Justice Committee on Nov. 1st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number nine of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We're dealing with Bill C-10.

We have a panel with us today. I want everybody to understand the rules. The committee has decided that each witness will be allowed a total of five minutes for an opening address. The questions and answers are five minutes per member. Today is a little different. We have the minister from Quebec. He is here at the request of the opposition side. They have just one witness today and so the minister will be given ten minutes. We try to keep it fairly tight because time is of the essence.

For the committee members, we have a small piece of business we need to deal with. We need two minutes at the end of the next session. Please be prepared.

We will start with Deputy Chief Lemcke.

[Warren Lemcke, Deputy Chief Constable, Vancouver Police Department]

Thank you and good morning.

My name is Warren Lemcke, deputy chief commanding the investigation division of the Vancouver Police Department. It's my honour to be here today.

I wish to present the views of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police on part 2 of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, as this part of the bill pertains to changes in legislation regarding conditional sentence orders.

While a useful and appropriate tool for the courts, conditional sentence orders should be used only where appropriate and the law should reflect that by eliminating their use when the crimes are serious in nature. On behalf of the CACP and, I hope, the citizens we serve in communities across Canada, we support this proposed legislation. Conditional sentence orders are an appropriate sentencing tool in cases of convictions for minor criminal offences, especially where the offender does not have an aggravating criminal history.

People make mistakes in life. We accept that. For those who've had little or no contact with the criminal justice system in the past and have committed a minor offence, these orders are appropriate and should be encouraged. However, where a more serious offence is involved, especially crimes of violence against a person or serious crimes against property, conditional sentence orders are not appropriate.

This act removes the possibility of conditional sentence orders for people convicted of committing such offences. It focuses on serious penalties for serious offences. Canadians want this, especially the victims of crime. Canadians need to know that if they are the victims of a serious crime, the sentence given to the person who committed the crime will be one that acts as a deterrent, denounces the act, and protects citizens through the incarceration of the criminal. Anything else will lessen their faith in the criminal justice system.

When I was in the police academy 26 years ago, there was a great deal of focus on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our lectures. In particular, there was considerable discussion about section 24, where it states that if there's a breach of the charter such that the admission of evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the evidence should not be admitted. This section deals with bringing the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of society. When a person is convicted of a serious criminal offence and he receives a conditional sentence order, this is exactly what happens. In the eyes of the victim and society, the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute.

It is not uncommon for Canadians to hear media reports of criminals being convicted of serious crimes only to be given conditional sentence orders. I will not comment on the specifics of the cases, nor will I criticize the courts, but I would like to include two recent cases profiled in the Vancouver media where conditional sentences were given and caused tremendous public concern. I'll leave it to the committee to review those. I believe they're in the package going to you.

Canadians want to know that if they become victims of crime, the perpetrators will be dealt with properly by the criminal justice system and will face appropriate consequences for their actions. We believe that this legislation provides appropriate consequences for serious criminal acts and that it will strengthen the public's faith in the criminal justice system. Canadians need to have their confidence in the criminal justice system restored, perhaps reinvigorated. Victims need to know that if they are victimized the criminal justice system will respond appropriately. Criminals need to know that they will face serious consequences for their actions.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Minister, would you like to begin now?

[Jean-Marc Fournier, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Quebec, Government of Quebec]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I have the honour of appearing before this Committee to present Quebec’s position on Bill C-10. Although there are precedents, only exceptionally does the Quebec government appear before a parliamentary committee studying a piece of Federal legislation. The seriousness of the situation explains my presence here today. I am appearing on the strength of a motion tabled by the member for Joliette and passed unanimously by the Quebec legislature.

As a mark of the wide-spread support for the position I will be sharing with you, I am accompanied today by representatives of the Quebec Bar, the chief prosecutor, Criminal Prosecution Service, Ms. Murphy, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, the Canadian Paediatrics Society and the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec. I would like to make it clear that we are not challenging the Government but rather the provisions of a Bill, which negatively impact the long-term protection of the public. May I remind you that it was in the much the same mindset that I came last June to urge the leader of the Green Party, Ms. May to expedite the study of Bill C-2 on megatrials. When something is good, we say so and when it is not we also speak out.

