Justice Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Our next questioner, from the Conservative Party, is Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I thank the ministers for being here today. My questions are for Minister Blaney.

In order for law enforcement to track child sexual predators, there has to be a certain level of coordination between CBSA and the national sex offender registry. Bill C-26 would heighten accountability by changing procedures related to the method of notification of absences abroad by registered sex offenders.

Could you please elaborate on this portion of the bill? What information will be shared between the national sex offender registry and CBSA officials as a result of the amendments to this bill?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you to the member, a former long-time police officer who served with the RCMP. I'm also very proud to sit with the member in this government.

Indeed that's it; we want to have better information sharing between the Canada Border Services Agency and those who are in charge of the registry that contains the names of sex offenders. All of the following information on sex offenders is collected on a regular basis. The information that will be shared, whenever it is finished, will be about the high-risk child sex offenders. When a high-risk child sex offender is willing to travel around the world, no matter the length of his stay, the information will be transferred from the RCMP to the CBSA. That would be the individual's given name and surname, every alias the individual uses, the date of birth, the gender, and the number of every valid driver's licence and passport that the individual may hold. The plan is to have these serve as flags for CBSA so that the offender can eventually be diverted to a secondary screening when they re-enter the country. They will have to provide some information to the border services officers, such as when they left, when they are returning, and every address or location where they stayed when outside Canada. This information will be sent back to the national sex offender registry.

This will make sure that if an individual has been identified as a high-risk child sex predator, there will be an ongoing buildup of information related to his travels. If the CBSA or the RCMP have reason to believe it's necessary to carry this information from a specific sexual offender to an authority, they will have the authority to do so in order to prevent or investigate a crime of a sexual nature.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thanks for that.

Carrying on with the same theme, Bill C-26 authorizes disclosure to the CBSA of information from the sex offender database. Among other things, the CBSA will be authorized to provide to the database the following information regarding the sex offender who is the subject of disclosure: the date of their departure from Canada, the date they returned to Canada, and every address or location at which they stayed outside of Canada. This provision will enable the CBSA to flag high-risk offenders in its surveillance system and to help police ensure respect for traveller identification requirements.

Can you please describe how the system currently works as it pertains to sharing of information between the national sex offender registry and the CBSA? Can you use an example of how changes in this bill will help keep Canadians safe?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

The current situation is fairly straightforward. Since CBSA is not the law enforcement agency, they cannot share information with the registry. This makes Canada blind whenever a high-risk sexual offender travels across the world.

As a parallel, we have a little bit of the same situation when we have terrorists travelling abroad. Canada cannot become a net exporter of terrorists, nor of sexual predators. That's why we need to enable our own federal agencies to share information so that neither terrorists nor sexual predators can take advantage of the gap we have in our legislation. That's why I'm fully supporting the initiative of Minister MacKay and why we're seeking your approval this afternoon to get this bill moved forward, to close the gap and make sure, for those who would take advantage of the lack of communication that is now forbidden under the law, that's the past; if they leave the country to commit criminal offences, such as sexual offences, this information will come back into the country.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Further to that, Bill C-26 would heighten accountability by changing procedures related to the method of notification of absences abroad by registered sex offenders. Can you please elaborate on this portion of the bill? How does this reporting system work now? How would Bill C-26 change the status quo? Would this amendment have implications with regard to our responsibilities to cooperate in international investigations?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

The bill will increase our capability to respond to the international responsibilities and agreements we have to fight this plague that is sexual tourism. This is really setting up the base. A while ago we set up our national sex offender registry. Now we have to make better use of it. This registry identifies sexual predators at high risk of offences against children.

It is important that we take action and that's why, with this bill, information will flow both directions between CBSA and the RCMP, so when the high-risk sexual offender is leaving the country, CBSA will be notified by the RCMP. When the individual comes back, CBSA will collect the exact data regarding the individual's travel abroad, and this information will be sent back to the national registry. This back-and-forth flow of information will close the gap and limit the abuse of our system some individuals may have committed in order to travel abroad to commit sexual tourism.

That's why I believe this is a strong measure. Information sharing is one of the pillars of this bill, and it is a measure that will close this gap.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Madame Péclet.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to begin by wishing the distinguished committee members a happy new year. I'm very glad to be back in their midst in this wonderful new year.

My first question picks up on those of my colleague, the member for Gatineau. This is directed to the Minister of Justice.

I'd like to know why all offences involving minors weren't included. For instance, you increased penalties for a number of offences, but not all. How did you decide which offences to include and not include? What was that decision based on?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much for the question. It's a good question.

The main criteria here were that these were offences against children that were of a sexual nature, that could lead to exploitation, and that could lead to the type of harm we felt could be best addressed by bringing about penalties that stress deterrence and that put greater emphasis on public safety, on information sharing domestically and internationally, and on using the data bank and systems to allow members of the public to access that information and take steps to protect their own children, in addition to some of the proactive measures found in the bill.

This is an attempt to modernize with emphasis on offences of a sexual nature against a child.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Section 272 of the Criminal Code pertains to sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party and the act of causing bodily harm. Those strike me as offences of a sexual nature. Why were they not included?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your question.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

My question is on section 272 of the Criminal Code. The infraction is as follows:

—committing sexual assault with a weapon, threatening a third party and causing bodily harm to a complainant under the age of 16.

Why did you decide to raise the penalty from 14 years to life imprisonment? That ties into my colleague's comment. Why decide to raise the prison term from 14 years to life in certain situations and not others? What was the thinking behind that?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

The general thinking is that when we examine that particular section of the Criminal Code, we're talking here about sexual assaults involving weapons and involving causation of bodily harm. Throughout the Criminal Code, as you would know, there are sections that are deemed to be more serious to which a commensurately higher penalty would be attached.

