Bill C-277 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to increase from five years to ten years the maximum punishment for an offence under section 172.1 (luring a child). It also specifies that, in the case of a summary conviction for this offence, the maximun punishment is eighteen months.

Criminal Code

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

moved that Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House today to speak on Bill C-277. This is a bill which would toughen up prison sentences for those who lure children over the Internet for sexual purposes.

As members know, the proliferation of the Internet has opened up a whole new world for Canadians. The Internet has delivered the potential for tremendous good and has created an information explosion. Unfortunately, as with many other good things in life, the Internet also has its seedy side.

Canada is the most Internet-savvy nation in the world. Almost all Canadian children either use the Internet regularly or have easy access to it. Communicating over the Internet has become commonplace to the point where millions of children spend countless hours every day sending e-mails to each other, participating in news groups and message boards, and engaging in public and private discussions in chat rooms.

It is also true that most Canadian parents mistakenly believe that their children are entirely safe when surfing the Internet. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Many parents have no idea where to place computers in their homes or how to apply parental controls to protect their children.

For all the good the Internet has brought to life on earth, it has also caught the attention of people who sexually exploit children. The Internet allows sexual predators to hide behind false names and false ages as they bring innocent children into their confidence. Their methods are many, but their goal is always the same: to get children to trust them, to slowly but surely engage them in sexual banter, and eventually to encourage them to leave their homes to meet the predator, where it is the predator's intention to sexually exploit and abuse the child.

I cannot imagine a more horrific act than the callous abuse of a vulnerable, unsuspecting child.

Prior to 2002, Canada had no means of prosecuting the sexual predators who were enticing our children to meet them off line. This meant that these criminals, in order to be convicted of an offence, would have to physically meet with the child and engage in a sexual offence as defined by the Criminal Code. Essentially, a child had to be physically victimized before a crime took place.

What was the previous government's response? I want to be fair and give credit where credit is due. In July of 2002, the former Liberal government responded to the ever-increasing threat of children being lured over the Internet. It enacted section 172.1 of the Criminal Code, which makes it a crime to use interactive, online communication to lure a child for the purpose of sexually exploiting him or her. The offence does not require an offender to actually abuse the child. Simply communicating with that child with the intention of luring the child is enough to be convicted of that offence. That was clearly a bold new step.

Since the proclamation of the luring law, there have been numerous convictions under section 172.1, some with prison terms of up to three and a half years. The problem, however, is that when offenders receive sentences of less than two years, the judge has the discretion of imposing a conditional sentence.

In layman's terms, a conditional sentence means that the offender serves the sentence either in the community or often in the comfort of his home. Sadly, there have been a number of cases in which convictions resulted in conditional sentences, where offenders were permitted to serve their sentences at home or otherwise in the community. Let me tell members about one of those cases.

The case involved a 35 year old man who communicated with a person he believed to be under the age of 14. He used a false name. The Internet chat conversations became sexual as the man suggested that this girl engage in sexual acts and meet him at a predetermined location.

He told the girl they could get in trouble for what they were about to do because of her age, a clear indication that he knew what he was doing was against the law. He then drove 22 kilometres to meet the girl and was arrested at the meeting spot. The man received an 18 month sentence. However, that sentence was to be served in the community--house arrest.

To me it is incomprehensible that a sexual predator of this nature would be allowed to serve his sentence in the community, where he could have potentially unrestricted access to the Internet and to children if he desired to break the conditions of his sentence.

There is something else compounding the apparent inconsistency in sentencing. That is the fact that the courts have not yet had to deal with repeat offenders due to the short history of this luring offence. It is highly likely that in the future there will be those who will become repeat offenders for this crime, yet the maximum sentence currently available is only five years.

The weight of scientific and medical literature indicates that many sexual predators, especially pedophiles, are not treatable and represent a lifelong threat to our communities. Allowing these offenders to serve their time in the community, with relatively easy access to computers and children, represents a grave danger to our young children.

