us to accept it all without any conversation or debate.

With the motion that passed yesterday morning, Canadians in the House will only be able to debate for a period of less than two hours for each of the nine bills. For a government that was elected to bring more transparency and more accountability to this place, it is in fact bringing less. The action of limiting debate on this huge and outrageously expensive bill is one more example of its lack of transparency.

It is too bad. Canadians deserve to have Bill C-10 aired to its fullest. Experts say that mandatory minimum sentences do not work for reducing drug use, tackling organized crime or making our communities safer. The measures contained in the bill, for example, will not make it easier for law enforcement agencies to get to the organized crime bosses who run the drug trade, who we need to bring in and incarcerate.

One of the most effective ways to promote public safety is the successful rehabilitation and reintegration back into society of offenders. Our federal prison system lacks the programs to deal with this effectively. This legislation does not deal with this issue in any kind of real way.

We do not oppose everything in the bill. As we saw yesterday in the House, my hon. colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh tabled a motion that would have expedited the passing of elements of the bill that were in the last Parliament, known as Bill C-54. This section seeks to protect children from exploitation and sexual abuse. In fact, the government has adopted measures in this section of Bill C-10 put forward by the NDP in private member's bills.

It is too bad that the government would rather play politics than move quickly on parts of the bill that could get unanimous support in this House, like those measures to protect our children. In fact, immediately after voting down the motion that would have sent that part of the bill to the Senate within 48 hours, government members proceeded with statements on the importance of the very measure they had just voted against putting on the fast track.

As I said, there are things in the bill which we do agree with and which we could find common ground with the government on, but it is not really interested in doing that. The government's decision to limit debate heaps a measure of ideological cynicism on to what should be a very thorough, serious examination.

The bill is too costly and it will not make our streets and communities safer. We on the NDP side of the House have come prepared to work with the government to quickly pass the measures that will protect children and to fix measures that will not work. It is too bad the government wants to play politics and games with the safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act

Bill C-10 is a comprehensive bill that brings together reforms proposed from nine bills that were before the previous Parliament. The short title of the bill, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, reflects the overall intent of this comprehensive legislation. It seeks to safeguard Canadians and Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast. This is such a fundamental principle and objective. To my mind, this objective should be unanimously supported by all parliamentarians in all instances and in all cases. While I appreciate there are many issues on which we as lawmakers may reasonably disagree the safety and security of Canadians, including that of vulnerable children, should never be one such issue.

Let us consider this comprehensive bill is. It proposes amendments that generally seek to do the following:

First, Bill C-10, through part 2, proposes to better protect children and youth from sexual predators. These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-54 in the last Parliament, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act.

Specifically, these amendments would propose new and higher mandatory minimum penalties to ensure that all sexual offences involving child victims are consistently and strongly condemned. They would create two new offences to target preparatory conduct to the commission of a sexual offence against a child. They would also enable courts to impose conditions on suspected or convicted child sex offenders to prevent them from engaging in conduct that could lead to their committing another sexual offence against a child.

Second, through part 2, Bill C-10 proposes to increase penalties by imposing mandatory minimum penalties when specified aggravated factors are present for serious drug offences. Those offences would be the production, trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting, possession for the purpose of exporting of schedule 1 drugs such as heroine, cocaine, methamphetamine, and schedule 2 drugs such as marijuana.

These offences often involve organized crime, including gang warfare over turf, which in turn brings its own disastrous impact on Canadian communities. They also enable and feed drug abuse, the negative impact of which is not only felt by the addicted individual but also by the family of that addict, as well as by the Canadian health system and the economy.

These reforms were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in former Bill S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act.

Third, part 2 of the bill includes what was previously proposed in former Bill C-16, the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act to end house arrest for serious crimes.

Under these reforms offences carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years, as well as serious offences that are punishable by 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment, that result in bodily harm, or the import or export, trafficking and production of drugs, or that involve the use of a weapon, or that is specifically identified, would never be eligible to receive a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Fourth, Bill C-10, through part 4, proposes to protect the public from violent and repeat young offenders. These amendments include: recognizing the protection of society as a principle in the Youth Criminal Justice Act; making it easier to detain youths charged with serious offences pending trial; requiring the courts to consider adult sentences for the most serious and violent cases; and, requiring the police to keep records of extrajudicial measures.

These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-4, Sébastien's law and respond to the Supreme Court of Canada 2008 judgment in Regina v. D.B., and the 2006 Nova Scotia report of the Nunn commission of inquiry “Spiralling Out of Control, Lessons Learned From a Boy in Trouble”.

Fifth, Bill C-10, through part 3, includes proposals to replace the word "pardons" with "record suspensions". It would expand the period of ineligibility to apply for a record suspension and proposes to make record suspensions unavailable for certain offences, including child sexual offences, and for persons who have been convicted of more than three offences prosecuted by indictment and for each of which the individual received a sentence of two years or more.

These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-23B, the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act.

Sixth, Bill C-10, also through part 3, proposes to codify some additional key factors in deciding whether a Canadian who has been convicted abroad would be granted a transfer back to Canada. These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act.

Seventh, Bill C-10, through part 3, proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to recognize the rights of victims, increase offender accountability and responsibility, and modernize the disciplinary system for inmates. These proposals were previously proposed in former Bill C-39, the Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act.

Eighth, Bill C-10, through part 1, seeks to deter terrorism by supporting victims of terrorism. Specifically, these reforms would enable victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that is incurred as a result of an act of terrorism committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985. These amendments were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in former Bill S-7, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Last, Bill C-10, through part 5, proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to protect vulnerable foreign nationals against abuse and exploitation. These amendments were previously proposed in former Bill C-56, the Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act.

I have briefly summarized the nine core elements of Bill C-10. All of these proposed amendments seek to better protect Canadians. That is something on which we should all be able to agree. Certainly, we know it is something on which Canadians agree. I call on all members to support the bill at second reading so it can be quickly referred to and studied by the justice committee.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

The bill would fulfill the government's commitment in the June 2011 Speech from the Throne to bundle and quickly reintroduce crime bills that died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved for the general election.

Integral to this commitment, as articulated in the Speech from the Throne, are two key statements that I want to quote because I think they give voice to what all Canadians firmly believe.

First:

The Government of Canada has no more fundamental duty than to protect the personal safety of our citizens and defend against threats to our national security.

Second:

Our government has always believed the interests of law-abiding citizens should be placed ahead of those of criminals. Canadians who are victimized or threatened by crime deserve their government's support and protection--

In my view, this precisely characterizes Bill C-10. It packages nine former bills that, collectively, recognize and seek to protect our vulnerabilities; for example, children's vulnerability to being preyed upon by adult sexual predators, foreign workers' vulnerability to being exploited by unscrupulous Canadian employers, and our collective vulnerability to suffering the harms that go hand in hand with serious drug crimes, such as drug trafficking, production and acts of terrorism.

Knowing this, and knowing as well that many of these reforms have been previously debated, studied and passed by at least one chamber, there is no reason not to support Bill C-10 in this Parliament.

Bill C-10 is divided into five parts.

Part 1 proposes to deter terrorism by supporting victims. It would create a new cause of action for victims of terrorism to enable them to sue not only the perpetrators of terrorism but all those who support terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism or omission committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985.

The State Immunity Act would be amended to remove immunity from those states that the government has listed as supporters of terrorism. These amendments were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in the form of Bill S-7, justice for victims of terrorism act, in the previous session of Parliament. They are reintroduced in Bill C-10, with technical changes to correct grammatical and cross-reference errors.

Part 2 proposes to strengthen our existing responses to child exploitation and serious drug crimes, as well as serious violent and property crimes. It would better protect children against sexual abuse in several ways, including by uniformly and strongly condemning all forms of child sex abuse through the imposition of newer and higher mandatory minimum penalties, as well as creating new core powers to impose conditions to prevent suspected or convicted child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate or further their sexual offences against children.

These reforms are the same as they were in former Bill C-54, protecting children from sexual predators act, with the addition of proposed increases to the maximum penalty for four offences and corresponding increases in their mandatory minimum penalities to better reflect the particularly heinous nature of these offences.

Part 2 also proposes to specify that conditional sentences of imprisonment, often referred to as house arrest, are never available for offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life, for offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that result in bodily harm, trafficking and production of drugs or that involve the use of a weapon, or for listed serious property and violent offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that are prosecuted by indictment.

These reforms were previously proposed in former Bill C-16, ending house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious violent offenders act which had received second reading in this House and was referred to the justice committee when it died on the order paper.

It is in the same form as before with, again, a few technical changes that are consistent with the objectives of the bill as was originally introduced.

Part 2 also proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to impose mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences involving production and/or possession for the purposes of trafficking and/or importing and exporting and/or possession for the purpose of exporting Schedule I drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, and Schedule II drugs, such as marijuana.

These mandatory minimum penalties would be imposed where there is an aggravating factor, including where the production of the drug constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard, or the offence was committed in or near a school.

This is the fourth time that these amendments have been introduced. They are in the same form as they were the last time when they were passed by the Senate as former Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act, in the previous Parliament.

Part 3 proposes numerous post-sentencing reforms to better support victims and to increase offender accountability and management. Specifically, it reintroduces reforms previously contained in three bills from the previous Parliament: Bill C-39, Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act; Bill C-5, Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act; and Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Bill C-10 reintroduces these reforms with some technical changes.

Part 4 reintroduces much needed reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to better deal with violent and repeat young offenders. Part 4 includes reforms that would ensure the protection of the public is always considered a principle in dealing with young offenders and that will make it easier to detain youth charged with serious offences pending trial.

These reforms were also previously proposed in former Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders).

Part 5 proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to better protect foreign workers against abuse and exploitation. Their reintroduction in Bill C-10 reflects the fifth time that these reforms have been before Parliament, with the last version being former Bill C-56, Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act.

In short, Bill C-10 proposes many needed and welcome reforms to safeguard Canadians. Many have already been supported in the previous Parliament and Canadians are again expecting us to support them in this Parliament.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have sat in the House today and enjoyed the speeches from all sides. Certainly it is a topic that gives the full sense of the word debate because there is a difference opinion here, and I can appreciate that.

It is my pleasure to rise and add my comments to the debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. As other speakers before me have, I would like to break it down. It is an omnibus bill. We have heard that. It is nine different bills that have been moved together into this one that will help make our streets and our communities safer. I would also like to focus on the legislation that proposes to strengthen the sentences for those who commit sexual offences against children. I am pleased to hear that those from the other side of the House would like to see this brought forward as well.

Bill C-10 proposes to add mandatory minimum penalties to seven offences that do not currently impose mandatory minimum penalties, including incest, under section 155, Internet luring a child, section 172.1 and section 271, and sexual assault where the victim is under the age of 16 years. It also proposes higher mandatory minimum penalties for nine existing child specific sexual offences, including sexual interference, section 151, sexual exploitation and making and distributing as well as possessing child pornography.

As well, in building on what was originally proposed in the former Bill C-54, Bill C-10 proposes to increase the maximum penalty for four child sex offences with a corresponding increase in their mandatory minimum sentences to better reflect the particularly heinous nature of those offences.

First is bestiality involving a child, section 160, when proceeded on summary conviction, it increases the maximum penalty from six months to two years less a day and imposes a mandatory minimum of six months imprisonment. Former Bill C-54 had proposed a mandatory minimum penalty of 30 days.

The second one is making and distributing child pornography, section 163.1(2) and (3). When proceeded on summary conviction, it increases the maximum penalty from 18 months to two years less a day and increases the current mandatory minimum penalty from 90 days to 6 months.

Also, the other offence is the indictable offence of a parent or a guardian procuring sexual activity, section 170, increasing the minimum penalty from 6 months to 1 year and the maximum penalty from 5 to 10 years when the victim is under the age of 16 and from 45 days to 6 months and 2 years to 5 years respectively when the victim is between the ages of 16 and 17 years.

As I said earlier, Bill C-10 also seeks to criminalize preparatory conduct; that is, to criminalize conduct that child sex offenders engage in to facilitate their ultimate objective of actually sexually assaulting a child. It does so by proposing to enact two new offences.

The first new offence would prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that young person. Many sex offenders do this with a view to grooming their victims, for example, to lower their victim's sexual inhibitions with a view to making it easier to sexually exploit them a little later on. Currently, this conduct is only criminalized if the offender provides the child with material that constitutes child pornography.

Bill C-10 defines “sexually explicit material” as a representation that shows either a person engaged in explicit sexual activity or that shows the person's genital organs and does it in a way to lessen the child's resolve to fight against it. Although this is a new definition and a new offence, the definition incorporates terminology that is already used in the child pornography offence. Section 163.1 includes both aspects of this definition and the voyeurism offence incorporates both aspects of the definition.

The proposed new offence would also impose a mandatory minimum penalty consistent with those proposed elsewhere in the bill.

The second offence proposed by Bill C-10 will prohibit anyone from using telecommunications to agree or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child. It is modelled on the existing “luring a child” offence in section 172.1 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits using a computer system to communicate directly with a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child.

However, as the luring offence only applies if the communication is with the specific child victim, this new offences closes the gap where the communication is between two other persons to facilitate the commission of a sexual offence against the child, in effect, where perhaps two adults come together on purpose to victimize a young child. This new offence would also impose a mandatory minimum penalty consistent with those proposed elsewhere in the bill.

These two new offences would also be added to schedule 1 of the Criminal Records Act to ensure that persons convicted of these new offences would be ineligible to apply for a record suspension or pardon, as it is currently called, for the same period of time as for the other child sex offences.

Last, Bill C-10 proposes reforms to prevent child sex offenders from engaging in conduct or practices that can facilitate their sexual offending.

Currently a court can impose a condition on convicted child sex offenders, a prohibition order under section 161, or on suspected child sex offenders, a recognizance or peace bond under section 810.1, prohibiting them from engaging in specified conduct that would facilitate their commission of one of the enumerated child sex offences or even the abduction offences.

For example, these conditions can prohibit an offender from attending places that are normally frequented by children. The example that has been given many times is the offender who shows up on school grounds or shows up on a playground.

Also, an offender can be prohibited from obtaining a paid or volunteer position involving a position of trust or authority over children. That might be as a provider of day care or as a provider of education, some of those different examples.

Bill C-10 proposes to expand the list of offences for which these conditions may be imposed to include the four child procuring prostitution offences in section 212: subsection 212(1), procuring; 212(2), living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of 18; aggravated offence in relation to living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of 18 years; and subsection 212(4), prostitution of a person under the age of 18.

Bill C-10 also proposes to require the court to consider imposing two new conditions: prohibiting the offender from having any unsupervised access to a young person; and prohibiting the offender from having any unsupervised use of the Internet.

These types of conditions, to put it plainly, just make sense. If we prevent the offender from having the opportunity or the tools to commit a child sex offence, then we prevent new children from becoming victims.

I would also note that these preventive measures would be added to the existing provisions in sections 161 and 810.1, with the result that they will be subject to the same checks and balances that currently exist for these provisions, such as, for example, enabling the offender or the Crown to apply to vary the conditions where a court is satisfied that it is desirable due to a change in circumstances.

I have heard a little today that we are pushing the bill through. There have been over 200 speeches given on different sections of the bill in the previous Parliament and even the speeches today. I would urge the opposition to jump on board to support these measures that would help keep our community safe and our streets.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Bill C-10 is comprehensive legislation that addresses a number of serious issues that are in front of mind for this government and for all Canadians.

It proposes legislative reforms to strengthen our existing responses to: child sexual abuse and exploitation as well as serious drug, violent and property crimes found in part 2, clauses 10 to 51; terrorism, found in part 1, clauses 2 to 9; violent young offenders, part 4, clauses 167 to 204; offender accountability and management, part 3, clauses 52 to 166; and the protection of vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, part 5, clauses 205 to 207.

There can be no question that this is an important package of reforms. That is why we must take our task as lawmakers seriously, and study and pass these proposals to ensure the safety of all Canadians.

Bill C-10 compiles the reforms that were included in nine bills that were before the previous Parliament which died on the order paper with the dissolution of that Parliament for the general election. Former Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders) is now in part 4 of Bill C-10. Former Bill C-5, Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-16, Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act is now in part 2. Former Bill C-23B, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-39, Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act is now in part 2. Bill C-56, Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act is now in part 5. Former Bill C-59, Abolition of Early Parole Act is now in part 3. Former Bill S-7, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act is now in part 1. Former Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act is now in part 2.

Many of these former bills were previously debated, studied and some were even passed by the House of Commons. Therefore, they should easily be supported again in this Parliament.

I would like to focus the balance of my remarks on the proposals in Bill C-10 to better protect children against sexual exploitation, that being those reforms now in part 2 of this legislation that were previously in Bill C-54 in the last session of Parliament.