I would like to make it clear from the outset that we cannot agree to the removal of the concept of long-term protection of the public. By removing the reference to long term, you are opting for temporary protection of the public. It is difficult to see how this is a tough-on-crime proposal. In actual fact, the removal of this concept and the amendment of other provisions means that Bill C-10 will actually encourages repeat offenses and increases the number of victims. Many studies, including some by the Federal Government, have demonstrated that prison sentences do not reduce crime or recidivism. Quite the opposite in fact. Prison may actually serve as crime school, thus encouraging inmates to reoffend. One things is certain, an effective, long-term anti-crime strategy cannot focus soley on sending offenders to prison. At some point, offenders are released from prison and return to society. Any long-term anti-crime initiative requires special focus on their reintegration into the community. A strategy purely focused on locking up offenders for a time is nothing more than a temporary, superficial solution. It is a springboard to more crime. However, if you teach a young offender acceptable behaviour, you can stop them repeating the same mistakes. Failing to provide offenders with instruction or follow-up on how to behave in society is tantamout to encouraging them to offend again. The solutions proposed in Bill C-10 do not meet the stated goal of making the public safer. They also fail to address effective penalties for offenders or the prevention of crime and recidivism.

I would like to point out that Quebec has, on several occasions, expressed its misgivings and disagreement with regard to the initiatives put forward by the Federal Government. We even took the step of suggesting amendments in writing to Minister Nicholson on the now defunct Bill C-4. Simply put, this Bill does not contain the right provisions to ensure the long-term protection of society and victims. For decades now, Quebec has developed a unique strategy for the long-term protection of its citizens. We have done this with the involvement of the police. We have chosen to focus on reeducation, rehabilitation and social reintegration of young offenders. This involves sensitizing them to the harm they have caused their victims. In actual fact, the rehabilitation approach provides a greater role for victims than does the custodial sentence model. Indeed, young offender initiatives must consider the best interests of victims, the impact of the crime on them and ensure their rights and dignity are respected. Victims have the right to be informed of steps taken to bring young offenders to recognize the harm caused to their victims. Where possible, youth offenders are required to submit to a process of reparation. This way of dealing with young offenders works. Quebec has the lowest crime rate in Canada.

Our vision is based on Supreme Court of Canada pronouncements on the importance of dealing with young offenders differently. Our view is also based on opinion from experts, such as the Canadian Paediatrics Society. They too consider that youth must be treated differently if they are to become fully-integrated, useful members of society.

Some will argue that Bill C-10 maintains the difference in the way adults and youth are dealt with. This, in our opinion, is a mirage.

In reality, the Bill introduces even more cookie-cutter principles that should only really apply to adult offenders.

Indeed, the Supreme Court and prosecutors, who deal with youth and adult offenders on a daily basis, firmly believe that this approach to youth justice does not work.

What's more, it is likely to confirm youth offenders in a life of crime because it does not tackle the basic underlying causes of their inappropriate behaviour. It fails to ask two fundamental questions: who are they and why do they behave as they do?

By focusing on the short term and jail time, Bill C-10 provides only an illusion of protection. It overlooks the long term since it fails to consider offender release. It is like applying a bandaid to an infected wound. It is temporarily out of sight and out of mind. However, the problem inevitably reappears.

Rehabilitation is designed to tackle the root cause. The long-term protection of the public requires individualized processes that bring youth offenders face to face with their responsibilities.

In our opinion, the guiding principle of youth justice must continue to be the use of appropriate measures to fit the circumstances.

Please do not remove the concept of long-term public protection.

Please do not encourage the publication of the identities of youth offenders. It compromises the person’s chances of reintegration and society does not really benefit from knowing the offender’s identity. The Supreme Court recently pointed to the importance of this principle.

Please listen to those stakeholders, who over the past 40 years, have developed the studies, science and statistics to enable them to rehabilitate young offenders. Should you choose to reject their expertise and science, the onus is on you to support your proposals with serious studies and analysis.

Quebec is willing to partner with you in a science and statistics-based dialogue. However, we are asking you to postpone the enactment of the young-offender provisions.

The new minimum sentences are our second concern. Quebec doubts that these sentences will be a deterrent and therefore has expressed misgivings about them. Quebec would far prefer to trust prosecutors and the courts to set the most appropriate sentence.

Indeed, it is a basic principle that judges, having heard all the facts of the case presented by the defence or the prosecution, are best placed to determine a sentence in keeping with the context of the offense.