That is where Bill C-277 comes into play. This bill changes the law by increasing the maximum prison sentence for a child luring offence from 5 years to 10. On the face of it, it is quite simple. However, that is not the end of the story. As we know, the government has tabled another criminal justice bill, Bill C-9, which would remove the availability of conditional sentences, including house arrest, for serious crimes. Clearly, luring is a serious crime.

Typically, serious crimes have been defined as crimes for which the maximum sentence is 10 years in prison or more. Increasing the maximum sentence for child luring to 10 years will also trigger the provisions of Bill C-9, if enacted. This will ensure that those convicted of luring a child will spend hard time in jail and not have a cushy existence in the comfort of their homes.

Protection of the most vulnerable people in our society, our children, is the objective of Bill C-277. The threat to our children who use the Internet is rising, so much so that the Government of Manitoba has implemented a program called Cybertip, an Internet and telephone tip line for suspected sex offences against children.

This program allows citizens who suspect that children are being targeted by online predators to notify the authorities, either by registering a tip on the Internet or by telephoning Cybertip. It also educates parents in the dos and don'ts of Internet usage by children and on how to protect their children against Internet luring. The program compiles statistics and data to assist governments, criminologists and police authorities in cracking down on the sexual exploitation of children.

During its first two full years of operation, Cybertip received over 1,200 reports of child exploitation, 10% of which involved the sexual luring of children. The program has been such a resounding success that it has now become our national tip line.

A number of different studies reveal some shocking statistics. Fourteen per cent of children surveyed admitted that they had chatted with strangers while online. Parents reported that 4% of their children had had an off-line meeting with someone they had first encountered on the Internet. In fact, in a survey of 300 Canadian youth, one in five admitted meeting face to face with people they had first met on the Internet.

Other nations with high Internet use rates have also found it necessary to enact legislation to deal with child luring over the Internet. The United States, for example, has a federal child luring law that is broader in scope than our own. It criminalizes luring that occurs in any form, not just via a computer system, and it places a mandatory minimum sentence of five years on the offender, with a maximum sentence of 30 years' imprisonment.

The United Kingdom has a luring law which was enacted in 2002 and targets adults who meet a child they have contacted over the Internet for sexual purposes. This law enables police to conduct sting operations and apprehend sex offenders who show intent to meet with an underage child. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years in prison.

In Australia, the law against luring is captured by a new “grooming” offence. It makes it an offence for adults to target children over the Internet or through any form of telecommunications and attempts to show that this country is going to become tough on crime. The maximum penalty is 12 years' imprisonment. However, if the child is under the age of 16, the maximum penalty increases to 15 years.

As we can see from these three comparative jurisdictions, Bill C-277, even with a maximum sentence of 10 years, is still the least severe of all of them.

The gravity of this problem of luring cannot be understated. Sexual predators are engaging in grooming techniques where they first gain the child's trust, empathize with their home situation and gradually acclimatize the child to further sexual situations and eventual meetings with the predator. It is widely reported that children with depression, low self-esteem and difficult home lives are especially vulnerable to the attention of adults on the Internet who pretend to care.

This makes the act that much more repulsive.

Sexual predators who seek out and target the most vulnerable children in our society deserve severe sentences in jail, not in the community. Raising the maximum penalty for their crimes to 10 years in prison is fully justified and is necessary in order to deter these offenders and send a clear message that luring a child over the Internet will come with swift and certain justice.

Clearly Canada needs the most effective legislation possible on luring in order to prevent it and condemn it in the strongest terms.

What does the bill achieve? It does three things.

First, by raising the maximum sentence for luring to 10 years in prison, the bill sends a stronger message to our community that we as a society will not tolerate the exploitation of our children.

Second, the bill ensures that those convicted of an indictable offence under the luring section will spend hard time in jail, away from the community and from those who are at risk from the offender.

Third, Bill C-277 brings the penalties for luring in line with most of the other sexual offences listed in part V of the Criminal Code. Most of those provide for maximum sentences of at least 10 years and up to life in prison. I think all of us can agree that the luring of a child for sexual purposes is no less an offence.

