Justice Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Oh gosh, yes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

But in a block.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I would suggest this was a procedural--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I thought we were moving quickly here, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Well, it's always nice to be optimistic, but the idea was that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I was very.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

--if you needed to do two separate votes at the end, clauses 10 to 31 and clauses 35 to 38, that's fine.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

If you want to bank your time on the other clauses, 34, etc., that's fine.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, and the other one will go afterwards. But I do want to speak to these as a group, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Harris, perhaps I could interrupt you for one minute. I see one of the officials would like to add something to the discussion.

[Catherine Kane, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Pardon me. Would you also consider clause 49 in that group, because of the way the clauses are ordered? In the order that they amend the Criminal Code, clause 49 also deals with the provisions related to child sexual offences. It's a consequential amendment but it's still related to the child sexual offences amendments.

Alternatively, you can wait until we get there, bearing in mind that it is linked.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, it is linked, but there may be some other aspects of the Criminal Records Act that we'd like to discuss at that point, so perhaps we can deal with that. But thank you for that suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their agreement to deal with these as a group. It will obviously save some time, because based on our agreement on Thursday, each party has been allocated ten minutes per clause, and we're dealing with 25 clauses here as a group, so we will obviously be more efficient. I may be speaking for more than ten minutes, but I'm not going to speak unduly long.

I did want to speak to this particular section for a number of reasons. It's extremely important because we have a number of clauses increasing the sentences for sexual assaults against children. This is an abominable situation, and an abominable crime, and I think there's a consensus in our society as to the abhorrence of this particular type of criminal activity.

I want to speak to it, as well, to point out, for those who may not know, that we, as a party, offered on at least two occasions to take this particular part out of the bill and have it dealt with speedily. This was done some time ago, most recently by me in a motion in the House of Commons on October 26. It was a motion that was designed to allow this to be removed from Bill C-10 and fast-tracked, as it were, to ensure that this would get speedy passage, and not get bogged down in the debate we've been having about other aspects of the bill that are contentious and on which we've heard a lot of evidence. So it's very important that it be known that this was something we did.

In getting caught up in the rhetoric of all this, we've heard some pretty horrific statements, unfortunately, by people in significant positions of power, such as the Minister of Justice, suggesting that members of the opposition—and even, in some cases, identifying people by name—are supporting child molesters, child rapists, and criminal sexual offenders. I find that extremely offensive, and unworthy of the people who make those kinds of comments.

I say that as someone who has had considerable experience in seeing the effects of child sexual assault and child sexual abuse. I have a great deal of experience. Through most of the nineties—from about 1989 to 1997—I was a lawyer advocating for, working for, and supporting victims of the child sexual abuse that took place at the Mount Cashel Orphanage.

I saw first-hand, over a considerable number of years, the consequences to these individuals of the child sexual assault they had received at the hands of those who were in a position of trust in relation to them. I saw the consequences of post-traumatic stress disorder. I know far more about post-traumatic stress disorder and its consequences than anyone would want to know. I saw the effect on their lives, and how this changed their lives, how their own futures were affected by the consequences of child sexual assault and untreated—for the most part—post-traumatic stress disorder.

I saw evidence of the self-medication through drugs and alcohol. I saw the inability to form meaningful relationships in many cases. I had the task of trying to provide evidence and proof that their circumstances were related to the effects of the child sexual assault, and it was an era in which there was not a great deal of recognition of the consequences of child sexual abuse. To obtain a civil remedy for these individuals through the courts in lawsuits against the organization that ran the orphanage and against the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was a long and tedious task, made more difficult, of course, by having to deal with the consequences to the individuals throughout.

So I have a great deal of sensitivity to post-traumatic stress disorder, to child sexual assault, and I find it objectionable and abhorrent to hear it suggested that in dealing with this legislation our party is somehow advocating for sexual abusers and offenders. I can't find the right words to express how abhorrent that notion is, that we would be here, in this House and in this committee, trying to find ways to prevent the proper dealing with sexual offenders, against children in particular, that are set out in part 2 of this bill.

There is somewhat of an issue here with respect to minimum mandatory sentences where in most cases they're already there. We're not creating new minimum mandatories in most parts; we're increasing them for sexual interference, for invitation to sexual touching, for sexual exploitation, and the prohibition orders are being changed. Some significant changes are being made in this bill, the creation of new offences, which are unique in that they have a preventive role. When I talk about that, there's a new offence, for example, of making sexually explicit material available to children.