The reforms build on the government's well-established commitment and track record in delivering concrete measures tackling violent crime, and in particular to safeguard children against violent sexual offenders. For example, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, 2008 raised the age of consent of sexual activity from 14 to 16 years to better protect Canadian youth against adult sexual predators. It also better protected all Canadians against dangerous offenders by providing police, crown prosecutors and the courts with much needed tools to more effectively manage the threat posed by individuals who were at high risk of reoffending sexually and violently.

While it is true that our existing criminal laws addressing child sexual abuse and exploitation are already comprehensive and robust, there is always room for improvement. We should never be complacent in ensuring that we are doing all we can to safeguard such a vulnerable segment of the Canadian population.

This point is underscored by Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Juristat article “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2010”, released on July 21, 2011, which reported increases in the rates of child pornography offences as up 36% and sexual assault as up 5%.

The proposed reforms in Bill C-10 are both timely and welcome. They address clear gaps in our existing laws. The address the gap created by inconsistent penalties for sexual assault offences where the victim is a child and the gap that now exists because some of the preparatory conduct engaged in by child sex offenders is not criminalized. They fill a gap in our existing measures to help prevent known or suspected child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate their sexual offences.

The proposals in Bill C-10 seek to ensure that all sexual offences involving a child are treated equally, seriously and consistently. They do so by: proposing to impose new mandatory minimum penalties for offences involving child victims that currently do not carry minimum penalties; increasing the mandatory minimum penalties for some child sex offences that are already imposed; and, by increasing the maximum penalties on some other offences. Once these reforms are enacted, there would be a consistent approach to sentencing in all sexual assault cases involving child victims.

Child sexual assault could be charged under any of the child-specific sexual offences or under the general sexual assault offences that also apply to adult victims. Currently, 12 but not all child-specific sexual offences impose mandatory minimum penalties and none of the general sexual assault offences impose mandatory minimum penalties.

In practice, this means that the overwhelming majority of child sexual assault cases do not carry mandatory minimum sentences. This is because the majority of child sexual offences are charged under the general sexual assault offence in section 271, which does not currently impose a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment. That is 80% of all child sex offences charged in 2008. The source of this information is Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, UCR2. It is very current data.

If we take as our starting point the universally shared view that all child sexual abuse must be strongly condemned and that mandatory minimum penalties are exceptional in the Criminal Code and are reserved for those crimes that Parliament determines must be strongly denounced and deterred, it should be obvious to all that the current use of mandatory minimum sentences for some but not all sexual offences involving child victims is just wrong. That sends a message to some victims that their experience of sexual assault is less serious than that of other child victims. It also sends a message to child sex offenders that they should try to plea bargain for charges under offences that do not impose mandatory minimum penalties.

Bill C-10 contains fundamental legislative safeguards for all Canadians. I call upon the opposition members to put an end to their attempts to obstruct the bill and to support our efforts to keep Canadians safe.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to realize that many of these things have been debated, up, down and sideways, certainly in the previous Parliament, namely Bill C-54.

We feel very strongly that what we have put together is a response to the mandate that has been given to us by the Canadian people. We campaigned on these issues. We are fulfilling our responsibility, our mandate, and our accountability to the people who sent us here.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons this evening to speak on second reading of Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act.

I would like to add to the comments made by my friend, the hon. Minister of Justice, with respect to the provisions in Bill C-10 that would ensure individuals who sexually abuse children serve sentences that reflect the severity of their heinous crimes committed against the most vulnerable and defenceless members of society.

Over the duration of my almost 40 years of practical experience in law enforcement, I have played a leading role in helping protect victims of child abuse and exploitation.

Canadians have long supported this government's efforts to put the plight of victims ahead of the rights of criminals. The commitment was made in the June 1, 2004 document entitled “Demand Safer Communities”, the Conservative plan for Canada’s criminal justice system. wherein it stated:

--prohibit conditional sentences for child sex offences to ensure that all of those charged with these offences will serve prison time and be removed from the community.

Our government has listened to the plight of victims and law-abiding Canadians. Our government has received successive strengthened mandates from Canadians to pass these long-needed reforms to give law enforcement and victims the upper hand.

That is why I am honoured to rise as a member of this government today. We are delivering on the promise to Canadians by working to pass this important legislation without further delay.

One of the other objectives of our legislation to address child sexual exploitation is preventing the commission of a contact sexual offence against a child in the first place. It does so by proposing two new offences, and proposing to require courts to consider imposing two new specific conditions that would serve to prevent a suspected or convicted child sex offender from engaging in conduct that could facilitate their sexual offending.

These proposals remain as originally introduced in former Bill C-54. The first new offence would prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that young person. This practice is often used by child sex offenders to groom their victims to make it easier to sexually exploit their victims.

This conduct is already prohibited where the material consists of child pornography, but if the material in question depicts adults engaged in explicit sexual activity, the Criminal Code does not currently prohibit this use of material. This does not meet the very high threshold of the legal definition of obscene material under section 163 of the Criminal Code.

This current definition only applies to depictions of explicit sexual activity coupled with violence or that are judicially determined to be degrading or dehumanizing. Clearly, this creates a gap in our criminal law, and Bill C-10 represents an appropriate and reasonable response to that gap.

This new offence would carry a penalty similar to that of the existing obscenity/corruption morals offence in section 163, namely a maximum of six months imprisonment on summary conviction and two years imprisonment on an indictable offence. It would impose a mandatory minimum of 30 days on summary conviction and 90 days on an indictable, more serious criminal offence.

The second new offence proposed by Bill C-10 would prohibit anyone from using telecommunications to agree or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child. Again, this new offence would fill a gap in the current law.

Currently, the offence of luring a child, section 172 of the Criminal Code, prohibits using a computer system to communicate directly with a child for the purposes of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child. This offence does not apply where the communication does not directly involve the child victim.

The new offence uses the term “telecommunications” which is defined by section 2 of the Federal Interpretation Act as the emission, transmission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by any wire, cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar technical system.

In my view, this broad definition and approach ensures that the new offence will apply to the same prohibited use of any new technology that may be created after this offence is enacted. This new offence would operate in a manner similar to the existing luring a child offence under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. For example, both contain the same provisions about presumed or reasonable but mistaken belief in the age of a child. Both preserve the common law defence of entrapment for an accused in the appropriate circumstances, and both would carry the same penalties, a mandatory minimum of 90 days and a maximum of 18 months imprisonment on summary conviction and a mandatory minimum of one year and a maximum of 10 years imprisonment on an indictable offence.

Bill C-10 proposes to add these two new offences to schedule 1 of the Criminal Records Act. Individuals convicted of these new offences would be ineligible to apply for a record suspension, currently known as a pardon and which part 3 of Bill C-10 proposes to rename as a record suspension.

Bill C-10 also includes former Bill C-54's proposals to expand the powers of a court to prohibit a convicted child sex offender, under section 161, and a suspected child sex offender, under section 810.1, from engaging in conduct that could facilitate their commission of one of the enumerated child sexual or abduction offences.

Specifically, these proposals would broaden the list of offences for which these conditions may be imposed to include the four child procuring prostitution offences in section 212. These are described in the actual words in the Criminal Code. It would also direct a court to consider imposing a condition prohibiting the offender from having any unsupervised access to a young person or from having any unsupervised use of the Internet.

The objective of these conditions is self-evident. If we deny a known or suspected child sex offender access to a child or from having access to a tool such as the Internet that can enable that person to sexually exploit a child, then hopefully we can prevent the victimization of yet other victims.

As chief of the London police force, I led an investigation into a network of individuals involved in child sexual abuse and exploitation. I believe that we must do better. In these circumstances, I can relate the statement of a 15-year old victim. In referring to his victimizer he said, “He preys on street kids. He'll feed them, give them drugs, money. He doesn't even care what he's done. He couldn't care less about any one of the kids, including myself”.

Bill C-10 proposes welcomed reforms to better protect Canadians, particularly to better protect vulnerable children and youth against sexual abuse and exploitation.

As I have noted, many of these proposals were previously debated and studied in the previous Parliament. Accordingly, I think all members should be able to work together to ensure the expeditious enactment of these long-needed reforms. If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

It has been stated that even in the most ungoverned kingdoms, animals protect their young. We collectively, as a responsible society, can do no less to protect our children from those who seek to sexually violate them.

There has been a lot of talk and discussion about the role of judges, and there are judges who really, I believe, have captured the significance of what it is that we are talking about in terms of the imperative need for us to rise to equip our police officers, the courts, and the system as a whole, to better protect vulnerable people, especially our children.

I wish to quote Mr. Justice Moldaver from the Ontario Court of Appeal. Adjudicating with his colleagues over a case, he stated:

While...the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation will always warrant consideration, the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and the need to separate sexual predators from society for society’s well-being and the well-being of our children must take precedence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising for the second time on this bill. As we are aware, the motion that is currently before the House is the one from the third party in the House. It recommends that the bill deferred for an extended period of time for a number of reasons. With regard to that, it is an appropriate motion given the complexity of the bill, so it would be one that my party would be prepared to support.

It is obvious that the government will not to back off on this bill. Therefore, I would like to make a few other comments with regard to its approach, both what we have seen with the time allocation motion that it brought before and now passed in the House and the propensity for the Conservatives to further curtail debate in committee and perhaps when the bill comes back to the House at report stage and third reading. If this is any indication of the nature in which they will govern with a majority, it certainly strikes at the very foundation of the principles of democracy that the House is supposed to encompass. We will wait to see how the Conservatives will handle it at committee and when it comes back to the House, but I approach the bill in the way they have approached it, with a great deal of foreboding.

With regard to the contents of the history of the bill itself, in its various other incarnations, we have heard the statistics about the amount of debate that has taken place on this. The interesting part is a number of the recommendations that were passed with majority votes in committee and in the House have been ignored by the government. That certainly does not bode well for the democracy in our country.

In particular, I want to address the bill that dealt with the sexual abuse of children. That part of the bill, which we see encompassed in the larger bill today, had a great deal of debate. We took a good deal of evidence at the justice committee and it ultimately came out of the justice committee with only a couple of minor amendments. The bill basically created several new offences, which had support from all four parties at that time. In fact, two of the major new endeavours in that regard, around criminalizing the luring of children and the grooming of children for potential sexual victims, came out of NDP private member's bills over a number of years, which the government had latched onto and encompassed into what was Bill C-54 in the last Parliament.

We were quite supportive of that. The use of grooming techniques is well known. Psychologists and psychiatrists have taught us very clearly what to look for in that regard. Therefore, both the NDP private member's bill and the government bill took that into account and prohibited a number of types of conduct and imposed penalties if that conduct was deemed to have occurred and people were convicted of it.

We had concerns with that part of Bill C-54 in the sense that there were unintended consequences that I believed would occur with the mandatory minimums that the Conservatives imposed. We rarely have judges who are prepared to not sentence people who are convicted of these sexual abuses of children to time in prison. The difficulty I had with the bill was that a number of the mandatory minimums, taking away that discretion from the court as to how to best and perhaps more severely deal with the offenders, were being taken away and very rigid penalties were being imposed. I believe in some cases the result would be that we would see judges hesitating to impose more severe penalties because the mandatory minimums had now been set by the legislature.

However, we ultimately concluded, as a party, that we would allow this bill to go forward because of the new crimes that were being committed. This is really where we were going to make our children, our grandchildren, safer, by prohibiting that kind of conduct and allowing our police, prosecutors and judges to identify, convict and sentence on those types of offences.

We were quite supportive of that.

Also additional provisions were given to the judges in terms of the type of penalties they could impose, expanding them from beyond just the penalties that sentence them to prisons, but to also, when they came out, limiting access to the Internet, for instance. Only under supervised circumstances would they be able to have access to children. Those provisions were badly needed to expand the ability of our judges to control conduct after a person was released. Those were very good provisions, again, ones that we had suggested earlier on.

We are quite supportive of that kind of approach. Again, I have some reservation with regard to the mandatory minimums because they may have just the opposite consequence of what the government intends.

However, it is more important to get that law into place. Therefore, I ask for the unanimous consent of this House to move the following motion: That the provisions of Bill C-10, an act to enact the justice for victims of terrorism act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other acts with respect to sexual offences against children, and consisting of clauses 10 to 31, 35 to 38 and 42-9, do compose Bill C-10B; that the remaining provisions in Bill C-10 do compose Bill C-10A; that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; that Bill C-10A and C-10B be reprinted; and that Bill C-10B be deemed to have been read the first time and be printed, deemed read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment and deemed read the third time and passed.

The effect of this is to get that part of the bill on sexual offences against children into legislation much faster so our police, prosecutors and judges can use it to protect our children, as opposed to having to wait for we do not know how many more months before Bill C-10, as a whole, comes back to the House for final debate and/or passage.

Our intent is entirely clear on this. We want this done now. We do not want to wait another number of months. The bill sat in the Senate for a while after it passed the House, a Senate that was controlled by the government. Then we had the election and it died. We do not want to waste any more time on this. We are quite supportive of getting this bill through today, tomorrow at the latest, and on to the Senate.

That is the intent of the motion, and I would seek unanimous consent of the House to pass it today.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. It is a bill that is very important to residents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and certainly across Canada.

The June 2011 Speech from the Throne recognized the government's fundamental duty to protect the personal safety of all Canadians. Toward this end we have committed to reintroduce law and order legislation to combat crime, including protecting children from sex offenders, eliminating house arrest and pardons for serious crimes, and protecting the most vulnerable in society, our children.

Bill C-10 supports this commitment. It is a comprehensive package of law reforms that had been proposed in nine bills before the previous Parliament, but which died with the dissolution of that Parliament for the general election.

Part 1, clauses 2 to 9, of Bill C-10 includes reforms to support victims of terrorism. These were proposed in former Bill S-7, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Part 2, clauses 10 to 51, proposes sentencing reforms to address child sexual exploitation, serious drug offences, and to eliminate the use of conditional sentences for serious, violent and property crimes. It incorporates reforms that were proposed in former Bills C-54, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act and C-16, the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act.

Part 3, clauses 52 to 166, includes post-sentencing reforms to increase offender accountability, eliminate pardons for serious crimes, and revise the criteria for determining international transfers of Canadian offenders. These reforms were proposed in former Bills C-39, the Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act, C-23, the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, C-59, the Abolition of Early Parole Act and C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act.

Part 4, clauses 167 to 204, proposes reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to better protect Canadians from violent young offenders. These had been proposed in former Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders).

Part 5 of Bill C-10 proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to protect foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking. These amendments had been proposed in former Bill C-56, the Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act.

Many of these proposed reforms were debated and studied in the previous Parliament. I welcome their reintroduction in this new Parliament.

I will focus my remaining time on Bill C-10's proposal to better protect children against sexual exploitation.

As with its predecessor Bill C-54, the objectives of Bill C-10's child sexual exploitation reforms are twofold. First, they seek to ensure that for sentencing purposes all child sexual offences are treated severely and consistently. Second, they seek to protect children by preventing the commission of these offences. Bill C-10 does this by imposing stiffer and stronger penalties.

Bill C-10 proposes numerous amendments to enhance the penalties or sentences of imprisonment that are currently imposed for sexual offences involving child victims. It imposes new or higher mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment as well as higher maximum penalties for certain offences.

Currently, the Criminal Code has an inconsistent approach regarding penalties for sexual offences involving a child victim. For instance, there are 12 child-specific sexual offences that impose a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment, yet there are other child-specific offences that do not impose a minimum penalty.

Similarly, the general sexual offences that apply to both adult and child victims alike do not impose any mandatory minimum penalty where the victim is a child.

As the grandfather of two granddaughters, one six years old and the other three years old, this means a lot to me. The bill serves to strengthen the laws that protect our children and the vulnerable. There should be no question about supporting this bill.

Mandatory minimum penalties are exception In the Criminal Code of Canada. Generally, they have been imposed because Parliament has determined that the nature of a particular offence is sufficiently serious to include a sentence of imprisonment. That sentence was devised to best reflect the facts and circumstances of the case and does not get lost between the mandatory minimum period of time to the prescribed maximum penalty. Where mandatory minimum sentences are imposed, a conditional sentence of imprisonment is never appropriate for the offence.

Given this understanding of mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment, the effect of imposing these in only some but not all sexual offences where the victim is a child suggests that some child sexual offences are more serious than others. It is ludicrous to suggest that some child victims have been less victimized than others. I cannot understand that thought process.

In my view, this contradicts a fundamental value of Canadian society, namely that all children are among our most vulnerable and that all are deserving of equal protection against all forms of child sexual abuse and exploitation. Therefore, I welcome the proposals of Bill C-10 to impose mandatory minimum sentences for seven sexual offences wherein the victim is a child and where currently mandatory minimum sentences are not imposed.