The proliferation of minimum sentences restricts the court’s ability to impose a suspended custodial sentence where circumstances warrant despite Supreme Court pronouncements on the restorative value of such an approach.

As Mr. Jean-Claude Hébert said, Bill C-10 transforms courts into an ATM for custodial sentences.

The closure gained through revenge is illusory. At some point, offenders will have served their sentence. Bill C-10 fails to provide for the release of offenders back into society. Without provision for reeducation or behaviour correction, inmates are released to offend again and to create new victims.

Once again, please do not enact these restrictive provisions that will prevent the courts from playing their proper role until you have developed studies or well-thought-out justification to support your proposals.

Our third concern relates to the financial impact of the proposed initiative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You have one minute left.

[Jean-Marc Fournier]

Perhaps you already know what I am referring to. We will have opportunities to discuss theses issues. However, it is clear that this Bill fails to provide the financial support for its implementation and Quebec refuses to pick up the tab.

I would like to conclude by saying that while criminal justice is a Federal jurisdiction, the administration of justice falls under the provincial bailleywick.

We have to work with each other. The Constitution requires it. We want there to be co-operation.

We want to be able to work together and to build on serious statistical and scientific studies to ensure the long-term protection of the public. Long-term means that we have to look beyond the one or two cases reported in the media. In order to develop the best possible provisions for the whole of society, we first need to consider the bigger picture and then study it with the help of experts.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, sir.

Please go ahead.

[Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it's a pleasure for me to appear before you here today in my capacity as the president of the Canadian Police Association to discuss Bill C-10, a comprehensive piece of legislation that takes some real and meaningful steps towards providing the tools necessary for police to pursue their goal of having safer communities.

For those of you who may not be familiar with the Canadian Police Association, we are the federal voice for over 41,000 front-line police personnel across Canada. Our membership includes police personnel serving in 160 police services across the country, from some of the smallest towns and villages to our largest municipal and provincial police services. They include members of the RCMP, railway police, and first nations police personnel.

To be absolutely clear, the CPA entirely supports the goals and methods contained within Bill C-10, from the enhanced sentencing rules for those who commit sexual offences against minors to the restrictions on conditional sentences for some of the most serious offences.These changes will go a long way toward ensuring that those criminals who are caught as the result of our investigations will face an appropriate punishment for their crimes.

There are a couple of areas of this legislation I would like to highlight in my brief remarks here today. First are the amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act contained in part 2 of Bill C-10.

Every day our members see the devastating effects drug traffickers and producers have in all of our communities. Those police officers are the ones who constantly have to arrest the same drug dealers and producers over and over again and stop them from poisoning our children and grandchildren and robbing them of their futures.

Whether these criminal organizations are in large urban centres, such as Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa, or in smaller communities, such as Saint John and Gander, front-line police officers see on a daily basis how organized crime--and I do say organized crime--supplies dangerous and illegal drugs with not only disregard for the law but without consideration for the lives and families they destroy.

For a number of years, the Canadian Police Association has been advocating for a national drug strategy that incorporates a balanced approach to reducing the adverse effects associated with drug use. It would limit both the supply and the demand for illicit drugs and would enable an integrated approach to education, prevention, treatment, and enforcement. In our view, this legislation is critically important in addressing the enforcement component of this strategy.

Violent offenders are not deterred by our current sentencing, corrections, and parole policies. Chronic offenders understand the system and work it to their advantage. Criminal gangs have taken over our prisons and some neighbourhoods. We need stronger intervention that combines general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation, and reform.

Whether it's by keeping dealers and producers off the streets and out of business or by serving as a deterrent to potential dealers, Bill C-10 will help our members do their jobs and keep our communities safe.

In simple terms, if you keep these criminals in jail longer, you take away their opportunity to traffic in drugs.

There has been a considerable amount of debate about the use of minimum sentences and the frequency of repeat offenders. Make no mistake about it: repeat offenders are a serious problem. Police understand this intuitively, as we deal with these frequent flyers on a regular basis.

Statistics released by the Toronto Police homicide squad for 2005 demonstrate this point exactly. Among the 32 people facing murder or manslaughter charges for homicide in 2006, 14 were on bail at the time of the offence, 13 were on probation, and 17 were subject to firearms prohibition orders. The revolving-door justice system is failing to prevent further criminal activities by these repeat violent offenders.