Does Bill C-277 completely address the problem of sexual exploitation over the Internet? Of course not. I want to close by challenging parents to take ownership of their children's computer time, to learn about parental control programs on their computers, to place their child's computer in a highly visible area where supervision is readily available and to spend time learning how to make their child's Internet experience a safe one. Above all, they should get to know their children better and share their personal struggles and challenges with them.

When the Liberals enacted section 172.1 of the Criminal Code, it was a good start. Bill C-277 is another step in the right direction. It is my hope that this legislation will be enacted quickly on a multi-partisan basis. Our children truly are worth it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our colleague who took the trouble to introduce a bill. Also, as an aside, I want to note how sad I am that private members' business had such a slow start. I hope that the boards of internal economy will look into the matter, because we private members are owed at least 20 hours to make up for lost time.

When I read the bill introduced by our colleague, I realized how important it was. It is true that, on the good side, modern technology allows children to be brighter intellectually and more informed. But it is also true that this comes at a price, and the risks are those described by our colleague.

Still, I am not comfortable with this bill because I get the feeling that we are trying to lump together two debates on matters that would be better addressed separately, each on its own merits. The Criminal Code contains provisions concerning child luring as well as child sexual abuse.

I would like to ask our colleague if there is any indication that these provisions are not being used by the courts. The hon. member uses child luring as a premise for a debate on conditional sentencing.

The Bloc Québécois is not in favour of making piecemeal changes to sentencing. It is not our policy to vote in favour of bills providing for mandatory minimum sentences. But that does not reflect in any way on the seriousness, importance and merit of the bill. The hon. member is right to want to rise in this House to speak on child luring. He even recognized that the previous government legislated on that issue. This is therefore not a partisan issue.

As a member of Parliament, I believe that we ought to refrain from automatically wanting to base the debate regarding sentencing on existing provisions of the Criminal Code.

So, since you seem to be getting impatient, Mr. Speaker, and that this is not really like you, I would like to hear the hon. member on that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I fully understood the question. I believe the member is asking why the bill and my comments are trying to address two different issues at the same time. In fact, the bill does not address two issues at the same time. The bill simply doubles the sentence for luring from five years in prison to 10 years in prison. That is a maximum sentence.

We are not dealing with mandatory minimum sentences, and I think the member understands that.

If Bill C-9 passes, and I hope it does, the side benefit will that the luring offence will now have a maximum of 10 years in prison. It also means perpetrators, under that section, will spend hard time in jail as opposed to house arrest or some other form of community sentencing.

I hope that answers the member's question. I know he has given it a lot of thought. I appreciated his earlier comments as he addressed the conditional sentencing reforms that our party has brought forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation at all in praising my colleague for the intent behind his bill. However, as legislators, we have a responsibility to understand all the circumstances and facts on which we base amendments. That is a particularly onerous task on our part when we deal with the criminal justice system.

I appreciate some of the research he has done, particularly with the comparative jurisdictions in Australia, England and the United States. Has he done any research on what the experience has actually been in Canada? This section is a relatively new section to the code. For instance, are there any cases where judges have said that they would like to impose a more severe penalty than five years, but they cannot do it because of the existing subsection 172.1?

Similarly, what has been the experience in those other three jurisdictions? Have they come anywhere close to imposing sentences, whether it is 10, 12 or 15 years in the examples that he gave? My belief, from the limited research I have done, is that in the vast majority of cases it is the separate section of a summary conviction offence that is laid by the prosecutor and the police and no consideration is given to a sentence longer than two years.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked whether I understood all the facts. I think the member will understand that I have done a considerable amount of research on this subject. In fact, I have a list of eight very recent specific cases in 2005 that highlight the problem of luring.