Bill C-10 also proposes to impose higher mandatory minimum sentences for nine offences that already carry a minimum sentence. These increases would ensure that the minimum sentence is not only in line with the offence in question but also is coherent with the minimum sentences imposed for other offences.

As well, Bill C-10 proposes to create two new offences to prevent the commission of a contact sexual offence against a child. Both of these offences would also impose mandatory minimum sentences.

I would also note that Bill C-10 proposes a few sentencing reforms that were not included in Bill C-54. These changes are entirely consistent with the overall sentencing objectives of former Bill C-54 and seek to better reflect the particularly heinous nature of these offences.

Finally, these changes would increase the maximum penalty and corresponding mandatory minimum sentences for four child sex offences. When proceeded on summary conviction, subsections 163.1(2), making child pornography, and 163.1(3), distribution, et cetera, of child pornography, propose to increase the maximum penalty from 18 months to 2 years less a day as well as increase the current minimum sentence from 90 days to 6 months.

In section 170, parent or guardian procuring sexual activity, the bill proposes to increase the minimum penalty from 6 months to 1 year and the maximum penalty from 5 years to 10 years where the victim is under the age of 16 years, and the minimum from 45 days to 6 months and the maximum from 2 years to 5 years respectively where the victim is 16 to 17 years old.

I hope that all hon. members will work with us to support the expeditious enactment of these much needed reforms.

In closing, as members of Parliament we all have a number of issues that come before us. In my seven years in this great place the one thing that I consistently hear from my constituents, especially those with children, young children and grandchildren, is the lack of rights for victims in this country. We worry more about the rights of criminals than victims, which is a sad case. The pendulum has swung too far one way. I am proud to be part of a government that would straighten that out.

I look forward to all hon. members in the House supporting Bill C-10.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise here today to speak at second reading of Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

As many of my colleagues know, this government committed to introducing once again—yes, once again—any law and order bills that died on the order paper at the dissolution of the 40th Parliament.

The proposed changes aim, for example, to protect children from sexual crimes, to clarify ineligibility for conditional sentences and pardons, and to protect other vulnerable members of our society.

With all that in mind, the bill before us constitutes a comprehensive bill incorporating all the changes previously proposed in nine separate bills introduced during the previous parliament.

The first part of the bill—clauses 2 to 9—contains the changes suggested in the former Bill S-7, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Part 2 contains clauses 10 to 51 of the bill, which include the amendments found in former bills C-54, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, which was designed to protect children from sexual predators and certain sexual offences; C-16 , the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act, intended to limit the use of conditional sentences; and S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act, to increase sentences for serious drug-related offences.

Part 3—clauses 52 to 166—includes measures to increase the accountability of offenders, eliminate pardons for serious crimes and modify the factors considered in the international transfer of Canadian offenders. These amendments were contained in former bills C-39, the Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act; C-23B, the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act; C-59, the Abolition of Early Parole Act; and C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act.

Part 4 of the bill—clauses 167 to 204—amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to better protect Canadians against violent young offenders. These amendments were included in former Bill C-4 , Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders).

The last part of the bill—clauses 205 to 207—proposes amendments contained in former Bill C-56, the Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act, that would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to protect workers who want to work in Canada and are at risk of being subjected to humiliating or degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation.

In particular, I would like to elaborate on clause 34 of Part 2 of the bill, which seeks to curtail the use of conditional sentences for some property crimes and other serious crimes.

As I mentioned earlier, these amendments were contained in a previous bill, Bill C-16, which died on the order paper with the dissolution of the third session of the 40th Parliament. However, there are some technical differences, which I will discuss later.

Currently, under the Criminal Code, conditional sentencing, sometimes referred to as house arrest, can be imposed when an offence is not punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence and the court hands down a prison sentence of less than two years.

In fact, since December 2007, conditional sentences have no longer been available for indictable offences with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more in the case of serious personal injury offences, terrorism offences or organized crime offences.

What is more, the court imposing a conditional sentence has to be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community will not jeopardize the safety of the community and that the sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

It is important to note that the fundamental purpose of sentencing, as set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; to separate offenders from society, where necessary; to assist in rehabilitating offenders; to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders.

The Criminal Code also informs us that a just sanction is a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. To achieve this, the courts take into consideration aggravating and mitigating factors in each case. Before describing the key aspects of the proposed changes, I want to provide some background on the provisions in the Criminal Code on conditional sentences.

Conditional sentencing came into effect in 1996, when the government wanted, among other things, to reduce excessive use of incarceration for less serious crimes. I repeat: less serious crimes. Moreover, the information document that accompanied these sentencing reforms states that the addition of conditional sentencing as a new form of sentencing means that offenders who have committed a less serious crime and who otherwise would be incarcerated can serve their sentence in the community under close supervision.

The limits that I mentioned earlier were established in order to guarantee that conditional sentences could be given only for less serious crimes, in keeping with the fundamental principles and purpose of sentencing. However, in the years following the creation of this type of sentencing, there has been a complete lack of consistency when it comes to determining when conditional sentencing is appropriate.

At the time, many court decisions gave a conditional sentence for serious and violent crimes. This contributed to the public's loss of faith in the justice system. Clearly, many people, and some provinces and territories, wondered whether the limits on conditional sentencing set out in the Criminal Code were sufficient.

In order to deal with this lack of consistency in conditional sentencing, this government introduced Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) on May 4, 2006. This bill proposed the elimination of conditional sentencing for any indictable offence with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more. However, Bill C-9 was amended by the opposition parties to limit the ban on conditional sentencing to indictable offences with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more that constitute serious personal injury offences, terrorism offences or criminal organization offences. These amendments took effect on December 1, 2007.

The definition of serious personal injury was developed in the context of dangerous offenders, which is why this definition is found in part 24 of the Criminal Code. According to this definition, serious personal injury offences include any indictable offence, other than high treason, treason, first degree murder or second degree murder—punishable by at least 10 years in prison—involving the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person.

The second part of this definition is clearer, as it lists sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault as serious personal injury offences.

It is important to understand that the opposition parties borrowed a term straight from the dangerous offender regime in order to put limits on a sentence that should only be applied to less dangerous offenders. That created two philosophical approaches for interpreting the definition of serious personal injury in the context of conditional sentencing.

Another issue with the definition of serious personal injury is that it only targets violent offences. The definition of serious personal injury cannot ensure that a conditional sentence will not be used in the case of serious fraud or theft over $5,000.

The amendments in this bill will ensure that certain non-violent serious offences will still be treated as serious offences, thus avoiding the use of conditional sentencing. The amendments to the conditional sentencing regime proposed in this bill aim to establish clear benchmarks to allow for consistent use of conditional sentencing in order to respect Parliament's intention when it created this sentence.

That is why the bill proposes eliminating the reference to serious personal injury offences and restricting the availability of conditional sentences for all offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life.

The same will apply to indictable offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment when they result in bodily harm, involve the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs or involve the use of weapons.

When an offence is committed under these circumstances, it is even more important to deter the offender and denounce the crime. This justifies restricting the availability of conditional sentences in such cases. It is possible however that the limits I just described do not cover all offences prosecuted by way of indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Therefore, the bill also proposes limiting the availability of conditional sentences for prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, abduction of a person under 14, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling-house, being unlawfully in a dwelling-house, and arson for fraudulent purpose.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, there are technical differences between the changes proposed in this bill and those contained in the former Bill C-16.

For example, Bill C-16 proposed the abolition of conditional sentencing for the offence of luring a child, described in section 172.1. This is no longer on the list of offences that would not be eligible for conditional sentencing, since article 22 of this bill proposes a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year in the case of an indictable offence, or 90 days in the case of a summary conviction.

Another change from Bill C-16 is that the list of offences that are no longer eligible for conditional sentence includes the new offence of motor vehicle theft, described in section 333.1 of the Criminal Code.

The final change would correct an error that slipped into Bill C-16. That bill did not include the offence of abduction of a person under 14 by a parent or guardian. The intent was, however, to target the offence described in section 281 of the Criminal Code, which has to do with the abduction of a person under 14 by a stranger.

I want to reassure my colleagues that even though the reference in section 742.1 to serious personal injury offences is set to be eliminated, the changes in this bill will ensure that those who are convicted of sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault will not be eligible if prosecuted by way of indictment.

Note also that conditional sentencing will no longer be available for persons convicted of sexual assault against a person 16 or under since clause 25 of the bill proposes a minimum sentence of one year when the offence is prosecuted by way of indictment, and 90 days on summary conviction.

This government is addressing the concerns of Canadians who no longer want to see conditional sentences used for serious crimes, whether they are violent crimes or property crimes.

For the reasons I have just mentioned, I urge my fellow members of this House to unanimously support the proposed changes to the conditional sentencing system.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open debate on Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts.

The bill, which is known as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, fulfills the commitment in the June 2011 Speech from the Throne to quickly reintroduce law and order legislation to combat crime and terrorism. This commitment, in turn, reflects the strong mandate that Canadians have given us to protect society and to hold criminals accountable.

We have bundled together crime bills that died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament into a comprehensive piece of legislation and it is our plan to pass it within the first 100 sitting days of Parliament.

As I met with victims of crime and their families yesterday in Brampton, I was once again struck by the importance of having this legislation passed in a timely manner. Both in Brampton and in Montreal yesterday, people such as Joe Wamback, Sharon Rosenfeldt, Sheldon Kennedy, Yvonne Harvey, Gary Lindfield, Maureen Basnicki and Line Lacasse spoke about the need for these changes to our laws.

We have a duty to stand up for these victims, which we are doing by bringing in this legislation.

The objective of our criminal law reform agenda over the past few years has been to build a stronger, safer and better Canada. This comprehensive legislation is another important step in the process to achieve this end.

As I travelled across the country holding round tables or meeting people on the street, the message was clear. People want to ensure their streets and communities are safer and they are relying on us to take the steps needed to achieve this.

There are five parts to Bill C-10.

Part 1 includes reforms to deter terrorism by supporting victims of terrorism and amending the State Immunity Act.

Part 2 includes sentencing reforms that will target sexual offences against children and serious drug offences, as well as prevent the use of conditional sentences for serious violent and property crimes.

Part 3 includes post-sentencing reforms to increase offender accountability, eliminate pardons for serious crimes and strengthen the international transfer of offenders regime.

Part 4 includes reforms to better protect Canadians from violent young offenders.

Lastly, part 5 includes immigration reforms to better protect vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, including through human trafficking.

Some may say that this comprehensive bill makes it difficult to understand. In response I would note that these reforms should be very familiar to members of Parliament, indeed all Canadians, given that these reforms were before the previous Parliament when they died on the Order Paper with the dissolution of that Parliament.

Many of these reforms have been previously debated, studied and even passed by at least one of the two chambers of Parliament. For the most part, the comprehensive legislation reintroduces these reforms in the same form they were in previously, with technical changes that were needed to be able to reintroduce them in this Parliament in one bill.

A few additional changes have been made and I will describe them as I provide a summary of the individual areas of reform. However, I want to note that these additional changes remain consistent with the government's objectives when these reforms were originally introduced in the previous Parliament and, therefore, should also be supported today.

I will now take hon. members through some of the elements of Bill C-10.

Part 1 is comprised of clauses 2 through 9. These amendments seek to deter terrorism by enacting the justice for victims of terrorism act.

As reflected in the proposed preamble to the new act, these reforms recognize that, “terrorism is a matter of national concern that affects the security of the nation”, and that it is a “priority to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against Canada and Canadians”.

As Canadians recently marked the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, it was a stark reminder that the threat of terrorism remains and that we must continue to be vigilant.

Accordingly and with a view to deterring terrorism, part 1 proposes to create a cause of action for victims of terrorism to enable them to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism or omission committed anywhere in the world on or after January 1, 1985.

It also would amend the State Immunity Act to lift immunity of those states that the government has listed for support of terrorism.

Part 1's amendments were previously proposed and passed by the Senate in former Bill S-7, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, in the previous session of Parliament. They include technical changes to correct grammatical and cross-reference errors.

Part 2 is comprised of clauses 10 through 51. It proposes sentencing amendments to the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to ensure that the sentences imposed for child sexual exploitation, serious drug offences, as well as for other serious violent and property crimes, adequately reflect the severity of these crimes.

The exploitation of children is a most serious crime, one that is incomprehensible and must be met with appropriate punishment. Bill C-10 proposals addressing child sexual exploitation were addressed in the previous bill. These reforms seek to consistently and adequately condemn all forms of child sexual abuse through the imposition of new and higher mandatory sentences of imprisonment, as well as some higher maximum penalties.

They also seek to prevent the commission of sexual offences against children through the creation of two new offences and by requiring courts to consider imposing conditions to prevent suspected or convicted child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate or further their commission of sexual offences against children.

The bill's proposed reforms addressing child sexual exploitation are essentially the same as the bill we had in the previous Parliament, that was passed by the House of Commons and was before the Senate at third reading debate when it died on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, some members kept on talking so that the bill did not get passed.

The primary difference is that this bill also proposes to increase the maximum penalty for four offences, with a corresponding increase in their proposed mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment to better reflect the heinous nature of these offences.

The bill proposes to increase the maximum penalty on summary conviction for a number of offences. All of these are consistent with the objectives of the former Bill C-54 as originally introduced.

It also proposes Criminal Code reforms to further restrict the use of a conditional sentence, or house arrest as it is often called.

Originally proposed in Bill C-16, ending house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious and violent offenders act in the previous Parliament, these proposals seek to make it explicitly clear that a conditional sentence is never available for: offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life; offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years that result in bodily harm, involve the import-export, trafficking and production of drugs or involve the use of a weapon; or listed serious property and violent offences punishable by 10 years and prosecuted by indictment, such as criminal harassment, trafficking in persons and theft over $5,000.

The bill's proposals are in the same form as previously proposed in Bill C-16 which had received second reading and had been referred to the justice committee but not yet studied when it died on the Order Paper.

It includes technical changes to the list of excluded offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years: to include the recently enacted new offence of motor vehicle theft; to coordinate the proposed imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment in section 172.1(1), luring a child; and to change the listed child abduction offence to section 281.

We are also addressing the serious issue of drug crimes in this country, particularly those involving organized crime and those that target youth because we all know the impact that such crimes have on our communities.

Part 2's proposals to address drug crime include amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to impose mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for the offences of production, trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking or importing, and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting of schedule I drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, and schedule II drugs, such as marijuana.

These mandatory minimum sentences would apply where there was an aggravating factor, including where the production of the drug constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard, or the offence was committed in or near a school.

As well, it would double the maximum penalty for the production of schedule II drugs, such as marijuana, from 7 to 14 years and it would reschedule GHB and flunitrazepam, most commonly known as the date rape drugs, from schedule III to schedule I.

As a result, these offences would now carry higher maximum penalties.

The bill would also allow a court to delay sentencing while the addicted offender completed a treatment program approved by the province under the supervision of the court or a drug treatment court approved program and to impose a penalty other than the minimum sentence if the offender successfully completes the treatment program.

These proposals are in the same form they were in when they were passed by the Senate as former Bill S-10

Part 3, which is comprised of clauses 52 through 166, proposes post-sentencing reforms to better support victims and to increase offender accountability.

Canadians have told us they expect their government to ensure that offenders are held accountable for their crimes because only then can they have complete confidence in our justice system.

Part 3 introduces reforms previously contained in bills in the previous Parliament. It includes proposals from the ending early release for criminals and increasing offender accountability act that would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to recognize the rights of victims, increase offender accountability and responsibility, and modernize the disciplinary system for inmates.

As now proposed in Bill C-10, it includes technical modifications that would delete provisions that were ultimately passed as part of the Abolition of Early Parole Act, as well as clarifications regarding, for example, sentence calculations, adding new offences recently enacted by other legislation, and proposes to change the name of the National Parole Board to the Parole Board of Canada.

It includes proposals previously contained in Bill C-5, the Keeping Canadians Safe (the International Transfer of Offenders) Act and which seek to enhance public safety by enshrining in law a number of additional key factors in deciding whether an offender would be granted a transfer back to Canada. The bill proposes these reforms as originally introduced.

It includes proposals included in the Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act in the previous Parliament and that propose to expand the period of ineligibility for a record suspension, currently referred to as a “pardon”, and to make record suspensions unavailable for certain offences and for persons who have been convicted of more than three offences, prosecuted by indictment, and for each of which the individual received a sentence of two years or more. This bill corrects inconsistencies that occurred in the former bills before Parliament.

One of the areas of criminal law I received an extensive number of letters, emails and calls about is that dealing with violent and repeat young offenders. I have been particularly interested in correspondence I have received from young students themselves and I am always pleased to hear everyone's views on this subject.