As police officers, and more so as members of your communities, it concerns us that our youth and many adults have been getting the wrong message about drugs. The use of drugs has been trivialized by what people see on TV but also by misguided public policy. What they do not see at the beginning is that drugs will most probably take over their lives. The message to our youth should be clear: drugs are dangerous.

Another area I'd like to briefly highlight is the creation of two new offences created within this legislation. The first is making sexually explicit material available to a child, and the second is agreeing or arranging to commit a sexual offence against a child. I can't possibly stress...the need for us to keep our laws up to date, specifically with respect to new and evolving technologies, to give our police every opportunity to keep ahead of those who are abusing these technologies to commit the most horrible crimes against children.

Finally, I would like to offer specific mention of support for the provisions within the legislation that will, if passed, authorize a peace officer to arrest without warrant an offender who is on a conditional release for a breach of conditions. This commonsense change to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is long overdue. In the past, even if we knew that someone was in breach of their conditions, we could not arrest them.

Before I finish, I would like to raise one concern on behalf of my members regarding Bill C-10. We've heard a lot about the legislation coming at some cost, and I want to remind all members of Parliament to be aware that police budgets across Canada are at their breaking point. In order to keep our communities safe, we require both the tools and the resources that are necessary to avoid the kind of service cuts that would put the gains we've made at an unnecessary risk.

Thank you very much. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

Given that I am from Quebec, you will not be surprised that my questions are mainly for the Quebec Justice Minister. If I am not mistaken, he has come here with a unanimous message from the Quebec legislature but also from the principal stakeholders working in criminal justice in Quebec.

As you said, this battle has to be fought. We are fighting the same battle. We have to hope that, like most of those who have come to oppose Bill C-10, you will not be accused of lobbying for criminals. I have yet to meet anyone lobbying for them.

That being said, I would like to know whether you have had discussions with your Federal counterparts over the C-10-related costs that Quebec will be required to bear. You touched on this issue and I would like to give you some of my time to allow you to address your concerns.

[Jean-Marc Fournier]

I have listened to the opinion of the police officers around me. There has been reference to revolving doors and the potential for parole. I cannot deny that there are issues. However, even if you accept the argument that offenders should serve the longest sentences possible without any opportunity for parole, the fact remains that they will be released at some point. What steps will have been taken to prevent them offending again?

To answer your question, I will focus first on the issue of repeat offenders and then on the initiatives that have been developed. It is quite obvious to all involved—and my colleague from Public Safety will be able to confirm this for you—that this Bill is designed to ensure public safety by jailing more offenders. This will of course represent additional prison costs.

Crown Attorney Murphy is with me here today. Unlike you or I, she fights crime on a daily basis. I am a member of parliament, a lawmaker like you. Also like you, I will be sitting on a committee this evening. However, there are people on the ground enforcing the law and fighting crime. This legislation will make their lives more difficult. There will be administration of justice-related costs pertaining to litigation but also to incarceration.

This Bill changes priorities. There will no longer be a significant focus on rehabilitation or the long-term fight against crime. Offenders—by which I mean youth offenders—will have served their sentences without having learned appropriate behaviour and therefore, will be more likely to offend again. Consequently, there will be more victims, more court appearances and more custodial sentences. Just imagine the potential costs. Quebec is clear that it will not pick up the tab. Even if our stated goals are the same, our methods are completely different. We do not intend to share the costs. It goes without saying that the Federal Government will have to pick up the tab.

As far as the steps we have taken are concerned, I met Mr. Nicholson on March 9. We talked about a good number of topics, including megatrials. It was on the basis of that I appeared here in support of the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, when a Bill is positive, we say so and when it is not we also speak out. We talked about Bill C-4 at that meeting.

We then submitted amendments. We thought that everyone would be in favour of a target like long-term public protection. We submitted amendments based on our 40 years of experience, but they have not been written into the Bill’s latest iteration—C-10.

As a result, I again wrote to Mr. Nicholson, my provincial counterparts, members of parliament and all parties. I am well aware of the fact that we are now dealing with a legislative process. Today I am keen to convey just how passionately I feel about the issue as a lawmaker. I am sure you must feel the same way and as such, I would remind you that it is important to give due consideration to any Bill before passing it into law. No heed has been paid to the studies, the science or the experience over the last 40 years that have enabled us to cut the crime rate. We could argue over a whole range of other topics but the statistics speak for themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Your time is up, sorry.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for the Minister.