This comes under the category of what is known as grooming, that perpetrators and predators on children sometimes go through a process as part of the luring and grooming of a child for eventual sexual assault; they do certain activities such as making pornography available, Internet luring that is now a specific offence, and agreeing or making arrangements to meet for the purposes of a sexual assault. These are now offences in themselves and they have a preventive role because they're designed to encounter and confront a perpetrator with criminal charges prior to an actual sexual assault, and that is important. It's extremely important to not just punish offenders, which obviously is one of the aims of the criminal law, but it's even more important to avoid the sexual assault itself. And I say that with great conviction, based on my own experience, as to what the consequences of that sexual assault would be.

These are important steps forward, and I want it clear, on the record, that we support this aspect of Bill C-10, that it can help prevent young people from encountering, as a victim, the sexual predation of adults on minors, which is unfortunately far too common.

Of the provisions that are included in here, the Internet luring offences are particularly important. We hear about cases, from time to time, where a police officer poses as a young person on an Internet website or chat site and eventually sets up some sort of a sting operation, which is very elaborate in nature, to provide the evidence of someone who's intending to commit an offence of this nature. That takes an awful lot of police power to undertake and is not necessarily as effective as the new offences that will provide an opportunity to prevent an offence from taking place by interfering far earlier and making some of the activities that are precursors to sexual assault offences in themselves.

I wanted to put that on the record, Chair, as an important step forward in the criminal law, and to make it very clear that we support these amendments. There are increases in mandatory minimums here. While we in general have significant reservations about mandatory minimums, we see there being a consensus in society about the abhorrence of these particular offences, as they not only affect the innocence of our children but also have extremely severe consequences, in many cases lifelong, for the individual victim of a child sexual assault.

When I was a lawyer in the 1990s I spent a great deal of my time dealing with and trying to assist and eventually being successful in getting a significant civil remedy for these individuals, who also had to undergo the trauma of trials and other court activity in order to pursue this and eventually receive a reasonable settlement. There were considerable effects on their lives in terms of their being able to complete a proper education or easily form relationships, and the consequences on their own future were great. This is not a simple matter of something happening and then someone moving on. It is something that takes a considerable amount of effort, time, counselling, support, and many other things to overcome.

I do want to ensure members opposite that these provisions of this legislation will receive our full support. If any anomalies appear as a consequence of mandatory minimums—I'm not sure what they might be—they will be subject to a review. We proposed one earlier. There's another provision later on in the legislation that calls for examination of the effects of the mandatory minimum provisions. There will be an opportunity to correct any anomalies that may show up. I find it important that we put on the record our support for these provisions and make it clear that on at least two occasions we sought and offered to fast-track these provisions so they would be put into place in a speedy manner. We don't know how long the rest of this bill is going to take to find its way through Parliament, through the Senate, and then back again. We wanted to take this out and ensure it was passed as speedily as possible. Unfortunately, it's still included in the rest of the bill. As my motion this morning indicates, we also want to see it speedily passed through this committee stage.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'll be very brief, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to say that I agree with Mr. Harris in relation to this. I don't think anybody can see these kinds of events first-hand and the effect they have without seeing the permanence of them. I also think Mr. Harris is right: these brand-new laws will create better safety for the community, especially with regard to sexual predators, who for the most part are not caught in the very beginning stages of their situation.

I unfortunately defended an individual who got two years less a day for sexually assaulting three of his daughters over a seven-year period. It was very disgusting, and I was troubled to see that he could actually receive a community sentence, first of all. I saw the effects first-hand on his daughters. I can assure the members of this committee that the effects those people have are permanent and definitely impair any ability they have to live.

I would agree with Mr. Harris that no one in this place would have anything but contempt for these types of criminals. I believe these new laws will mean better safety for the public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

The plan was to deal with clauses 10 to 31 as a group.

(Clauses 10 through 31 inclusive agreed to)

It is unanimous.

(On clause 32)

We'll go to clause 32, and then we'll deal with the other three after that.

There is no amendment to that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

These provisions, though, in subclause 32(1) are related to the prohibition of the possession of weapons as a condition of release for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These are adding conditions to release in the event of charges under sections 5 to 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

You don't have any comment on those?

(Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to)

(On clause 34)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Now we have Liberal amendment L-14.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

My understanding is if L-14 is adopted, then NDP-2 could not be moved, and if L-14 is defeated, then Liberal amendment L-15 cannot be moved. If Liberal amendment L-14 is adopted--

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

If those are accepted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

--the amendment NDP-2 could not be moved, amending the same line. If Liberal amendment L-14 is defeated, Liberal amendment L-15 cannot be moved because it refers to exceptional circumstances in the previous amendment.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

It does not say the same thing in English and French. In French, it says that amendment NDP-2 goes first.

[A voice]

Amendment LIB-14 should go first.