Part 4, which is found at clauses 167 through 204, proposes reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to strengthen its handling of violent and repeat young offenders.

These reforms include: highlighting the protection of the public as a principle, making it easier to detain youth charged with serious offences pending trial; ensuring that prosecutors consider seeking adult sentences for the most serious offences; prohibiting youth under the age of 18 from serving a sentence in an adult facility; and requiring police to keep records of extrajudicial measures. These reforms were previously proposed in Sébastien's law, which had been extensively studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when it died on the order paper in the previous Parliament.

The bill includes changes to address concerns that had been highlighted by the provinces regarding the pretrial adult sentencing and deferred custody provisions in the former bill. A number of the provinces requested a less restrictive regime for the pretrial detention provisions than that of Bill C-4, and therefore the changes found in this bill respond by providing more flexibility to detain youth who are spiralling out of control and who pose a risk to the public and to themselves.

The test for pretrial detention will be self-contained in the act without reference to other sections of the Criminal Code.

Other changes are more technical, if that is possible, and include removing Bill C-4's proposed amendments in two areas: deleting reference to the standard of proof for an adult sentence, and the expanded scope of deferred custody and supervision orders.

Last, part 5, which is found at clauses 205 through 207, proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize immigration officers to refuse work permits to foreign nationals and workers where it would protect them against humiliating and degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking. These proposals are in the same form they were in when they were previously proposed in former Bill C-56, the preventing trafficking, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable immigrants act.

I would point out as well that the proposed reforms would come into force in the same manner as originally proposed by the predecessor bills. Part 1 would come into force upon receiving royal assent, and the balance would come into force on a day to be fixed by the governor in council. This will enable us to consult with the provinces and territories on the time needed to enable them to prepare for the timely and effective implementation of these reforms.

I realize that I have taken some time to go through some of the details of this bill. We were very clear in the last election that this was a priority for this government. We have put these bills together and they better protect victims. As members know, in all the legislation that we have introduced, we always highlight how it better protects victims in this country and stand up for the interests of law-abiding Canadians.

I am pleased and proud to be associated, as are my colleagues, with this important piece of legislation.

Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-54 today. I know my hon. colleague, the member for Niagara Falls, the Minister of Justice, and I lived through a horrific period of time a number of years ago, with Paul Bernardo and the luring of who were then ostensibly children. He and I have intimate knowledge of that, living in the area at that time and knowing the consequences of the actions of that couple.

The minister knows that I was more than pleased to work with the Minister of Public Safety to ensure that one of the perpetrators, Karla Homolka, did not receive a pardon, when she came to the end of her sentence. I was extremely pleased to work with the government. I thank the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice for their work with me to ensure it did not happen. It was immensely important, not just for the people who live in Niagara where those heinous crimes were committed, but for all Canadians across this land who believed that justice would not be served if it happened.

When we talk about child luring for the purposes of sexual exploitation, all of us in the House agree it has to be one of the most repulsive and heinous acts committed against the most vulnerable and cherished in our society, our little ones. As the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said earlier, whether we have little ones or not, we must protect them. As my mother always says to me, I am always her little one. I am not sure how that happens with my size and age, but I guess I am always her son. I have a son who is six foot five, but he is still my little guy and he always will be.

There is no greater thing in this world that we can do than protect those little ones. No matter how old they get, they are always our little ones and we want to protect them. That should be, by extension, not just for family but out across the broader community, across this province, across the country and around the world. They are the folks we cherish most. They are put in situations where they are vulnerable and we cannot allow folks, who have the wherewithal, to make decisions to go ahead and try to lure those little ones.

The New Democrats actually brought forward a bill on child luring through the act of using communications as various methods. In fact, I congratulate my good friend and colleague Dawn Black who has now moved on to British Columbia's legislature. She initially put two bills before the House to deal with this very subject.

I want to congratulate the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam who has taken them on himself to ensure that the work started by Dawn continues to go forward. That is how we feel in this party about the importance of it and how we ensure we protect our little ones.

Also, I give a great deal of thanks for our member for Windsor—Tecumseh who is our critic for justice. He gives yeoman work when it comes to debating the bills and ensuring they are crafted in such a way when they get to committee, with amendments and good questions, and calling good witnesses. It was in second reading that my friend from Windsor—Tecumseh said that part of the failings of the initial part of the bill was around the sense of what was “telecommunications”. He highlighted the point that the definition was too narrow when it came to telecommunications.

As many of us know, the art form of telecommunications moves at a horrendous speed, which makes it very difficult for us to keep up. Modern telecommunications could be yesterday's telecommunications within less than a year or even months in some cases. He has pushed for that, and I am sure he would want let the minister know that the committee has broadened the sense of what “telecommunications” is and what “communications for child luring” is. He has made it more accessible and not a narrow definition but a broad one. Therefore, we will not have folks escaping the very net we are casting to catch those who would lure our children for sexual exploitation.

All of us believe they need to be punished. I do not believe anyone would say they should not be. We need to find ways to not only to reduce what happens to our young people, but to find ways to stop it.

What do we want to see happen? I believe the bill accomplishes a fair amount, but it unfortunately leaves parts out. My friend for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour articulated issues around poverty and the things that we ought to do that might be helpful at the preventative level so we would not see young people get lured and then engaged after the fact.

Part of the aspect that is missing is this sense of how we treat those offenders. As I read through the committee transcript, there were some eminently qualified witnesses, psychiatrists and psychologists, who talked about the types of offenders who committed and perpetrated these crimes. They are not exactly as we think they might be. The witnesses explained that they fell into three different categories. It is not for me to try to explain it because they are the experts. They quantified the numbers included in there. For one category of offenders, there was great hope that with certain forms of treatment, there was the possibility that they would not reoffend, and the treatment would be successful.

Therefore, the sense is not that they should not be apprehended and punished. They should be. However, we do not want to just simply end it with that and allow them back out to reoffend. If they do reoffend, it is not simply a question of saying that because they have reoffended, we will put them back in jail to punish them again. The person who has really suffered the greatest is that child. Accordingly, if we can catch the perpetrators and find ways to get them into treatment, and experts have told us there are ways to do this in the vast majority of cases, hopefully when they get out, they will not reoffend. That would set us on a path to reducing child luring, child exploitation and child molestation. However, to send them back out to reoffend does not make any sense.

I hope the minister and the government will look at this and decide that perhaps they ought to spend a few dollars to do that.

Let me be abundantly clear that all New Democrats feel revulsion when it comes to child luring and child exploitation. All of us want to put an end to it to ensure our children are protected.

Therefore, for all of the above reasons, we will support the bill as it goes forward. We have heard that from my other colleagues in the House. Let us put an end to the exploitation of the most vulnerable citizens in our communities, our families and across our country. It is our obligation to do so and we take that obligation seriously.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of this. I hope, once and for all, some day in the not too distant future, we will not have to talk about a subject like this again because we have put ourselves on the road to ensure it will not happen to our most vulnerable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-54, which pertains to minimum sentences for sexual offences against children. This bill would amend the Criminal Code.

On March 22, my grandson will be 18 months old. Grandparents are always proud of their grandchildren. There are grandparents who are watching today and I know that they are proud of their grandchildren. I cannot remain unmoved by a bill introduced in Parliament that pertains to minimum sentences for sexual offences against children. If anyone touched my grandson, I would have difficulty abiding by the law; however, I would, as all citizens are obliged to do.

Bill C-54, which is well-intentioned, must be examined. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill at this stage and feels it should be sent to committee. When it is reviewed in committee, we can ask witnesses questions. The fight against crime is of the utmost importance, particularly when children are the victims. However, it must be said that, in Quebec, as in the rest of Canada, the crime rate has been declining for the past 15 years or so. The measures set out in Bill C-54 warrant our attention. This bill creates new offences and imposes new restrictions on offenders. However, the bill also provides for minimum sentences.

We must hear from legal experts on the matter. When the Conservatives introduce crime bills, they do so to satisfy their own ideology rather than to improve society. They have that annoying tendency of trying to do what the justice system should do. When minimum penalties are brought in, we tell the judges what they have to do. Our parents and grandparents passed on a legacy of the rule of law and a justice system in which judges look at offences on a case-by-case basis and assign penalties in accordance with precedents that have been developed over years. In short, looking at case law means looking at what has happened in the past and giving similar penalties for similar crimes, so that justice is balanced.

When minimum penalties are brought in, it changes this balance that was passed on to us by our parents and grandparents. I am a grandfather to a boy who will be 18 months on March 22, and I would not want to leave him a justice system that completely disregards our history and the foundation of our society.

The Bloc Québécois is generally in favour of the principle of sending a bill to be studied in committee. There, we can hear from witnesses and make any necessary amendments to the bill. The purpose is that when the bill is passed, it helps develop society. The sole objective should not be to replace the justice system that was passed down to us by our parents and grandparents with the new system that the Conservatives and their ideology are trying to impose.

Quebeckers and people from the rest of Canada can trust the Bloc Québécois to maintain that balance. We have always done so in the House and we will continue to do so. The principle of the bill is very interesting and we want to develop it and discuss it.

The bill would create two new offences. The first offence 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 six months or a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days.

The second offence would prohibit anyone from using any means of telecommunications, including a computer system, to agree or to make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child. This provision was part of former Bill C-46, which was introduced in the previous parliamentary session but was not passed because of the last election.

The Bloc's goal is to help society evolve. This bill would prohibit the use of telecommunications. Our parents knew nothing about these kinds of things. I am getting older, and my father never saw such things, nor did my grandparents. Laws need to be adapted, and I think this is a step in the right direction. Once again, at this stage in the discussions surrounding Bill C-54, the Bloc Québécois will support the bill.

Next, we need to proceed with this bill so that the legal and criminal aspects of our society, passed down by our parents and grandparents, will evolve and be more suitable for our grandchildren. That is the challenge that the Bloc Québécois has taken on. We will bring the necessary witnesses forward and we, along with the other parties, will try to move this bill forward to achieve the final goal of helping society move in a positive direction and not towards a right-wing conservative ideology as has happened with the U.S. Republicans and in totalitarian societies in the world. There needs to be a balance, and that is what the Bloc is here for.

At this stage, the government can count on the Bloc's support.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

This very good letter outlines some facts. It said:

I was puzzled to read reports in which you defended the latest Senate appointments as necessary to allow your Government “to move forward on [y]our tackling-crime agenda.” You accused the Liberal opposition of having “obstructed that agenda in the Senate.”

If members knew Senator Cowan as I do, they would know that he always assumed the most purest of motives about anybody. He said:

I can only assume that you have been misinformed as to the progress of anti-crime legislation. In fact, as I am sure your Cabinet colleague, Senator Marjory LeBreton, would tell you, the overwhelming majority of your Government’s anti-crime bills had not even reached the Senate when [the] Prime Minister...chose to prorogue Parliament. Indeed, an honest examination of the record compels one to acknowledge that the greatest delays to implementation of your justice agenda have resulted from your own Government’s actions--sitting on bills and not bringing them forward for debate, delaying bringing legislation into force, and ultimately, of course, proroguing Parliament. That action alone caused some 18 of your justice-related bills to die on the Order Paper.

He goes on in his helpful way to further enunciate the status of those bills. He says:

Your Government introduced 19 justice-related bills in the House of Commons. Of these, 14 were still in the House of Commons at prorogation. Of the five justice bills that passed the House of Commons and came to the Senate:

two passed the Senate without amendment;

one (the so-called Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime bill) was tabled by your Government in November in the Senate but not brought forward for further action after that;

one was passed with four amendments and returned to the House of Commons which did not deal with it before Parliament was prorogued; and

one was being studied in committee when Parliament was prorogued and all committee work shut down.

He goes into a bit more detail on exactly what happened with the government's alleged tough on crime agenda.

There have been a number of initiatives and we have been supportive of just about all of those bills. However, we have had concerns because some of the bills have come to us with very little or misleading information. I think about what we could do for the health of our children. One of those, in fairness to the minister, is to deal with it in the way that Bill C-54 would.

When we look at any societal problem, we need to do two things. We need to ask if there are regulations in place that ensure we are protecting our children from being exploited or hurt in this manner. There not only needs to be a legislative response but also a response that looks at the causes of the issue that we are trying to prevent.

If we could invest more money in the boys and girls clubs, we would need less prisons. If we could invest more money in early learning and child care, we would need less prisons. The studies on the impact of early learning and child care on criminal behaviour are absolutely amazing. If we want to reduce the amount of money that we need to spend on prisons, then we should invest in reducing poverty.

Just this week, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development snuck in a totally inadequate response to a poverty report done by all members of this House, including members of her own party. We have heard from people like Don Drummond and just about every social policy organization, including the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. We have seen the impact that can be made on reducing criminal justice by investing in reducing poverty. We would see huge reductions in health costs as well. A report organized by the food banks in Ontario, which Don Drummond was part of, said that by reducing poverty we would reduce criminal justice costs in Ontario alone by some $600 million in a year.

We are on a failed course in terms of criminal justice. Those who the government emulates on criminal justice, who are the hard right Republicans in the United States, have had an epiphany, a change of course.

Newt Gingrich, who will be running for president in 2012, was one of the architects of this new tough on crime agenda. It was part of the contract with America in, I believe, 1994. The Americans were saying that they needed to invest in prisons, that they needed to spend money on our prisons, that they needed to put people behind bars because that is how to deal with these situations.

On January 7, 2011, Newt Gingrich and Pat Nolan wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post titled “Prison reform: A smart way for states to save money and lives”. This is an amazing document that repudiates the alleged tough on crime agenda of the eighties and nineties that put so many Americans behind bars. The article reads:

There is an urgent need to address the astronomical growth in the prison population, with its huge costs in dollars and lost human potential. We spent $68 billion in 2010 on corrections--300% more than 25 years ago. The prison population is growing 13 times faster than the general population. These facts should trouble every American.

Our prisons might be worth the current cost if the recidivism rate were not so high, but...half of the prisoners released this year are expected to be back in prison within three years. If our prison policies are failing half of the time, and we know that there are more humane, effective alternatives, it is time to fundamentally rethink how we treat and rehabilitate our prisoners.

That is a pretty powerful statement.

What Mr. Gingrich is calling for is a Conservative response to what the Conservatives caused in the last two or three decades with this “tough on crime” approach, which has not reduced crime. In fact, the article goes on to say:

Some people attribute [this] to more people being locked up. But the facts show otherwise. While crime...some of those with the largest reductions in crime have also lowered their prison population. Compare Florida and New York. Over the past seven years, Florida's incarceration rate has increased 16 percent, while New York's decreased 16 percent. Yet the crime rate in New York has fallen twice as much as Florida's. Put another way, although New York spent less on its prisons, it delivered better public safety. Americans need to know that we can reform our prison systems to cost less and keep the public safe.

Asa Hutchinson was quoted recently in the Globe and Mail on March 3 talking about these same issues. Part of that article reported that:

Because of tough criminal justice policies in the United States, one in every 100 American adults is behind bars--up from one in 400....

Mr. Hutchinson was also stated:

The United States has five per cent of the world’s population but 23 per cent of the world’s recorded prisoners.

That was an admission that there was a failed policy brought into the United States to jail more people and spend more money on prisons. The problem is that it did not reduce crime, but it cost a lot of money. We know the condition of the American economy and the situation that it is in.

The case is very clear. In all cases, throwing more money into prisons and locking more people up does not work. We are not be looking at the causes of crime and the root issues that create criminal intent in our young people. We are not investing in early learning and child care. We are not doing very much to equalize out the opportunity. It does not need to be all kinds of government spending. It could be targeted support for our wonderful Boys and Girls Club.

Tomorrow I will be bowling in Halifax for the Big Brothers Big Sisters. Let us think about the work it does to reduce crime in our communities and the work it does to mentor young Canadians so they do not, as a first instinct, think about becoming a criminal but instead think about the dignity and self-worth they have as individuals. Those are the kinds of things we should be investing more in if we are going to be reducing crime.

I appreciate the minister's indulgence in being here for the discussion on this debate. I commend him on this bill but, overall, I think the justice agenda of the government is taking us in a wrong direction. We cannot even get the exact costs of what the government is proposing in terms of building these mega prisons. It seems that building more prisons is the Conservatives' answer to a national housing strategy but it is not. If we want to keep people out of prison, one way to start is to ensure people have a roof over their heads when they go to sleep at night. We need to provide those kinds of supports that Canadians need.

I am pleased to support this bill. Our Liberal critic, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, has worked very hard on these issues and will also support the bill. It is a sensible bill under the circumstances. We worry about our kids and we want to give them all the tools they need to be happy, healthy and productive adults. From a government point of view, there is a responsibility on us as legislators to recognize that the world is changing.