During Question Period on October 20, the Federal Minister of Justice said, and I quote: “The parts of the Bill we have before Parliament have been reviewed by my provincial counterparts over the years and I am appreciative of their support.“

Today you have talked about the adverse effects on long-term protection in Quebec. Would I be right in saying that the Minister of Justice enjoys the support of provincial counterparts such as you, the Attorney General of Quebec?

[Jean-Marc Fournier]

I will let the Federal Minister of Justice speak for himself. My letters, specifically the ones dated March 14 and September 30, are public knowledge. Quebec’s position is no secret. My predecessor, Ms. Kathleen Weil, also shared the same position. This is not a new Bill. It existed well before the issue of youth offenders was raised. Consequently, our stand point was public knowledge. Indeed, all the other provinces are aware of our position.

That being said, you have given me the opportunity to reiterate Quebec’s position to the Federal Minister of Justice just to make things very clear to him and to you. As you say, we strive for long-term protection in Quebec. Indeed, long-term protection of the public is enshrined in the current legislation. The legislation that the Bill seeks to amend refers to long-term public protection. Can you tell me why they are removing the word “long-term“? What is the idea behind that? Why would you want temporary public protection? Explain that one to me.

The rationale for removing the reference to “long-term“ could in fact be the starting point for our discussion. I think it is because the Government wants to focus more on jail time than on rehabilitation or reintegration. We are not talking about offenders who are 52 years old and who will be serving a 25-year sentence. We are talking about 15, 16, 17 year-olds, who will undoubtedly be released into society at some point.

This issue is not like dust you can simply brush under the carpet. You have to lift up the carpet at some point. The system provides for offenders to be released. At that point, you have to lift the carpet out comes the dust. Sometimes, there is more than before. It is like putting a bandaid on an infected wound. The bandaid does not help the wound to heal. It merely conceals it. Sometimes, when you remove the bandaid, the infection has worsened. What should we do?

I have a lot of respect for the police. They also strive to protect the public in the long term. I am using your question as a pretext to convey to you the strength of feeling behind my appearance here today on behalf of thousands of stakeholders working with today’s young offenders. These people work day in day out to reduce the number of victims of crime. The way to achieve that is by focusing on young offenders. Without our help, they will be released from prison to reoffend and create new victims. Do we want more or fewer victims?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You have one and a half minutes.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

The Bill includes various provisions. It provides, for instance, for mandatory minimum sentences for a whole slew of non-violent crimes. What is your reaction to this policy?

[Jean-Marc Fournier]

Any expert in the area will tell you that, over the past hundred years, we have developed a case-by-case sentencing system in our justice system. Under this system, sentencing is based on facts and evidence presented in court. We are neither judges nor a court of law here. We have developed a system based on courts of law with defence attorneys and Crown Prosecutors like Ms. Murphy. These courts are presided over by judges, who rule based on the actual offences and the circumstances in which they were committed. They have the authority to hand down appropriate sentences based on how best to protect the public. Removing this authority will restrict stakeholders’ ability to prevent reoffending.

Basically, the whole issue boils down to whether or not we trust the courts. I can understand that some ordinary people may no longer trust the courts but where are the studies that show that the Government should no longer trust our courts? What science underpins this overhaul of our hundred-year old system? Which studies and papers is this change based on? Where is the science and the experience? I freely admit that there have been high-profile cases that have raised questions in people’s minds. Questions have been raised but you cannot legislate based on just one or two cases reported in the media. You have to take a step back and look at the situation again. Science exists for a reason. A some point in the past someone discovered that the Earth was round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

The chair made a mistake in the rotation. It was supposed to go back to the Conservatives.

I have Mr. Goguen and Mr. Woodworth.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I don't use all my time, I'll go to Mr. Woodworth to keep the continuity going.

I would first like to thank the witnesses for being here this morning. I know that you are all very busy. Your testimony here is very important and we thank you for taking the time to be here.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming and participating. We know you have very busy schedules. Your testimony is much appreciated.

My first question is for Mr. Fournier.

I noticed that you have stressed science and statistics. A Léger Marketing poll in the Journal de Montréal on 25 October 2011 revealed that a majority of Quebeckers feel that our justice system is overly focused on rehabilitation and 77% of them believe that sentences should be tougher.

