Evidence of meeting #44 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, can you tell us whether we will go into clause-by-clause before 1:00 p.m.? We are anxious to finish the clause-by-clause study today.
What I am wondering about is how the evidence will be administered. At the beginning of your presentation, you explained how hard it was for the courts to establish proof of communication. Can you tell us a little more about this? We have become more sensitive to this issue as we listened to the sponsor of the bill speak to it.
12:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Usually, evidence is established on the basis of emails sent by the accused to the child. These emails not only contain very explicit discussions of a sexual nature—
12:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, but not always. Usually, there is an evolution in the emails: the accused wishes to meet with the victim. As I said at the beginning, the objective here is to prevent the offence of sexual physical contact from happening. In the case of luring, the offence is committed even before there is physical contact. So you don't need proof that there was physical contact, but only proof that communication took place in order to sexually exploit the child.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Fine. So would the department recommend that the committee support the bill?
12:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The issue is still before the courts. I will continue in English.
Courts will always look at the maximum sentence that is imposed. In some of the cases dealing with the luring offence, it has been said that the maximum is reserved for the most egregious, the most serious offences. Based on five being the top, a judge will say, I put this case being at whatever, and they define a spectrum. Typically when the maximum is increased from five to ten years, you would expect to see a similar increase in that consideration. So Parliament in its wisdom enacts a higher maximum penalty. It sends a message to the courts to treat these offences more seriously. So for what might have attracted a two-year sentence previously with a five-year maximum, the argument would be that it should attract the mid-range of a ten-year maximum.
12:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The objective of the former Bill C-15 was to make prevention easier. At the time, there were no provisions in the Criminal Code dealing with simply attempting to do something, because it was too difficult.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Don't you find a 10-year sentence excessive compared to other provisions in the Criminal Code?
12:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
At the time, the five years was seen as comparable to a sentence for an attempt to commit the sexual offence. An attempt will attract half of the maximum. What we are seeing is that more cases are proceeding, that the Internet use is not diminishing, and that the risks are higher. So there is a very strong argument to be made to say yes, we're having some success with the Internet luring offence to this point. A higher maximum penality underscores that we need to do more.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
So the department would not object to the committee supporting this bill.
February 5th, 2007 / 12:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No, and in particular following the reforms that were enacted as part of the former Bill C-2, raising the sexual exploitation offence from five to ten years at the maximum, it is consistent.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I would have to suggest, Mr. Ménard, that you ask the parents of children who have been subjected to luring. They might have a different opinion from that of the department. Whether the department likes it or not, what we're trying to do is focus on them.
Mr. Comartin.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you. Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Morency, for being here.
You threw some numbers of cases out. Did you look in Juristat to see how many times it's been used either annually or in total since its inception?
12:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Unfortunately, it is almost four years since we had this before us. It's not enough time to get statistics through the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, so the numbers not are really helpful in explaining how many cases.
There are a handful of statistics from 2003-04, which are the most recent years available, that aren't very helpful. As I said, what I try to do is this. With our provincial counterparts, we're aware of about 70 charges that have been laid in Canada to this point in time. But that's not reliable, in the sense that it relies on some media accounts and some cases that have not been reported.
To prepare for today, I reread reported cases, so that I would have a sense of where we're at. Of the 19 cases, ranging from 2003 to 2006, there were 16 where the accused pled guilty, which was very high. There was one case where it wasn't clear. In seven out of 17 cases, the accused was charged as a result of luring someone he believed to be under the age of 14, but who in fact was an undercover police officer. In two cases, I couldn't detect if that was the case.
As you heard, concerning the sentences, two cases have already involved a conditional sentence order. One case had a suspended sentence, and 15 of the 19 resulted in imprisonment, ranging from six months to two years less a day. There was one acquittal, and that case is under appeal.
The majority cases occurred in Ontario, then Alberta, and there was one case in each of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Is what you just told us based on the reported decisions that you looked at? Or are there Juristat figures as well?
12:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No, these are just cases that you can find when you do a case law review in Quicklaw.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Do you have the numbers here of how many decisions—not the reported decisions—were identified by Juristat?
12:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It was six for 2003-04, but as I said, when I tried to get that, it wasn't available in a useful format. This gives us a better sense of what the sentencing outcome has been in those cases.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
12:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, there are some offences where the offender was charged with other sexual contact offences.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Did they tend to do the sentences based on consecutive or concurrent?
12:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It was on concurrent.
12:20 p.m.
NDP