I support Bill C-54 and I urge other members to do the same.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-54. We have dealt with a lot of justice issues in the House. I follow all of them very carefully and, when I have the opportunity, I contribute to the debate. I am not a lawyer, although I have often been accused of being one, so I often let the people who have done this for a living handle the major bulk of the debates, but I have always been very interested, as are all members.

I am pleased to see Bill C-54. I think there is some work to be done, and with this piece of legislation, I wonder whether not being a lawyer is a detriment or not. One thing that makes us interested in this legislation in particular is our being parents, as many of us are, or grandparents. That is not to say that people who are not parents do not have an interest in what is happening with children.

I have a child who is now a teenager and one who is getting there rapidly. I worry about what happens with my children. People worry in this day and age with the new communications tools that are available to children. We try to monitor them, but there are lots of different things that people worry about when it comes to the exploitation of children.

I have organized how I am going to speak to this bill for the next few minutes. There could be up to 30 million Canadians watching this and I want them to be able to judge their time. This bill is important. I want to talk about the sexual exploitation of children, what happens and how often it happens. I want to set it in the overall context of the crime agenda of the government, and I will have a few comments about what people have to say about it. Then I will come back to the bill and conclude.

As has been noted, Bill C-54 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to introduce or extend mandatory penalties for crimes against children of a sexual nature and to introduce two new offences. We support this legislation. We are very concerned about the safety of our children. We recognize that times are changing and there are different threats to our children than used to exist.

It was the former Liberal government in 2002 that made it illegal to deliberately access a website containing child pornography. In an age where new technologies have the negative effect of increasing access of our children, we need to be responsible and have a look at the Criminal Code to ensure it is up to date.

This bill would introduce mandatory minimum sentences for seven existing Criminal Code offences, including sexual assault on a person under 16 years of age, luring a child, and conducting an indecent act in the presence of a child. It would also increase mandatory sentences for seven sexual offences involving child victims.

I think generally members of the House are going to support this bill. I am not sure but I think the New Democrats and the Bloc are going to support sending the bill to committee. There is a legitimate concern, which I understand and in many ways share, about mandatory minimums. They are controversial. There is a lot of conflicting evidence as to whether mandatory minimums work.

We supported mandatory minimums as a government. The Liberal government brought in some mandatory minimums. We do not think they work in all cases, which I will get to later, but we think in this instance they are appropriate.

The Department of Justice has a family violence initiative website. Let me preface my comments by mentioning people who have come to my constituency office, as people go to the offices of all members, with their concerns. It is pretty disconcerting when they visit their MPs to say they think the law needs to be changed because of something that happened in their own families and then they provide the details of what happened to their children.

In many ways, we are powerless to help these folks. We want to reach out and help them. One way we can help them, of course, is by bringing their stories to Parliament to try to make sure the laws of the land respond to their concerns and the wishes they extend.

The family violence initiative website states:

The sexual abuse and exploitation of children and youth may involve a range of behaviours....Sexual exploitation may involve prostitution as well as making children and youth participate in pornographic acts or performances for personal or commercial use.

Those are fairly serious issues. The question is:

HOW WIDESPREAD IS SEXUAL ABUSE AND THE EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN CANADA?

Further on it states:

However, the available national data indicates that sexual abuse and exploitation of children and youth is disturbingly common in Canada.

It was not recognized as a problem in Canada until the 1984 Badgley report. All evidence we have indicates that this is a very serious issue.

As to the extent of sexual abuse and exploitation, in 2002, 8,800 sexual assaults against children and youth were reported to a subset of 94 police departments in Canada. This included 2,863 sexual assaults against children and youth by family members. This is pretty disturbing. Sexual abuse was the primary reason for investigation in 10% of all child maltreatment referrals to social service agencies.

There is some very good information in terms of types of sexual abuse. According to the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, the most common form of substantiated child sexual abuse in child protection cases was touching and fondling of children. It goes on to talk about other things that are more graphic than that, which I probably do not need to recite here but which need to be brought to the attention of parliamentarians.

Who is doing these crimes? The perpetrators are more often individuals who know the victim rather than strangers. About half of sexual assaults against children and youth reported to a subset of police departments in 2002 involved friends or acquaintances, while a quarter of those assaults involved family members. About 18% involved assaults by strangers. Most but not all are male.

There is a bit of a pattern. We have some information that has been gathered over the years on who is committing these heinous acts against our children. What has been done about it? There have been a number of pieces of legislation that have been brought to this House, mainly by Liberal governments over the years.

Bill C-2, introduced October 8, 2004, proposing amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act that are intended to protect children and others who are vulnerable. It lists all the things that it did, expanding the scope of existing offences, narrowing the availability of statutory defences, composing the creation of new offences, voyeurism, proposes amendments allowing children and other vulnerable witnesses greater access to aids. I will mention a few of them.

Bill C-15A, proclaimed into force in July 2002, created new Criminal Code offences.

Bill C-7, which is the Youth Criminal Justice Act, replaced the Young Offenders Act. It holds young people accountable for their actions through interventions that are fair and in proportion to the seriousness of the offence committed.

Bill C-79, proclaimed in 1999, amends the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act to facilitate the participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice process.

I will not go through all of the bills, but they include: Bill C-27 in 1997; Bill C-46 in 1997; Bill C-41 in 1995; Bill C-42; Bill C-72; Bill C-126; Bill C-49; and Bill C-15. These are all relatively recent pieces of legislation that address the issue of sexual exploitation of children.

We have to accept the fact that there is a problem. Part of that is the changing technology, the changing way children communicate with other children and adults, and sometimes we do not even know who our children are communicating with. I am sure I am no different from any other parent in this place in that we try to keep an eye on those sorts of things. We want our children to be aware of what is happening around them.

We support this legislation. I want to put this in context of the greater criminal justice agenda of the government. Today, we have come together. I think all four parties are speeding up the process so that we can deal with this bill and get it to the Senate so that it can be adopted. The Minister of Justice no doubt is very appreciative of the support of all parties so that we can get this done. However, he has not always been so appreciative of the support of the Liberal Party.

One of my favourite letters that I have seen, and I am sure the minister has had a chance to look at it extensively, is one from February 4 of last year. Senator Cowan sent a very affectionate letter to the Minister of Justice responding to concerns the government had that the Senate was holding up all kinds of legislation. I wonder if the minister remembers that letter.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that the Bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Hon. Rob Nicholson moved that the Bill be read the third time and passed.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin the third reading debate on Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act.

The bill recognizes that sexual exploitation of children causes irreparable harm to the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society. The bill recognizes that we as legislators not only have the opportunity but also the responsibility to do all that we can to protect children from this harm. No less important, the bill reflects the view held by most, if not all, Canadians that sexual exploitation of children is reprehensible and that the criminal law must treat all forms of child sexual exploitation as such, including by imposing penalties that fit the severity of this crime.

Bill C-54 therefore proposes Criminal Code amendments to ensure that all child sexual abuse penalties consistently reflect the serious nature of this crime as well as to prevent the commission of a sexual offence against a child.

The bill proposes to add seven new mandatory sentences to existing child sexual offences that do not currently impose minimum sentences. It proposes to increase the minimum sentences for seven child specific sexual offences that already have mandatory sentences and to impose two new sentences in the two new offences proposed by this bill. In this way, Bill C-54 would ensure that all sexual offences involving child victims are treated the same by requiring all convicted child sex offenders to serve a term of imprisonment. This would eliminate a distinction that currently exists between the 12 child specific sexual offences that already impose mandatory penalties and the seven additional sexual offences that still do not.

This existing distinction sends out the wrong message. In effect, it says to the majority of child sexual assault victims whose offenders are charged under the general sexual assault offence in section 271 that does not impose a minimum sentence that their victimization is less serious than that of the 19% of child victims whose offenders are charged under child specific sexual offences that do carry minimum penalties. This is just wrong and Bill C-54 would change this.

The bill would also increase seven existing mandatory minimum penalties in the child specific sexual offences to ensure that the minimums are commensurate not only with the offence in question, but are also coherent with those for other offences. For example, offences that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment on indictment would have the same minimum penalty of one year.

Accordingly, the existing minimum for the offence of sexual interference in section 151 would be increased from 45 days to one year, which in turn would be consistent with the new minimum proposed in section 271, the general sexual assault offence that also carries a maximum penalty of 10 years on indictment.

During its review of Bill C-54 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard from a range of witnesses, including victims' groups, police, academics, psychologists and criminal lawyers' associations. Some disagreed on Bill C-54's approach with minimum penalties. Some argued against minimum penalties. Some advocated for higher minimum penalties and some supported the reforms as proposed by this bill. But without exception they all agreed that child sexual abuse and the exploitation of children is a serious crime and must be treated as such. That is what this bill would do.

This bill proposes reforms to prevent the commission of sexual offences against children. It does so in two ways.

First, it proposes to create two new offences that target conduct that is preparatory to the commission of a contact sexual offence against a child.

The first offence would prohibit a person from making sexually explicit material available to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual or abduction offence against that child. This offence recognizes that child sex offenders often give this type of material to their victims, often with a view to lowering their sexual inhibitions and making it easier to sexually assault them. If the material is child pornography, irrespective of the reason for which it may be given, this conduct is already prohibited. This bill would now prohibit providing other sexually explicit material for this specific purpose.

Our bill defines “sexually explicit material” in a manner that is consistent with its use and interpretation in the child pornography and voyeurism offences.

The proposed offence would apply to transmitting, making available, distributing or selling such material to a young person for this purpose and would apply whether it is provided directly in a face-to-face encounter or over the Internet.

The second new offence proposed is a prohibition against using telecommunications, such as the Internet, to agree or make arrangements with another person to commit one of the enumerated child sexual or abduction offences.

The existing prohibition in section 172.1 against using a computer system to communicate directly with a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of one of the enumerated child sex and abduction offences only applies where the communication is between the perpetrator and the child. It does not apply to a situation where, for example, one adult uses the Internet to communicate with another adult to agree with or arrange to commit a sexual offence against a third person, the child. Thankfully, this bill would close that gap.

There was much discussion at the justice committee about this new offence as to what the term “telecommunications” includes. How would the offence work? Does its formulation deny an accused legitimate defences and even legitimize police entrapment? The answer to that of course is no.

The term “telecommunications” is defined in the federal Interpretation Act as “the emission, transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by any wire, cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar technical system”.

Using such a broad but clearly defined term would ensure that this new offence would apply to the same prohibited use of new technology that may be created after this offence is enacted.

The new offence would operate in a similar manner to the existing luring a child offence that is found in section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. It includes the same provisions about presumed or reasonable but mistaken belief in the age of the child.

Like the existing luring a child offence, the common law defence of entrapment would still be available to an accused in the appropriate circumstances.

Bill C-54 also proposes to require a court to consider prohibiting a child sex offender and a suspected child sex offender under section 810.1 from having both access and opportunity to sexually molest a child. It proposes to expand the list of sexual offences for which such prohibitions could be included to include four prostitution offences where the victim is a child.

Courts would also be specifically directed to consider imposing two new conditions prohibiting the offender from having any unsupervised access to a young person or from having any unsupervised use of the Internet.

These conditions would help prevent the offender from being placed in a situation where he or she has access and opportunity to sexually assault a child, and from having unfettered use of the Internet or other similar technologies that are instrumental in the commission of child pornography and other child sexual exploitative offences today.

Witnesses before the justice committee were generally quite supportive of these proposed preventive measures.

There was some discussion of what is meant by these provisions' use of the term “the Internet or other digital network”. Bill C-54's use of “the Internet or other digital network” is consistent with its commonly understood meaning. It is also used in Bill C-32, the Copyright Modernization Act, which is currently before Parliament.

Clearly, the intention here is to direct the court to consider imposing such a prohibition where it is appropriate in the circumstances of the accused and the safety needs of the community and, as specifically directed by this bill, to impose the prohibition subject to any appropriate conditions as determined by the court.

I am confident that this proposal strikes the right balance in providing sufficient clarity and needed flexibility to enable the courts to craft a clear and understandable prohibition with any applicable conditions warranted by the circumstances of each case.

This is an important step forward in the protection of children in this country, and I am asking the House to pass this bill as rapidly as possible.

The House proceeded to the consideration of C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to your ruling yesterday, we are working right now as we speak to comply on that issue and we will be responding in short order.

We will continue debate today on the Bloc opposition motion that began this morning.

Tomorrow, we will call for third reading of Bill C-55, the new veterans charter bill. I appreciate that there has been support for the passage of that bill. It is important for Canada's veterans and I am pleased that we have been able to come together on that.

Following Bill C-55, if time permits, we would debate Bill C-54, protecting children from sexual predators; Bill S-7, the justice for victims of terrorism; Bill C-8, the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-12, the democratic representation bill, which is an important bill for my premier in Ontario and particularly for the people in both Alberta and British Columbia; Bill C-46, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-57, improving trade within Canada; Bill C-43, RCMP modernization; Bill C-52, investigating and preventing criminal electronic communications; and Bill C-50, improving access to investigative tools for serious crime.

With respect to the business for next week, I will be, among other places, working hard in my constituency for the people of Ottawa West--Nepean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. It's good to see you again, Ms. McAuley.

The last time you were before our committee you presented to us on Bill C-54. The question I'm going to ask is relevant to the bill we're studying today. Your presentation included a topic called, “Most serious sentence in sexual assault cases in adult criminal courts, Canada, 2000/2001 to 2008/2009”. It showed a stark increase in custodial sentences after approximately 2005.

My understanding is that the former Liberal government had instituted a number of mandatory minimum penalties for some sexual offences around 2005 or just prior to that. I'm not sure of the exact timing. Am I correct that there was a significant increase in custodial sentences? Perhaps you could let us know what you understand the costs of those increased custodial sentences to be. Were the projected cost increases of those custodial sentences presented by the former government at the time, which introduced this legislation in Parliament?

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the member's question, I would like to, on behalf of the government, add my voice to the voices of the member for Toronto Centre and the member for Winnipeg Centre who spoke about the passing of a distinguished member of the parliamentary press gallery, Jim Travers of The Toronto Star. He was a long-time member of the parliamentary press gallery and a former editor of the Ottawa Citizen. Jim would have been just 63 years old next month. His passing in the hospital was completely shocking and unexpected.

Jim was a top national journalist and a columnist who never was afraid to make his views known on the printed page and on the airwaves as a frequent guest on panel shows and talk radio. He was a passionate Canadian. He loved this country and he was incredibly committed to his craft. Canada has certainly lost a legend.

On behalf of all of us in this place, I offer our sincere condolences to Jim's wife Joan, his sons Patrick and Ben, and to the rest of his family and friends, and his colleagues especially from The Toronto Star who, I know, are deeply saddened by this loss, and, indeed, all of his colleagues in the parliamentary press gallery at this very difficult time. The thoughts and prayers of all Canadians are with Jim's family and many friends.

In terms of parliamentary business for the coming week, today we will continue debate on the NDP opposition motion. I thank my NDP counterpart, the member for Vancouver East, after our difference of opinion. We have worked to make Parliament work and we have come to an agreement that has been satisfactory to both sides. I also thank my opposition colleagues from Ottawa South and Joliette for their assistance and agreement in this matter.

Tomorrow, we will resume and hope to complete debate on Bill C-55, the enhanced new veterans charter that our colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, has introduced. Following Bill C-55, we will move to call Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons).

Next week, we will continue with the business on Friday and, in addition, we will call Bill C-20, the action plan for the National Capital Commission; Bill C-54, the child sexual offences; Bill C-8, the Canada–Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-12, the democratic representation; Bill C-46, the Canada–Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-57, improving trade within Canada, brought forward by the Minister for Small Business; and Bill C-50, improving access to investigative tools for serious crimes, which is an important bill sponsored by our colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

My friend from Ottawa South and the member for Vancouver East mentioned a solicitation for financial funds on parliamentary letterhead.

Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Board of Internal Economy, I think it would be wise for you to place this issue before the Board of Internal Economy. There have been several complaints about opposition members soliciting campaign funds on government websites and perhaps the board could discuss that at the same time.

With respect to Bill S-10 and Bill C-49, we continue to make our case to Canadians and are working hard to convince the Liberal Party of the wrong decision it has made on these important piece of legislation. We will call for further debate in due course.

Justice and Human Rights

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Monday, December 6, 2010, your committee has considered Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children) and agreed on Monday, February 28, 2011 to report it without amendment.

[Carole Morency]

--additional offences that aren't there right now, and that we're adding, again to ensure a consistent approach throughout when we're dealing with child sexual offences, but the intention is the same.

Clause 26 proposes a similar amendment to the peace bond provision we just discussed in LIB-1. It would enable the court to consider imposing the two new conditions being proposed when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person before them might commit one of the enumerated offences. Here, we would be adding the two new offences proposed by Bill C-54 as well as.... It's the two conditions and the two offences.