With respect to the member's question as to whether judges have indicated a willingness to sentence for more than five years, that is difficult to say. As the member knows, it is rare. In fact, I cannot think of an example where the courts actually have sentenced someone to a maximum sentence, other than life imprisonment for the most serious of crimes. Typically, when there is a 10 year maximum sentence, the sentence will likely be less than that. That is the way the process works. It is very rare that someone actually gets the maximum sentence imposed.

My response to the member is that we have indication that there is a willingness to sentence for at least three and a half years. Given the fact that we do not have examples of repeat offences being sentenced, I believe there will be incredible pressure in the future to provide for more room in the sentencing structure. I hope that answers his question.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this first debate of a private member's business item in this new Parliament. As my colleague earlier mentioned, it is great to have the private members' business underway. I know the quality and content of debate in the House will improve immeasurably with this new content added to that of the government's orders.

First, I do not feel I can support the member's bill and not because I do not support the objective of protecting children. However, it is not clear to me, and I will try to explain in the few minutes I have. The bill probably will not achieve the objectives.

The member has explained that he wants to bring the punishment within the threshold contained in the bill that would revise the conditional sentence legislation before the House. I understand that part. However, simply doubling the penalty, if that were his objective, with a view to ensuring that the convicted person would do hard time, does not in my view accomplish his objective.

All the sentencing options on convictions still remain within the section with which he is dealing. He has simply increased the indictable provision from five to ten years. He has not addressed the summary conviction provision which allows a judge to convict or a prosecutor to proceed on summary conviction. Summary convictions are punishable by a prison term of up to six months only and a fine of $2,000. By doubling the penalty, does not get the member and his colleagues to where they want to go.

Let me state right off the bat as well that I do not agree to doubling sentences just for the heck of it. We could double the sentence for all kinds of offences and say that we are being tough on crime. Going to the list of all the offences in the Criminal Code and doubling them for the sake of doubling it, is not going to get us anywhere. What about the parent or guardian procuring sexual activity of the child? The maximum penalty there is two years. Maybe we should double it, triple it, quadruple it or maybe have a life sentence. We could do that.

Then there is the householder permitting sexual activity on the premises of that person. That is a two year maximum penalty. What about corrupting children? There is a term not exceeding two years if one is convicted of carrying on activity that corrupts children.

The hon. member, while he is justifiably concerned about the new luring risks on the Internet, has missed a whole lot of other sections, about 100 of them, where the penalties are all in a range within which we have lived for many years. I do not have to go through the whole code. I know the member, if he has done his research as he has said, would have looked for the offences of disorderly conduct, nudity in a public place, causing a disturbance, interfering with a minister from carrying on his or her religious duties, obstructing a minister, trespassing at night and vagrancy. All these things have penalties punishable on summary conviction or penalties of two years to five years.

In addition to that whole piece of what is an appropriate sentence for a particular criminal offence, this provision will not remove the other sentencing options that are available to the court, for example, probation. That option is still available to a sentencing judge. I am not saying that is the sentence he or she is going to give, but it is still there even though the member is trying to get rid of the conditional sentence option.

I would say a conditional sentence is often superior to a probation, but conditions can be attached to both, or a fine. The fine option has not been removed either as a sentencing option.

I was going to talk a little bit about the new government's attempt to make Canadians feel like there is a whole lot more crime than there used to be and that the only way we are going to be secure in our homes and neighbourhoods is if we throw everybody in the slammer and increase all the sentences. However, on listening to the member it appears to me to be fairly clear that was not his intention, that he is really just trying to bring this sentence within a range so that it could be dealt with under the new conditional sentencing provisions.

I will not go into my diatribe on what I would call the neo-con politics of fear. However, if all of these sentencing options are available to judges now, then in order to accomplish his broader objective of deterrence and denunciation, which I believe are part of his objective, then this bill and the provisions that he is urging upon us are going to have to be tweaked two or three different ways.