Nearly half of all Quebeckers wish to see tougher sentences for young offenders. These are the results of the poll. Bill C-10, which includes amendments lifted from the former Sebastian’s Law for example, focuses on dealing with the 5% of young offenders who commit violent crimes and go on to offend again. I am emphasizing the terms violent and reoffend.

Do you feel that young violent repeat offenders are dealt with adequately in Quebec? Does the current system reflect the need to protect society, rehabilitate young offenders and does it pay enough attention to the needs of victims?

[Jean-Marc Fournier]

I would quite simply suggest you answer my question as to why the concept of long-term public protection is being removed. What is the point of striking out the reference to “long-term“?

I feel the same way you do about the events reported in the newspapers. However, neither you, me or anyone else is in favour of government by public opinion.

Public opinion is important. We are required to act appropriately in the best interests of the general public. Is governing by public opinion the right approach when we know that legislation flies in the face of the public interest?

We have numerous studies and lots of experience at our disposal. We can draw on years and even decades of work on preventing criminals from reoffending. I am not saying that we have eradicated the problem but I would point to the fact that rates have gone down.

If you compare the situation in Quebec with that of the rest of Canada, you have to admit the system works. Other countries have come to observe how we do things in Quebec.

You are now telling me that I am out of touch with voters. If I had the opportunity to speak individually to voters, I would tell them that my responsibility is to serve the public interest, to ensure that the public is protected beyond the time an offender is behind bars and to ensure the that we continue to live in a civilized society for a long time to come. I would also tell them that the only likely outcome of failing to teach young offenders appropriate behaviour, is that they will continue to behave badly. Therefore, why would we refrain from teaching them good behaviour?

If I had the opportunity to talk to each and every Quebecker about the existing science, I believe that they too would make the same impassioned arguments that I have presented here today.

That being said, I am quite prepared to consider the science, studies and experience that underpin your position. Given that Quebec and the other provinces have jurisdiction over the administration of justice, let us work together to provide Quebeckers and Canadians with the best long-term public protection strategies. I am sure we will find some middle ground.

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

It would undoubtedly take a very long campaign to convince four out of every five Quebeckers that your position is the right one. However, you do talk a good game.

Statistics show a 36% increase in child pornography-related offenses. Would you agree with me that it is important for the Federal Government to send the message to Canadians that these types of offenses will no longer be tolerated?

[Jean-Marc Fournier]

Like all other witnesses that have appeared before the Committee to address problems with C-10, we certainly do not condone sex-related crimes. However, I would not make a distinction between that type of offense and any other. No-one here is pro crime. We are quite simply here to advocate against long-term crime. That is the only difference.

We are on the same side. By that, I mean that we want a safe society for all our citizens. There is across-the board support for that. I am a staunch advocate of this goal. However, you have to admit that initiatives over the past few years have resulted in numbers that support our position. I am referring here to studies done by psychoeducators, criminologists and prosecutors, who work day-in day-out in this area.

I was at the Centre jeunesse Cité-des-Prairies last Friday. There were young people of course but there were also 30, 35 or 40-year olds, whose role is to mentor young people and to teach them correct behaviour. They prepare young offenders for release. What will be the result for society if there is less focus on these initiatives?

Ask yourself that question. We can work together to develop appropriate initiatives, studies and processes. We can do this Canada wide to send the message to all Canadians that we are working together for long-term protection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

That time slot is up.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses for appearing before us today.

I certainly agree with the Attorney General that we all are on the same side and we all wish to ensure the protection of the public.

I want to direct my questions to the provisions in this act regarding young offenders, specifically to Monsieur Fournier.

First of all, you had some comment in your remarks about mandatory minimum penalties. I'm not aware of any provision that makes any mandatory minimum penalty applicable to a young offender. So I just want to be sure I understood correctly that when you were talking about mandatory minimum penalties, you were not speaking about young offenders.

[Jean-Marc Fournier]

First of all, I believe you have heard other presentations on these provisions, including one by the Quebec Bar.

As far as the wording of the provision on minimum sentences is concerned, Ms. Murphy of our Criminal Prosecution Service—which is the Government entity responsible for fighting crime in Quebec—is the best person to detail the problems with C-10.