Clause 27 is amending Form 5.04, which deals with an order to take a DNA substance. Again, it's because we've amended the provisions that authorize the taking of it for the two new offences.

Sorry, was that...?

[Carole Morency]

On the other question in terms of what Bill C-54 does generally from clauses 20 through to 27, in clauses 20 and 21, the amendments are to list the new offences proposed in Bill C-54 in the provisions that apply right now dealing with facilitating testimony by child victim witnesses in criminal proceedings. Recalling that one of the overarching objectives of Bill C-54 is to ensure that we have a consistent approach, where a child victim of any of the other child sex offences can benefit through the aid of testifying behind a screen and so on, those are going to be available to victims in these cases as well.

Clause 22 deals with a consistent approach, again, in terms of how we deal with like offences for the collection of DNA for criminal conviction purposes. Clauses 22 and 23 deal with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. They are about having a consistent approach.

For these clauses, you'll see that there is a coordinating amendment at the end of the bill to coordinate changes already made to those provisions by what was Bill S-2, which has received royal assent and will be proclaimed into force. The intention of these clauses and the coordinating amendment is to ensure that once both laws are in force, the new offences will be added in and we'll have a consistent approach to the treatment of these offences as reordered in Bill S-2.

Clause 24 deals with the dangerous offender provision of the Criminal Code. We're adding in the new offence of agreement or arrangement for a sexual offence against a child as well as the procuring offences—there are two of them—dealing with child victims. Again, we're trying to ensure consistency. Over the years, when you amend here or there, sometimes some things are not caught. We're trying to have a consistent approach.

Clause 25 deals with the long-term-offender provisions. The listing here--

[Carole Morency]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Carole Morency]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

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

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

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

We have with us a number of witnesses.

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

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

Mr. Comartin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We listened to victims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our government has listened to victims.

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

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

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

[Carole Morency]

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

[Carole Morency]

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

[Carole Morency]

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

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

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

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

[Carole Morency]

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

That's my ruling.

Go ahead, Monsieur Ménard.

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

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

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

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

Go ahead, Monsieur Petit.

(On clause 2)

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

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

Colleagues, I am on slide 3.

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

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

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

Before we move forward, there are two items.

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

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

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

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

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

(Motion agreed to)

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

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

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to talk about real concerns. I have been sitting in my office since about 4:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m.—for as you know, I have a hard time getting around—and listening to the debates. It is unfortunate that there are not more lawyers who have practised criminal law in this House, because I think the questions, with all due respect to my Liberal and NDP colleagues, have been way out in left field. I would not go so far as to say way out in a potato field, but almost.

I was elected to the House in 2004 and as early as 2005, people have been saying that one of the major problems concerning crime, criminal law in Canada and sentencing—and it is unfortunate that not every Tom, Dick and Harry understands this—is not that people are serving sentences that are too short, but rather that the Conservatives are always pushing for more sentences and longer sentences than the sentences handed down.

And whether my colleague across the floor likes it or not, Bill C-54 is currently being examined and the Conservatives still want to impose minimum prison sentences all the time.

I hope they will listen to me. The problem is not the minimum prison sentences. When criminals are sentenced in court and the judge takes the time to explain to one of them, to Harry, for instance, that he is being sentenced to 36 months, Harry can go to prison knowing that, if he has no prior convictions, he may serve eight months. The problem is with the one-sixth rule. There is never enough time to begin treating these people.

I would like to explain something for the benefit of my colleagues across the way, the NDP and the Liberals, who have little experience in criminal law. When a criminal is sentenced—Tom or Dick or Harry, for instance—he is sentenced to exactly 36 months in prison. He is then sent to a federal reception centre, where all convicted criminals begin their sentences, and he will spend about three to six months there, for that is where inmates are classified. For example, will he be sent to Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec, or to Kingston, Ontario? How does that work?

They look at Harry's case and tell him he will serve his 36-month sentence at La Macaza, a minimum security prison. What does Harry do? He goes. And whether my colleague likes it or not, it could be a medium-security prison or a minimum-security one. So he is in prison, but eight months have already gone by before anything is done with Harry. By the time they look at the case of someone sentenced to 36 months, he is practically released.

The best example is the alleged mafia leader, who is now somewhere between heaven and hell. He was arrested in a huge raid in 2009 and was put in detention. What did his lawyer do? Some lawyers will tell their client not to plead guilty right away, that it is better to wait. Being given a two- or three-year sentence means that when the sentence is handed down, the time already spent in custody will count for nearly double, unless the judge says that it will not count for double. If the judge agrees the time count for double, this is what happens.

The individual's sentence really begins at the moment it is handed down. However, time spent in pre-sentencing custody is taken into consideration.

In our friend Harry's case, he has received a three-year sentence, but he has already been in custody for two months. Two months are taken off, sometimes four. Thirty-six minus four equals 32 months. It takes four months for the case to be looked at because he was sent to the federal reception centre. That brings us to 32 minus four, which is 28 months. Things are going well. This is what happens: one-sixth of the sentence is calculated, regardless of what the Minister of Heritage thinks. He does not understand anything. I know he does not understand anything because no one in Vancouver understands how it works. He is already having a hard time with culture. We will look after culture or maybe agriculture, with all these tubers. Maybe he could look after heritage someday.

I think it is deplorable that they are trying to have us believe that if we eliminate the one-sixth sentence, it will cost more to keep someone in prison. That is a bit hard to accept since it is only normal to expect that a person sentenced to prison will serve that sentence or, at least, will prepare for his release through a parole readiness program. It simply is not possible to prepare a release plan for anyone currently being paroled after serving one-sixth of a sentence.

Mr. Lacroix, sentenced to 13 years in prison, was released after less than two years. It took four months before his case was processed at the federal reception centre. What happened? He is now in a community centre. He will do community service, because that is important for his rehabilitation. However, it would also be important for his rehabilitation for him to reflect a little more than he did when he committed his crimes. Generally speaking, these criminals are not dangerous. They are dangerous to others. They are thieves. We call them white collar criminals.

People generally are not released after serving one sixth of their sentence if they have been convicted of violent crimes, if it is not their first penitentiary sentence, etc. There are a number of examples. However, take the case of someone who was sentenced by a judge for impaired driving for the eighth time. The judge says this time, enough is enough. He sentences the individual to 40 months in prison. That individual is certainly not a danger when he is in prison. Obviously, he will not be drinking when he is in prison. Maybe he will, but I would be surprised. What does that person do when he is in prison? He sits down and watches television. If he is released after serving one-sixth of his sentence, which unfortunately happens far too often, he turns up impaired once again and he may commit another offence such as impaired driving causing bodily harm, or even impaired driving causing death.

If that individual had not been released after serving one sixth of his sentence, if he had worked with counsellors on preparing for his release, things could have been different. Parole should be earned and release should be prepared for. The purpose of Bill C-59 is to prevent people from being released too quickly.

What makes the public angry is not minimum prison sentences; rather, it is individuals who are sentenced to time in prison and who do not serve that time. That is what makes the public angry.

We try to make the Conservatives understand this in committee when they ask us to impose minimum prison sentences. They do not listen because they think that minimum prison sentences will solve the problem. That is the only thing they are interested in. But it is completely false.

All of the studies we have managed to collect, read and analyze show clearly that minimum prison sentences do not solve anything. What helps or makes individuals understand the importance of rehabilitation is to insist they serve their sentences and develop a release plan to prepare for to their return to society. It is unfortunate, but such is currently the case with Bill C-59. I believe the Liberals and the New Democrats want to gain some political advantage by voting against Bill C-59; however, at this stage, it is time—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We've come to the end of our time. I want to thank all our witnesses for appearing here. Your testimony forms part of the record, and we'll take that into consideration as we continue a review of Bill C-54. Thank you to all of you.

The meeting is adjourned.

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

Okay, so you agree with that statement. You agree with that part of Bill C-54?

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

Can I ask you about two specific new offences that are included in Bill C-54? One of the new provisions will prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child. That's a new criminal offence that's being created by Bill C-54. Do you think this offence should be created and should become part of the Criminal Code of Canada?

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

Okay. It's too bad you didn't, because if you had, you would have seen some very compelling testimony from people who themselves were child sex victims, and organizations that represent child sex victims, and organizations that run, for example, the child pornography alert system in Canada. They told us very clearly that these provisions in Bill C-54 are important and necessary. I would recommend that testimony to you, and I hope you'll take the opportunity later today to go back and look at it; it's all on the Internet.

Specifically, they told us that the mandatory minimum penalties in these provisions are important and necessary. They're necessary to them for a lot of reasons, and one of the reasons is the victims say it's very difficult for a victim to come forward and tell these stories and go through this process, and they need to feel a sense of self-worth. When they see the person who sexually abused them go back home without any time in jail whatsoever, that tells them that society is saying to them that their life is not worth very much.

Are they uninformed, Ms. Berzins, those child sex victims? Would you call them part of the uninformed group of Canadian citizens who don't understand as you do why this legislation isn't necessary?

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

Right. And the members of the church organizations are uninformed about this criminal justice issue, Bill C-54, and what our criminal justice system response should be to people who sexually abuse children.

Did you review the transcript of this committee's hearings on January 31 of this year?

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

So your view is perhaps that the people who drafted this legislation may also be uninformed. I understand.

The reason I ask is I regularly survey my constituents on Bill C-54 and other bills that our government has put forth on criminal justice issues, and I have to tell you that I get overwhelming support for this legislation and for other legislation on our criminal justice agenda from my constituents. I checked the stats, and Statistics Canada tells me that 65% of my constituents are regular church attenders and attend many of the churches that your organization represents. So I'm just curious as to why there is such a disparity between what they tell me.... And of course I have to represent all of them and I have to be concerned about their perception of the efficacy of our criminal justice system and the integrity of our criminal justice system, and they tell me that this is something we should do.

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

I'll take it that the answer is that you didn't receive any submissions on the specific provisions in Bill C-54.

You mentioned in your opening remarks something I thought was quite interesting. You said that “uninformed people are not the people to rely on to guide you in what you should be doing on something as important as this”. Would you consider the members of the churches that your organization represents uninformed, generally speaking, on something as important as this?

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

Did you receive any submissions from any of the members of those churches on the provisions of Bill C-54?

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

Okay. And did you survey the membership of any of the member churches that your organization represents on the provisions of Bill C-54?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here today.

Ms. Berzins, I was interested in what you had to say. Have you had an opportunity to read all the provisions of Bill C-54? Have you reviewed them?

[Dr. Richard Haughian, Vice-President, Church Council on Justice and Corrections]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

The Church Council on Justice and Corrections is a national faith-based coalition of 11 founding churches, incorporated in 1972. We promote community responsibility for justice, with an emphasis on addressing the needs of victims and offenders, mutual respect, healing, individual accountability, and crime prevention.

In December 2010 the CCJC sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada expressing our concern that in this time of financial cuts to important services, the Government of Canada is prepared to significantly increase investment in the building of new prisons: “Proposed new federal laws will ensure that more Canadians are sent to prison for longer periods, a strategy that has been repeatedly proven neither to reduce crime nor to assist victims”.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-54 is one of the bills about which we have concern.

With me is Ms. Lorraine Berzins, CCJC's community chair of justice. Lorraine has had many years of experience working in the criminal justice system. She will speak in more detail about CCJC's position.

[Ed McIsaac, Interim Director, Policy, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you.

I'll begin by thanking the committee, on behalf of the John Howard Society of Canada, for the invitation to appear. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss Bill C-54.

For those of you who don't know, the John Howard Society of Canada is a non-profit organization whose mission is to support effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and the consequences of crime. The society has 65 front-line offices across the country, which deliver programs and services to support the safe reintegration of offenders into our communities.

Everyone in this room is supportive of protecting our children from sexual predators and promoting safer communities. Where our concern lies with this legislation is in the vehicle chosen to accomplish this goal. The introduction of mandatory minimum sentences and the corresponding elimination of conditional sentences proposed by this legislation will, in our opinion, not move us forward on these issues.

The John Howard Society of Canada has been on record for a decade as opposing mandatory minimum sentences. One of the cornerstones of our sentencing policy is proportionality. We sentence the offender, not the offence. The ability of the judiciary after having heard all of the evidence to pass sentence consistent with that evidence is central to ensuring proportionality and effective interventions.

I am unaware that we have experienced in this country a rash of unreasonable sentencing decisions that would cause us to limit the traditional discretion given our judges. Both experience and research tell us that mandatory minimum sentences, in addition to limiting the ability to ensure that sanctions imposed fit the crime, result in fewer guilty pleas, which results in more trials, with more offenders being sentenced to longer periods of incarceration. Our courts are currently backlogged, resulting in excessive delays in initiating corrective interventions. Our jails are currently overcrowded at both the provincial and the federal level, causing further delays in accessing treatment programs.

We know that mandatory minimum sentences neither act as a deterrent nor reduce crime rates. The protection of society is best served through the timely, supportive reintegration of offenders back into our communities. Mandatory minimum sentences do not facilitate that process.

The limitations placed on judicial discretion by this legislation will, in both the long and short term, act as barriers to achieving the legislative objective. As both our neighbours to the south and Great Britain retreat from decades of mandatory minimum sentencing policy, I urge this committee to take a step back and ensure that proportionality remains the cornerstone of our sentencing policies.

I thank you for your attention. I look forward to your comments and questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I'll reconvene the meeting.

We have with us a new panel to speak on Bill C-54.

First of all, representing the John Howard Society, we have Ed McIsacc, who is their interim director of policy. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Mr. R. Karl Hanson, senior research scientist, corrections and criminal justice.

You are here representing the department, correct?

[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.

[Lianna McDonald, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Child Protection]

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, I thank you for the opportunity to provide a presentation on Bill C-54 and the larger issue of child sexual abuse and exploitation on the Internet.

I had the privilege to present to this committee a few months ago on Bill C-22, which provided the occasion to share some important background information on our agency and other relevant data surrounding the online sexual exploitation of children. Therefore, my goal today is to provide insight and information specifically to Bill C-54 and to make a few arguments for support of this new legislation.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection will offer testimony today based on its role in operating Cybertip.ca, Canada's tip line to report the online sexual exploitation of children, as well as its coordinating role with law enforcement and the public and private sectors in combatting online child victimization.

I am joined today by my colleague, Signy Arnason, who is the director of Cybertip.ca. She will speak later to some of the actual reports received by the tip line over the course of the last year.

As stated previously, Cybertip was established in 2002 in partnership with the Government of Canada, various provincial governments, a national law enforcement advisory committee, and a federal task force and steering committee. Like other international hotlines, Cybertip has analysts who review, confirm, and triage reports to the appropriate law enforcement jurisdiction. In particular, the tip line accepts reports related to child abuse material known as child pornography, luring, child sex tourism, children exploited through prostitution, and child trafficking. The tip line is owned and operated by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, a national charity dedicated to the personal safety of all children.

Since launching nationally, the tip line has received nearly 48,000 reports from the public regarding the online sexual exploitation of children, which has resulted in over 70 arrests by law enforcement and numerous children being removed from harmful or abusive environments.

As the front door to the Canadian public, Cybertip receives information regarding various types of concerning behaviours and harmful activities towards children. Often the tip line is the first to become aware of new trends and ways in which adults target or hurt children for sexual purposes. This would include reports dealing with the new offences captured under Bill C-54.

Based on our data, the proposed legislation rightfully acknowledges the role of the Internet in facilitating crimes against children. It is well established that the Internet facilitates the sexual abuse and exploitation of children in a number of ways. Individuals with a sexual interest in children often misuse technology to gain access to them, to normalize their deviant sexual interest, and to fuel sexual fantasies. As a result, reporting to Cybertip and other hotlines continues to grow annually in response to this growing problem.

Beyond reports to Cybertip pertaining to child abuse images, the tip line continues to receive reports that pertain to what is generally defined in the public domain as grooming. This activity often includes adults sending sexually explicit material to one or many targeted children. In the majority of these reports, the children are under the age of 13 and are sent sexually explicit images or videos, usually involving the offender either masturbating, pictures of their genitals, or hard core adult pornography. The grooming process is often used to bring down the child's inhibitions, to attempt to normalize sexual activity, and to engage the child in sexual interactions. In most cases, children do not have the maturity, emotional capacity, and development to manage the short- and long-term implications of such activity.

To date, little has been done to address such activities through the criminal justice process, contrary to the opinion and outrage of most Canadians.

Some of the more concerning reports deal with adults agreeing or making arrangements to commit a sexual offence against one or more children. It is hard to believe that people would offer up their very young children for other individuals to sexually abuse. In one report to Cybertip, a forum moderator was reported as making arrangements to trade his 12-year-old daughter for a second person's four-year-old daughter. The reported information indicated that there was discussion that the second person was going to have sex with the 12-year-old, film it, and impregnate her.