I suggest to him respectfully that this whole process of trying to use the Criminal Code as a means of reducing crime is a much more complex piece. Simply doubling penalties, creating mandatory minimum penalties across the board and great big wholesale reforms is not a method that I can accept as one that is going to achieve the objective we seek of denunciation and deterrence to crime and dealing with criminals in a way that achieves the various objectives that society has. By the way, all those objectives are set out in the Criminal Code now. Thanks to the sentencing bill that was passed here in the early 1990s, there is a whole regime of sentencing objectives.

The member may wish to urge upon us some new sentencing objectives. That would be quite rational and it may be that we could tweak this. But I know that the sentencing provisions deal with the whole issue of child victims. As far as I can recall when the House dealt with it, nothing was left out of the sentencing prospectus that we urged upon the court.

Please remember that prior to that point in time in the early 1990s, there was no sentencing provision. All the sentencing guidelines had been developed by the courts themselves. That was the first time Parliament in this country said to the courts, “When you sentence, Mr. or Ms. Judge, here are the criteria,” and they were listed in an order. In fact we changed the order as the bill moved through the House and through the Senate.

I accept the member's objective. I and every member of the House want to do what we can to protect children from predators, on the streets, in the schools, on the Internet, wherever they are. I am sure every member in this place wants to do that. This bill has adopted a method which I just do not think is going to get us to where the member would like to be. Therefore, my preference as a private member is not to support the bill but to urge him to continue focusing on this envelope of public policy with a view to improving it. We will probably be doing that into infinity because the Criminal Code always has to be adjusted to adapt to current conditions.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask a question I would like to address the neo-liberal fearmongering about--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

My apologies. There are no questions and comments during private members' business. I can sense the disappointment from all members of the House, but those are the Standing Orders. My apologies for getting mixed up on that. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hochelaga

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague who just spoke, I am very pleased to take part in this first hour of debate on private members' business.

I have often raised this issue in caucus. I am a great believer in private members' business. I hope that the House leaders will study how we can catch up. Parliament met for the first time on April 4, and I think that at least 20 hours of catch-up time should be allotted to members who tabled bills. I am going to pressure my leader, the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, and I hope that all members will do the same. For it is in private members' business that the real task of the members here in the House of Commons becomes apparent.

I congratulate the member on his bill. Although we usually hold free votes on private members' business, I regret to tell him that I do not think the Bloc caucus intends to support piecemeal changes in the direction of either minimum sentences or maximum sentences. We feel that any approach to sentencing must have a coherent framework. I do not think that the objectives the member is pursuing in regard to the luring of children are better served by a maximum sentence and by doubling it from five to ten years.

Let us start at the beginning. I think we should be happy that the previous government added provisions on the luring of children to the Criminal Code. We are not starting from a situation in which the law needs to be created; there is already a Criminal Code offence. The people taking part in the debate this evening or listening to us at home might appreciate it if I share with them the substance of section 172.1 of the Criminal Code, because that is the provision which the member’s bill aims to amend. It says in subsection 172.1(1):

Every person commits an offence who, by means of a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2), communicates with:

(a) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under subsection 153(1), section 155 or 163.1, subsection 212(1) or (4) or section 271, 272 or 273;

These are all Criminal Code provisions that address exploitation, sexual relations with children and so on.

Furthermore, subsection 172.1(2) also stipulates:

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of:

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

If I understood the member correctly, he repeatedly drew a link with Bill C-9, which we discussed this afternoon. That bill, introduced by the justice minister, proposes to restrict conditional sentences.

In an effort to make this very clear for our fellow citizens, I would mention that the conditional sentence is a measure that was introduced by the former justice minister, Allan Rock. I do not wish to arouse any good or bad memories for members of the House, depending on how we remember Mr. Rock. In any case, he was the Minister of Justice at the time. The minister and the government suggested that there were alternatives to imprisonment. Thus, section 242 of the Criminal Code provided that all sentences under two years in length administered by the courts could be served in the community.

I would remind the House that section 242 also set out specific measures with respect to supervision.

Conditional sentencing was possible for sentences of less than two years and in cases where there was not a mandatory minimum sentence. Conditional sentencing was also possible if the judge was convinced there was no danger to the community. The matter of safety had to be taken into consideration. Of course, the seriousness of the sentence, thus the principles that apply to section 778, and the whole question of restorative justice and the matter of deterrence also had to be taken into account.