Many of the sections that did not result in the elevation were already at the 14-year maximum penalty, so for this particular offence, given its nature involving violence, harm, and the presence of a weapon, we deemed this to be commensurate with a higher penalty.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I understand. Thank you very much.

I have a second question.

In response to a question from a Liberal member, the Minister of Public Safety said that the budget for the registry had not yet been determined, making it impossible to know how much it would cost.

I'd also like to discuss a response you gave to another colleague. You said it would be up to police or local authorities, whoever is responsible, to implement the registry. How are you going to ascertain the costs of the registry? The authorities responsible for the criminal registry already struggle with keeping it up to date. In fact, that is unfortunately the reason why certain people are still free. Their criminal record isn't up to date.

The authorities already have the burden of maintaining one registry and will now have to implement a second registry, without the resources required to do it.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you for your question.

To begin with, local and provincial authorities already have a procedure to notify the public. Right now, police already identify certain individuals as being high-risk sexual predators and determine that the public should be aware of these individuals for the safety of society. So those resources are already in place.

If this bill is passed, the Canadian government will compile that information across the country. The RCMP will be the authority responsible for compiling the data. After consulting with territorial, provincial and municipal authorities, we will examine public notifications pertaining to people other than high-risk sex offenders to pull the identity of individuals who satisfy the definition of a high-risk sexual predator, and put that information in a public database.

And that Canada-wide database will be administered and maintained by the RCMP. In that connection, the bill sets out a budget of approximately $1.3 million per year for the first 5 years, and $1.17 million for the following years. A total of $169,057 has also been allocated over 5 years for the CBSA notification requirement, in addition to a funding amount of $28,375. That is what it will cost the agency to collect information on high-risk sexual predators when they return to the country, for example.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Merci, madam.

Thank you, Minister, for those answers.

Our final questioner for the ministers is Mr. Seeback from the Conservative Party.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Minister MacKay, I want to talk to you about a couple of things. I've noticed as I've gone through the bill that we are working on a number of provisions that are going to increase some of the mandatory minimum penalties, and we have some evidentiary reform as well. We're also looking at some consecutive sentences for child sex offences.

I think a lot of that is getting coverage in the media, which is important, but some things aren't really being talked about. When we look at the sections that deal with what happens and the penalties proposed for breaches of probation orders, prohibition orders, or peace bonds, I notice some significant changes there that will have an effect on sentencing. I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Seeback.

As someone who has practised criminal law, you know that for years this has been a problem. I suggest that Mr. Wilks as well would know that dealing with consecutive penalties, mandatory minimums, maximums, etc., is very much a part of this bill. We have seen problems with conditions of probation and peace bonds and recognizance that are put in place as a proactive measure to try to protect the public, first and foremost, but that also allow for some modicum of control of behaviour, so there are prohibitions on drinking, or possession of weapons, or being around a child.

The history and the statistics will sadly bear out that the vast majority of sexual offences against children happen in a dwelling house by a person who is known to the child. Putting parameters around access to the child is what many of these preventative measures are intended to do. Sadly, these conditions are routinely breached. In our opinion, there has to be some consequence to that, and that's what we're seeking to do here. Through this bill, we're seeking to put in place increased penalties for breaches of probation orders or peace bonds that have real consequences, particularly when in concert with a breach of probation it results in another criminal offence.

Unfortunately, these breaches were very often treated as part of the nature of the business: we'll just add that on as a concurrent sentence. There was no specific recognition of that when a sentence was meted out by a judge.

This attempts to change that. It ups the ante, if you will, for the maximum sentence, when it comes to the breaching of these particular measures. The general rule that these offences...depending on whether they're prosecuted by summary or indictment, is reflected in the seriousness and impact of breaching those types of conditions that are meant to prevent further offences. That's captured in this bill. It is an important part of the message that we want to send to the public and to offenders, that these conditions are serious and are to be abided by.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

One of the other things I want to ask you about is on concurrent sentences versus consecutive sentences. I know that's another change that's coming with this bill.

What was the rationale behind changing some of the process with a concurrent sentence versus a consecutive sentence?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

We have seen how this works at the very high end of the Criminal Code, with respect to first-degree murders. Most recently, there was the tragic shooting death of members of the RCMP in Moncton. That was an example of consecutive sentences. To be clear, that means stacking one sentence on top of the other. They're not to be served concurrently, but one after the other, to denote that a separate crime was committed against an individual in each and every case.

The same is certainly true of sexual offences against children. The parameters around this are curtailed, and rightly so in some cases, by this long-standing application of proportionality. It is very difficult for a victim or a victim's family member to hear that the sentence isn't individually recognized in the penalty that a judge is meting out. Consecutive sentences do that. Consecutive sentences put particular emphasis on each individual crime, each act of violence, sexual violence against a child, which we believe is deserving of a consecutive sentence. That is what we are attempting to achieve through this legislation. We believe it's appropriate given the abhorrent nature of this type of crime, the damage that is done, and the loss of innocence, as my friend Minister Blaney has said.

This is very important, in our view, to demonstrate to the public and to offenders the seriousness with which the justice system will respond to this type of heinous crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

That is our time with our ministers today.

I thank both of you for coming and speaking to us on Bill C-26, as we kick off the discussion and debate on it.

We'll suspend for a minute while we let the ministers go.

I think there will be a discussion on the sixth report that is in front of us, and I expect that to be in camera.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, just prior to suspension, if I might, I offered to leave this information on child advocacy—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Just give it to the clerk, and he'll distribute it to all members of the committee.

Thank you very much.

We'll suspend for a minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to call the meeting back to order. We're going to start a new meeting, but I need a motion to go in camera to talk about the sixth report. It is the agenda report.

So moved? Okay.

We're going to go in camera for a few minutes. All those in favour?