The tip line to date has received a handful of these types of reports. Clearly, they are very much of concern and warrant immediate action. Law enforcement's ability to use the new provisions outlined in Bill C-54 will greatly assist them in their efforts to charge individuals engaging in this type of harmful activity.

Similar to Canada's luring legislation, these two new additions will prove effective, in that law enforcement will be able to take swift action and potentially prevent a child from being victimized. As a result of Canada's existing luring legislation, countless children have been protected in advance of a serious sexual offence occurring; moreover, our agency believes that once the public becomes aware of these new amendments and understands their role in reporting, more children will be saved from abuse.

The public nature of the Internet, combined with the viral nature of child abuse material, offers the opportunity for the public to report and assist in the detection of this type of material and harmful behaviour towards children. While our organization supports the new amendments included in Bill C-54, it should be noted that public education and awareness efforts must also be key components to addressing this problem. Awareness efforts to educate parents and adults surrounding healthy boundaries towards children are essential, as is public education about laws protecting children. The responsibility of adults to take the necessary steps to report and protect them is also imperative.

In concluding, it is critical that governments recognize the particular vulnerability of children, combined with the fact that in today's society children are connected to a technological world that allows unprecedented access to them. This unlevel playing field has given children a new, largely unsupervised playground and has opened to doors for adults to take full advantage of this opportunity. For this reason, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection supports Bill C-54 and urges the government to move swiftly and enact this important legislation to better protect Canada's children.

Thank you.

[Michael Spratt, Director, Criminal Lawyers' Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon to the honourable members of this committee.

My name is Michael Spratt. I'm a criminal defence lawyer. I practise at the law firm of Webber Schroeder Goldstein Abergel here in Ottawa. I practise exclusively in the area of criminal law. To my left is Mr. Russomanno, who practises at the same law firm, also exclusively in criminal law. We're both members of the Criminal Lawyers' Association. I'm on the board of that organization and Mr. Russomanno is a member.

The Criminal Lawyer's Association was founded in 1971 and is made up of over a thousand criminal lawyers. We're routinely consulted by governments and committees such as this committee on proposed legislation that affects criminal law. The CLA supports legislation that's fair, constitutional, and supported by evidence. The CLA supports protecting vulnerable members of our society—in this case, children.

The CLA remains opposed to the use of the mandatory minimum sentences. They are not fair, and they do not accomplish the objectives that this bill seeks to accomplish. Bill C-54 is another example of the government's love of mandatory minimum sentences. This love persists despite evidence that minimum sentences just don't work. They don't accomplish the objectives that we sometimes believe they might. This bill's short title is “Protecting Children from Sexual Predators”, so I take it that the aim of this bill is to protect children. Unfortunately, the bill as constructed, largely because of the use of mandatory minimum sentences, will fall short of this goal.

There are many problems with mandatory minimum sentences. The first is that minimum sentences remove judicial discretion. This is a departure from one of the historic underpinnings of our justice system—the discretion of a trial judge to impose a just and appropriate sentence. Trial judges are in the best place to craft appropriate sentences. They hear the facts and the circumstances of the offence. They hear details about the offender—his personal circumstances, treatment that the offender sought, and in many cases reports from medical professionals about the risk of reoffence. They also hear from victims through victim impact statements. With this information, they're in the best position to craft a sentence that's fair to the offender and proportional to the offence, to craft a decision that reflects the principles of sentencing.

Mandatory minimum sentences limit this judicial discretion. In fact, they do something even more insidious in transferring that discretion to the police and to the prosecutors—the police who decide what charges to lay, and the prosecutors who decide how to proceed with a charge. Is it a summary offence or is it an offence that will proceed by way of indictment? The crown has discretion to take pleas to lesser included offences that sometimes don't carry mandatory minimum sentences.

The removal of judicial discretion hides the decision-making process. Judges have to deliver reasons, and substantial reasons, for their decisions. Judges are reviewable by appellate courts. The police and the prosecutors are not. Their discretion is not reviewable and is not made public. In short, the removal of discretion will undermine confidence in the judiciary.

Mandatory minimum sentences accomplish two negative things at the same time. They act as an inducement for someone who may not be guilty to plead guilty to avoid a mandatory minimum sentence if the prosecutor offers to bury the charges the person is facing. At the same time, they offer an inducement to take a matter to trial, to use court time to litigate a matter. That often happens. Because the penalty is so severe under the mandatory minimums, there is no risk, no advantage, in taking the matter to trial.

We're all aware that resources are not infinite. What I just mentioned doesn't even take into account the increase in the prison population. Mandatory minimums also disproportionately affect minorities, particularly aboriginal groups. The Supreme Court of Canada in the landmark case of Gladue has recognized that because of their unique background and historic disadvantages, the sentencing of aboriginal people is different. There are different considerations to be taken into account.

Mandatory minimum sentences have the risk of being unconstitutional in that regard, where those considerations the Supreme Court directs cannot be taken into account because there is a mandatory minimum sentence that dictates the result--sometimes an inappropriate result.

Lastly, mandatory minimums do little to advance the principles of sentencing. Mr. Russomanno--if I haven't used all his time by the time I'm done speaking--is going to talk to you about how mandatory minimum sentences don't offer any positive benefits with respect to deterrence, how they don't deter people from committing crimes.

Apart from that, as you've heard already, mandatory minimum sentences can interfere with rehabilitation, which is a paramount principle of our sentencing principles. They essentially abandon rehabilitation or devalue rehabilitation, and put an offender sometimes in a worse position. Mandatory minimums, as Mr. Russomanno will tell you, don't deter.

What mandatory minimum sentences are good at is denouncing conduct, and retribution. Unfortunately, those two principles do not lead to safety. They do not lower the risk of reoffence or offence in the first place, and they often result in the use and overuse of scarce resources and the potential result of unfit sentences.

I'll turn the floor over for whatever time is remaining to Mr. Russomanno.

[Andrew McWhinnie, Andrew McWhinnie Consulting, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I am Andrew McWhinnie. I hold a master's degree in psychology with an emphasis on the psychology of criminal conduct. About one-third of my private practice is with men who have come into conflict with the law as a result of their sexual behaviour. I also work with men and women who have been sexually victimized. I also consult with correctional agencies nationally and internationally with regard to reintegration strategies for people who have been convicted of sexual assault and other sexual crimes, called circles of support and accountability. I welcome this opportunity to appear before you today.

I wish to address three points. First, as it stands now, while Bill C-54 is a good bill generally, its efforts to institute and modify minimum sentences upwards for sexual offences against children will have the unintended effect of actually decreasing safety for children. At the same time, it will handcuff one of the best-placed safeguards against those unintended consequences, the judiciary. We can and must do better for our children.

The majority, over 80%, of sexual offences against children are perpetrated by a relative or someone known to the child. Further, we need to remember that the majority of those convicted of sexual offences against children will return to the community. Increasing mandatory minimum sentences exposes potential child victims and their families who are the unseen victims of sexual assault to increased harm, because many families, including the children, are dependent on the offenders. The ability to remain in the community, while unpalatable for some, means that the offender will in many cases be able to continue supporting his family while receiving treatment. We cannot and must not ignore or trivialize this fact. These family members are innocent and should not be punished.

The bill proposes a virtual automatic jail sentence of five years for an incest offender, given that most of these incest offences are prosecuted years after the incidents occurred. Incest offenders are the least likely to reoffend, and yet the stiffest penalty proposed under Bill C-54 is reserved for them. This makes no sense and is not what Canadian families want.

For others, an automatic jail term compromises the ability of offenders to access treatment in the community. Receiving treatment in jail will not happen during sentences of 30 and 90 days. Treatment could, however, be started in this time period were the offender left in the community. This is important, given that we know that treated offenders are less likely to reoffend than untreated offenders. This is even more important when you consider that one of the developmental factors that most differentiates child molesters from non-sexual offenders is the history of being sexually victimized in childhood. We should think about that.

Following even a minimum sentence, offenders will be returned to their community--or some other unsuspecting community--and their families as untreated, unemployed, unsupported, and despised. How does this accomplish a major goal of the proposed legislation to prevent the commission of sexual offences against the child?

Left as it is, this bill has the very real risk of doing exactly the opposite. It is true, of course, that not all offenders are members of intact families, not all are employed, not all are in communities where treatment is available, and not all are victims of horrific sexual assaults. True, some families will want them removed from the community. Bill C-54 does not distinguish these differences. Instead, it would handcuff that critically important part of our justice system best placed to assess these variances. Judges will not be able to consider the needs of this complex and diverse group of offenders and craft sentences designed to meet the needs of those people and protect Canadian children.

Other countries, and particularly the United States, have been down this road ahead of us. We need to look carefully at what their experience has been. Some members of the European Union--for example, Latvia, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Belgium--and some states in the United States are looking at their laws with a view to reducing the time some offenders spend in jail. I will soon be offering testimony to the California Supreme Court, which is interested in exploring options other than incarceration for some of their sexually violent predators who are currently subject to their civil commitment statutes. They have discovered the hard way that increasing the incarceration rate with ever more severe punishment-focused laws is unaffordable, and it is having a serious impact on their fiscal and social economies.

Some like to think that victims want perpetrators to be punished harshly by spending more time in jail, but this is not always the case. Many simply want only three things: for the offences to stop and not to happen to other children, for the offender to obtain the help and support they need not to offend again, and to know why they were chosen by their offender. In other words, they want counselling and support for themselves.

Finally, I want to emphasize that the best practices nationally and internationally recognize that the prevention of crime through treatment, especially of youth at risk, and provision of support for victims, especially those who may go on to become abusers, are practices that make real differences in a society's bid to protect its most vulnerable members.

One such practice that provides those needed supports and encouragements to living safe and accountable lives among adult offenders is circles of support and accountability. Circles of support and accountability are a Canadian innovation, first attempted by members of a Mennonite church in southern Ontario. Circles of support and accountability are groups of between four and seven citizen volunteers who agree to accompany, support, and hold a sexual offender accountable following his release from imprisonment. Volunteers are screened and they receive training for this purpose.

In a national study of the effectiveness of circles, researchers found circles of support and accountability participants had an 83% less likelihood of reoffending, 73% less violent reoffending, and 72% less reoffending of any kind than a matched comparison group who did not participate in circles. Further, in looking at the total number of new charges incurred by the two groups, as opposed to just the numbers of offenders who recidivated, the comparison group garnered 76% more charges than the circles of support and accountability group.

I have submitted a report containing those numbers to the clerk, which will be translated and made available to members of this committee.

Circles of support and accountability are supported in part by the Correctional Service of Canada chaplaincy division and by other faith and non-faith supporters in the community. Currently they work with about 160 offenders, with over 350 volunteers nationwide.

The annual budget for COSA, circles of support and accountability, in Canada is $2.5 million, a fraction of the cost that will be incurred by Bill C-54 and other tough-on-crime measures. Borrowing from the Canadian example, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Latvia, and several U.S. states have developed COSA in their jurisdictions.

While Bill C-54 has the potential for good and the potential to deliver on its promises of protecting children, it also has some serious flaws. These have especially to do with the blanket mandatory sanctions that will not safeguard children. Indeed, these may actually increase the danger towards children.

Other countries are looking at other options instead of increasing incarceration rates. The resources that would be required to implement the mandatory minimums called for in Bill C-54 would be far better diverted to increasing treatment for sexual offenders and equipping alternatives like circles of support and accountability.

Both of these options, circles of support and accoutability and treatment, have proved to be very effective at reducing reoffence rates against children, thereby substantially increasing safety in our society and internationally.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, for the opportunity to discuss these very important matters with you. I am available for questions, as you see fit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting 46 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Monday, February 7, 2011.

Just as a note, today's meeting is being televised.

You have before you the agenda for today. We're continuing our review of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children).

To help us with our review we have with us the following witnesses. First of all, representing the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, we have Lianna McDonald. Welcome back. We also have Signy Arnason. Welcome.

We have BOOST Child Abuse Prevention and Intervention, represented by Karyn Kennedy and Pearl Rimer. Welcome to both of you.

We have the Criminal Lawyers' Association, represented by Michael Spratt and Leonardo Russomanno. Welcome to both of you.

As an individual, we have Andrew McWhinnie.

I think you've been advised as to the process. Each of you has ten minutes to present. Organizations have ten minutes collectively. Then we'll open the floor to questions from our members.

Why don't we start with Mr. McWhinnie. You have ten minutes.

[Carole Morency]

When we look at how our laws compare with those of others, I would suggest that the comparison needs to look at not just what the mandatory minimum is, but at the nature of the offence and what the maximum penalty is that's imposed in the other law as well, because the approach presented in Bill C-54 seeks to bring a consistency across the board for the offences that we have here in Canada.

As you asked, if you look at, for example, the United States, criminal law is a state power. If you look at the state law on child pornography or other forms of child sexual exploitation, you will find a range of penalties, both minimum and maximum, and a difference of approach. I'm not in a position to go through all of that at this time.

But as I mentioned before, at the federal level they have federal criminal laws that address child pornography offences. For example, there is a five-year minimum penalty and a maximum of twenty years for a first offence of distributing child pornography through the mails. It has to be through the mails to apply at the federal level, to catch the interstate commerce threshold. Then, there's a minimum penalty of 15 years and a maximum penalty of 40 years for a repeat offence of possessing or knowingly accessing child pornography that has been mailed, as an example.

But as I mentioned as well, if you look at other countries and their approaches, there is a range. Canada's, with the mandatory minimums proposed in Bill C-54, are as I say consistent with the mandatory minimum penalties that exist right now in the Criminal Code. One of the proposals, to add a five-year minimum penalty for the offences that carry a fourteen-year maximum penalty—for example, incest in section 155—would be comparable to the offence we have now in the Criminal Code in subsection 212(2.1), the aggravated prostitution of a young person using violence.

The approach Bill C-54 takes is to bring all of that together so that you have coherence.

[Carole Morency]

I can indicate to the committee that variations of this may exist in other countries. In the United States, at the federal law level they have an offence of using the mails to provide child pornography—for example, material to a young person. I believe there might be something similar or a variation of it in the United Kingdom's Sexual Offences Act.

But the approach taken here in Bill C-54 is unique in the sense that it reflects the Canadian law, with similar concepts and similar approaches. As the committee heard on Monday from Inspector Naylor, it's an issue that police have long spoken about that they would find very useful as another offence.

So we know it exists; we know that other countries have approached it perhaps somewhat in similar ways, but not exactly like this.

[Carole Morency]

In fact it's even more fundamental. The offence that's proposed in clause 13 of Bill C-54--it may occur through the Internet, but it does not have to. The intention here is to....

First of all, you'll see that the definition of sexually explicit material excludes child pornography. So we're not talking about someone providing child pornography to a young person. What this offence addresses is any person who takes sexually explicit material and provides it to a young person for the specific purpose of facilitating their commission of a sexual offence against that child.

How can that happen? It could happen, as you mentioned, that an offender is on the Internet and sends such an image to a young person. It could easily, and very often, happen in an in-person direct contact situation--the old-fashioned way, right? We know from research, and forensic psychiatrists who've appeared before this committee before have said, that child sex offenders often use these materials to lower the inhibitions of young people, to show them that this conduct occurs, that other kids may be doing it, or in this case other adults are doing it, to normalize it, to make it easier for them to then sexually assault the child.

So the proposed new offence in clause 13 addresses that conduct, whether it happens in person or through the Internet or other means.

[Carole Morency]

My short answer is I would agree with the premise of the question that the hearing aid wouldn't be transmitting, communicating, providing access to the World Wide Web or other.... I suppose there are some medical devices like a heart halter that might be transmitting data to a recipient computer, but it's not providing access to the Internet or other digital networks in the sense that it would provide the offender with the ability to access or communicate with a child or access illicit material such as child pornography. But I certainly appreciate the concerns expressed here. I will undertake to go back and see if I can provide a more fulsome answer that would allay the concerns you had identified.

As to the other part of your question, my understanding from reading a lot of case law is I have not seen a sentencing court express concern on how to identify what they want to prohibit a convicted person from accessing. Typically what they do, the way it's reflected in judgments, is a sentencing report is provided to the court and submissions are made by the crown and the defence to provide or restrict access to whatever devices or under what terms of supervision. The intention with Bill C-54 was to leave that flexibility in the hands of the court to craft an appropriate sentence to address the concerns in that case.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much.

Perhaps I can make a suggestion which relates to the concerns raised by Mr. Lee, which I share. Indeed, after having listened to him, I understand very well, but perhaps if we added “and other electronic tools as described by the judge”, there would be precise instructions to follow. I imagine that when direction is given, it could refer to a certain number of things. It could refer to the Internet, it could refer to access to this or access to that, and so on, but you do not think of heart monitors or that type of instrument.

There is something else I want to ask right now. Several of the minimum sentence increases affect minimum sentences which were created in 2005, particularly as relates to sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 11 and 12 of Bill C-54. They were introduced for the first time in 2005 and came into effect on November 1, 2005.

To your knowledge, has the Department of Justice, or anyone else, ever undertaken a study to determine how the imposition of minimum sentences in 2005 affected outcomes?

[Carole Morency]

The amendment that you see in clause 15 replaces the word that is currently.... For example, currently section 172.1—luring a child—talks about someone who, using “a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) communicates with”. This is replacing the language there and in the new offences with “telecommunication”, because this is the language that's also being proposed more broadly in what is currently Bill C-51, which was previously Bill C-46, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act. So it's a consistency to broaden the capture of the types of communications that are at play.

Bill C-54 still uses the terminology “Internet”, as you'll see in the offence. We use language for definition of the Internet here that is consistent with Bill C-30, I believe it is—the Copyright Act, which also has that language.

So the intention here is not.... The bill still does use “Internet”, but the use of “telecommunications” would be consistent here with its use in Bills C-51 and C-52.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll reconvene.

Before we move on with our discussion on Bill C-54, we do have an operating budget request for the study of this bill. It was circulated earlier in our meeting. The total is about $15,000. If you could review that and....

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

Mr. Minister, I carefully read Bill C-54. Someone from Quebec City might soon come into my riding and say the opposite, but this is a good bill, apart from some provisions which would impose minimum prison sentences for offences which already exist.

Is the purpose of these minimum prison sentences to prevent the courts from imposing conditional sentences, yes or no?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased to appear before the committee as you begin your review of Bill C-54, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act.

Our goal with this bill is twofold. First, it seeks to ensure that all child sexual offences are treated seriously and consistently for sentencing purposes. Second, it proposes reforms that seek to help prevent the commission of sexual offences against children.

This bill's sentencing reforms target mandatory penalties for all sexual offences where the victim is a child. The sexual abuse of any child is a serious offence, and it must be clearly denounced. Our government believes that child sexual offenders must receive sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes and the danger they represent to our children.

As members of the committee will know, acts of child sexual abuse can be charged under child-specific offences or under the general sexual offences that apply to both adults and child victims. Though these two groups of offences address similar conduct, they do not impose similar penalties where the victim is a child.

For example, some of the child-specific sexual offences impose mandatory minimums, but none of the general sexual offences impose mandatory penalties. In addition, the variations in sentencing often result in conditional sentences of imprisonment--house arrest, as it's often referred to--for some offences but not for others.

The effect of this varying treatment is that not all child sexual assaults are treated equally seriously by the system. In fact, given that 80% of police-reported incidents of child sexual assault in 2008 were charged under the general sexual assault offence in section 271 of the Criminal Code, this means that the overwhelming majority of child sexual offences do not carry a mandatory minimum penalty. This bill changes that.

There are currently 12 child-specific sexual offences that impose mandatory penalties. Amendments made in 2005 to those offences resulted in mandatory penalties being added to only some of the child-specific sexual offences and to none of the general sexual assault provisions. These changes produced a random and inconsistent approach to mandatory penalties such that they do not all adequately reflect the serious nature of the offences.

In order to fix these inconsistencies and ensure that sexual predators receive sentences that reflect the extreme seriousness of their crimes, this bill proposes to add seven new mandatory penalties to offences that currently do not impose mandatory sentencing. Three of these are child-specific offences: the bestiality provisions, the Internet luring of a child, and the exposure to a child under 16 years of age. The other four are general sexual offences, and the mandatory penalties will apply where the victim is a child under the age of 16, the age of consent.

They are section 155, incest; section 271, sexual assault; section 272, sexual assault with a weapon, threats, or causing bodily harm; and section 273, aggravated sexual assault.

This bill proposes higher mandatory penalties for seven child-specific sexual offences that already carry mandatory penalties. This will ensure that the mandatory penalty is not only commensurate with the offence in question but is also consistent with other mandatory penalty offences.

For example, Bill C-54 would increase the current mandatory penalty for section 151, sexual interference--which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years on indictment--from 45 days mandatory to one year mandatory. In this way, the higher mandatory penalty would be consistent with the new mandatory penalty proposed for section 271, the general sexual assault offence.

Bill C-54 also seeks to prevent the commission of a sexual assault against a child. It does so by proposing the creation of two new offences and by requiring the courts to consider imposing two new specific conditions that would seek to prevent a suspected or convicted child sex offender from engaging in conduct that would facilitate their sexual offending.

The first new offence proposed in this bill would prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against the young person. Child sex offenders often provide such material to their intended victims with a view to lowering their sexual inhibitions; in other words, they do this as part of the grooming process of their victim.

Today, if that material constitutes child pornography, irrespective of the purpose, it is already prohibited. Bill C-54 does not change that. But where the material in question is not child pornography--in other words, where it depicts adults engaged in explicit sexual activity as defined by the new offence--the Criminal Code does not currently catch this unless the material meets the very high threshold definition of obscene material under section 163.

Bill C-54 will change this. It proposes to prohibit providing sexually explicit material to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child. This new offence would carry a penalty similar to that for the existing obscenity and corrupting morals offence in section 163.

Bill C-54 also proposes to prohibit anyone from using telecommunications such as the Internet to make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child. In addition, this bill proposes other needed consequential amendments, including, for example, adding the two proposed offences to subsection 7(4.1) of the Criminal Code, which provides Canadian courts with extraterritorial jurisdiction to enable the prosecution of Canadian child sex tourists. Both of the proposed new offences would carry mandatory sentences of imprisonment.

Lastly, our bill proposes to expand the powers of the court to prohibit a convicted child sex offender under section 161 of the Criminal Code and to prohibit a suspected child sex offender under section 810.1 from engaging in conduct that may facilitate their commission of one or more of the enumerated sexual or abduction offences. First, the list of offences would be expanded to include four prostitution offences where the victim is a child; second, the courts would be specifically directed to consider imposing a condition prohibiting the offender from having any unsupervised access to a young person and from having any unsupervised use of the Internet.

The imposition of these conditions would help to prevent the offender from being placed in a situation where he has access and opportunity to sexually assault a child, and from having unfettered use of the Internet and other technologies that are so instrumental in the commission of child pornography and other child-sexually-exploitive offences.

These are the key elements of this bill. As do all law-abiding Canadians, our government knows that the sexual exploitation of children causes irreparable harm to the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society. Our message in Bill C-54 is strong and clear: to those dangerous sexual predators who abuse children, from now on you will go to jail.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 45 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, February 2, 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).

To assist us with our review, we have with us again our Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Rob Nicholson, and accompanying him are senior officials from the Department of Justice. We have with us Carole Morency, acting general counsel, criminal law policy section, and Donald Piragoff, senior assistant deputy minister, policy sector.

Welcome to all three of you.

Joining them will be Matthias Villetorte, counsel, criminal law policy section, once the minister leaves.

A reminder to all members to provide any proposed amendments to the clerk. We're hoping to move to clause-by-clause during the second half of the next meeting, which is Monday. That might carry over into the following day, which would be Wednesday. In any event, if you could get those amendments to us, it would be very helpful to the clerk and the rest of the members.

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

Okay, thank you.

Inspector Naylor, as you know, this Bill C-54 creates two new offences dealing with the exploitation of children using the Internet. It creates an offence to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against the child; and it makes it an offence to use telecommunications, including the Internet, to communicate with another person to agree or make arrangements to commit a sexual offence against a child.

First of all, do you think these offences are necessary? Will they help protect children, and can you give us some examples from your experience of how they'll protect children?

[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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will review the new jail sentences included in this bill. It covers sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, incest where the victim is under 16 years of age, luring a child through the use of a computer, and exposure. There are provisions that create two new offences. I want to take the time to mention these because I find them interesting.

The first is to prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child. This hybrid offence would carry a mandatory prison sentence of 30 days—once again, this is the minimum sentence—and a maximum penalty of 6 months when proceeded on summary conviction, and a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days—once again, this is the minimum sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice very frequently bring these issues up at international conferences, as do our ambassadors and foreign affairs officials around the world. They continually make the case that other jurisdictions must pass the same kinds of legislation that we have here in Canada against child sexual offences and they must enforce them.

In that regard, as the member will know because I know he listened intently to my speech, I said earlier today that Bill C-54 includes a provision, which will be in subsection 7(4.1) of the Criminal Code, that will provide extraterritorial jurisdiction for Canadian prosecution of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who engages in one of the enumerated child sexual offences while abroad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, for his concern and the good work he does to protect children in all of the matters he does, working on behalf of his constituents. I can assure him that the provisions of Bill C-54 will remove the possibility of a conditional sentence for a child sexual offender, and will replace it with a series of mandatory minimum penalties ranging from six months to 18 months of incarceration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

moved 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.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue today with the opposition day motion by our friends from the New Democratic Party. Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the vote on the NDP motion will be deferred until the end of government orders on Tuesday.

Tomorrow we will consider a great bill proposed by the Minister of Justice, Bill C-22, protecting children from online sexual exploitation. The Minister of Justice has another great bill, Bill C-54, protecting children from sexual predators, which we will then debate. We will then move to Bill C-33, the safer railways act, on which the Minister of State for Transport has done a lot of very good work. Next is Bill C-21, the standing up for victims of white collar crime act, which is another strong justice bill brought forward by the Attorney General of Canada.

Next week we will continue with business from Friday.

I am pleased to report that there are ongoing constructive, and even harmonious, discussions among the parties, so the list of business that I mentioned may change.

Next week, each and every day we will be debating great bills that will do great things for Canada.

Also I will return to the House at a later time to designate the last allotted day.

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the hon. member's question, I want to say that at our House leaders meeting just two weeks ago, the government raised the issue of one of the Liberal members calling a minister of the Crown a “slime” five times.

The House leader for the Liberal Party is seeking to raise the decorum and the quality level of debate in this place. The member is a senior member of the Liberal shadow cabinet. Before I answer the normal Thursday question, I wonder if the member could update us on where we are on that.

The House leader of the official opposition has also been very passionate in wanting to reduce the amount of heckling in this place and yet we was rather egregiously heckling the Minister of Finance yesterday on Walkerton. I spoke with the member who represents that constituency and that community takes great offence at the continuing vilification of the name of their town. Maybe we will get that next week with the slime comment.

Today we will continue the opposition motion from the Bloc Québécois.

Friday we will debate Bill C-41, strengthening military justice, and Bill C-43, the RCMP labour modernization.

On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday of next week we will call Bill C-49, action on human smuggling; Bill C-47, sustaining Canada's economic recovery; Bill C-22, protecting children from online sexual exploitation; Bill C-29, safeguarding Canadians' personal information; Bill C-41, strengthening military justice; Bill C-43, the RCMP labour modernization; Bill C-54, child sexual offences; Bill C-33, safer railways act; Bill C-8, Canada-Jordan free trade agreement; and, Bill C-20, an action plan for the National Capital Commission.

Thursday will be an allotted day for our friends in the New Democratic Party.

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to what is now Bill C-48, which was previously Bill C-54. I essentially support the bill, which our critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has already indicated that our party supports. In fact, all opposition parties support the bill.

It is interesting to note that over the last couple of years the Conservatives have been able to get away with the argument that they are tough on crime and the opposition is not. All opposition parties are in favour of sending this bill to committee but the government has been dragging its feet on this bill and many others.

The Liberal critic pointed out that after proroguing the House on two occasions and calling a needless election in 2008, the government, after coming back in March of this year, took 216 days to reintroduce a bill that all parties had agreed to.

When the public asks which group is tough on crime and which group is not, it would be valid to say that the government is either just plain incompetent or opportunistic in the sense that when the chips are down it will prorogue the House, call an election and do anything but deal with its so-called tough on crime agenda.

We see this as a lot of public relations. I have been reading press articles that the government has out on this bill right now. I just read an article in a Winnipeg newspaper dealing with this issue. The press has been taking the government line in support of this bill and some of the other government bills, but I have yet to see the press in this country write balanced stories about how the government has delayed its own legislation, how it has torched its whole legislative agenda, not once, not twice, but at least three times.

I do not know how many times we will need to repeat it, and I know people are watching the debate and reading the copies of Hansard that we send out, but over time they will understand that the government talks a good line but at the end of the day it is not really big on delivery.

Several of my colleagues have mentioned, not only today but on other days, that after 100 years of having our criminal justice system in place without making any major changes, maybe it is time we did. It has been at least 40 years since a major overhaul of the system has been made. Maybe we should be taking an all- party approach to a major revamp of the system, accounting for best practices in other parts of the world so we do not have this decidedly pro-American approach. I do not have a problem with that approach if we could demonstrate that it actually worked. If we could demonstrate that it worked, then I would say that we should look at that system.

However, we have been following a system that has been proven not to work. Even the Americans themselves are trying to roll back some of the mistakes of the past 20 or 30 years. We would like to work on the basis of a co-operative approach, a best practices approach.

I do not believe the member for Souris--Moose Mountain was around during the two years of a minority government in Manitoba. However, he was a minister for a brief period in the government of Premier Filmon and will attest to the fact that Premier Filmon did get his majority government in 1990. He got it largely because in the two years prior to that, in a minority situation, he actively worked with the opposition parties on any controversial issue, whether it was Meech Lake, bills on smoking in government places bills or numerous other issues. The first thing he would do was call the opposition leaders into his office and set up a committee. He defused controversial political issues right at the beginning. He was able to resolve issues in a favourable way and he benefited by doing that.

That is what the government's approach on the whole issue of crime legislation should be. The government showed some signs of this in dealing with Afghanistan a couple of years ago. It reached out to a former Liberal cabinet minister to come up with a report. It put the government in good stead.

Obviously the government over there is of a different mind than the previous Filmon government in an attempt to get things done. It does not seem to be concerned about results. It is all about public relations, polling and how it can somehow squeeze out a majority in the next election.

In actual fact, Premier Filmon did get his majority and he did it by having a correct and proper approach to a minority government situation.

With regard to the specifics of the bill, as I had indicated it was Bill C-54 and it is now Bill C-48. Once again the government has given it a special name, “protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts for multiple murders act”. We find this with most of its legislation now.

When it was Bill C-54, it had first reading in the House of Commons on October 28, 2009. The bill would amend the Criminal Code with respect to the parole inadmissibility period for offenders convicted of multiple murders. It would be done by affording judges the opportunity to make the parole ineligibility period for multiple murders consecutive rather than concurrent.

I guess one of the good things about the bill is that it does leave discretion to the judge, which the opposition members have been consistent in supporting in the past. Perhaps the government recognized that by allowing the judge discretion it made it certain that the bill would actually go somewhere in the House.

There are also some amendments to the National Defence Act in this bill. Consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murderers would not be mandatory under the provisions of this bill. Judges would be left with the discretion to consider the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence and any jury recommendations before deciding upon whether consecutive parole ineligibility periods are appropriate. The bill would require judges to state orally or in writing the basis for any decision not to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on multiple murderers.

In terms of the current law, in 1976 the Parliament repealed the death penalty and imposed a mandatory life sentence for the offence of murder. Offenders convicted of first degree murder serve life as a minimum sentence with no eligibility for parole before they have served 25 years. I have statistics, which hopefully I will get to before my time runs out, indicating how Canada compares with other countries and what the real figures are for time served in prison as opposed to the storyline that the Conservatives like to propose, which is that somehow people are put in prison for just a few years and then they are back out on the street again.

For offenders convicted of second degree murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is also imposed, with the judge setting the parole eligibility at a point between 10 and 25 years. As I had indicated before, we are already talking about life imprisonment. The issue becomes, if someone is already sentenced to life imprisonment, how can the person serve three or four life sentences? this gets into the whole question that people have about the American system where people get sentenced to 200 years and 300 years.

In some ways that throws the system into disrepute as well because people will say that is great. However, whether people receive a sentence of 200 years or 600 years, what does it matter. At the end of the day, we only have one life to live. I have not seen too many 200-year-old people walking around lately. Perhaps the government has some evidence to the contrary.

Those serving a life sentence can only be released from prison if granted parole by the National Parole Board. Unlike most inmates who are serving a sentence of a fixed length, for example, two 10 or 20 year sentences, lifers are not entitled to statutory release. If granted parole, they will, for the rest of their lives, remain subject to the conditions of parole and supervision of a Correctional Service Canada parole officer. Parole could be revoked and offenders returned to prison at any time they violate conditions of parole or commit a new offence.

Not all lifers will be granted parole. Some may never be released on parole because they continue to represent too great a risk to reoffend. We hear about Clifford Olson and other people in prison. These people are not likely to be getting out of prison any time soon and—

Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)