This went to the Supreme Court, in the Proulx decision, in 2000. A condition was added to conditional sentencing, namely that of house arrest.

It is very important to understand that conditional sentencing is not the same thing as detention with probation conditions. Conditional sentencing is a punishment, a sentence. The court has even said that there may be circumstances in which it might be harder to serve a sentence in the community than to serve it in a penal institution. Conditional sentencing is closely associated with the notion of restorative justice. This is why conditional sentencing entitles someone to a number of restitution and rehabilitation programs.

Our colleague says that, when someone has been found guilty of luring children on the Internet, they should not be able to serve a sentence of less than ten years and they should not be able to serve their sentence in the community. Perhaps our colleague is right and his premise has its merits.

What he did not tell us, however, in his speech when he introduced his bill, was whether there are indications that this is not already what the courts do. This is a major difference between the Bloc Québécois and the government. There is a trust deficit where the judiciary is concerned.

Let me be clear, we are not saying that luring children is not important. We thank our colleague for taking an interest in the matter. But where does this conviction that the courts of justice and the judiciary are not doing their job properly come from? Where does this conviction that we will achieve our goals by making sentences heavier come from?

This is one of the major distinctions between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party and the former members of the Canadian Alliance, who before that belonged to the Reform Party. Then the Canadian Alliance got together with the Reformists. I watched all this with interest.

Obviously it is acceptable in democratic terms for there to be a right-wing party in Canada, since this is the wish of a segment of the population. I hope that this segment does not become too large, but clearly there is room for a right-wing party in a democracy.

Once again, let me be clear. It is not that the member’s bill concerning the luring of children is not important. In fact, it is so important that we supported it when it was introduced by the previous government. We cannot, however, agree with the idea of increasing the sentence from five years to ten so that people who are found guilty of luring children under the Criminal Code cannot serve their sentence in the community, as if this were a widespread practice.

I think the member is confusing two debates that should be considered separately.

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

Mr. Speaker, most members in the House will know that when it is a private member's bill, the NDP does not press anyone to vote other than according to their own beliefs. That of course will apply to this bill should it ever get back here for a final vote.

When I am faced with a bill like this, I always raise this issue because it is really important. The Liberal government would not do it and I do not see any particular inclination by the current Conservative government to do it either.

However, this country badly needs a total revamp of our Criminal Code. We probably needed it for the better part of 20 years. So when I see a bill like this that is dealing with a very minute part of the Criminal Code, I get on my soap box and push for that once again. We badly need to do it.

In the course of doing that this would be one of the sections under consideration, whether the penalty of five years for luring children is adequate and appropriate, whether it is in line with judicial decisions up to this point, and whether the charter is of any concern to increasing it from the 5 to 10 years as proposed.

This is a good example of why we need that omnibus bill because when we are looking at making a decision in this regard of doubling a penalty, as is being proposed in Bill C-277 by the member for Abbotsford, we would have to put that in the context of the entire Criminal Code. Certainly, when our courts look at this and we have heard this from other speakers, they look at proportionality.

The proportionality issue takes into account other offences of a similar nature. If we have a number of other offences where the penalty is still low, in the range of the five years or perhaps even less, then the reality is that the charter will kick in and our courts will have a tendency to strike this down as not being proportional.

Dealing specifically with this section and the crime itself, the justice committee spent a great deal of time dealing with the issue of child pornography in the last Parliament. As part of that, we looked at the crime of luring of young children and some of the evidence that came out was interesting. I want to say to the member for Abbotsford that we took extensive evidence about pedophilia and there is no way of classifying the luring offence other than as a crime of pedophilia.

One of the things that was very clear from the evidence which came from some of the highest trained psychologists and psychiatrists in this country who deal with chronic offenders in this area, and we also heard it from the police and the prosecutors, was the great difficulty of dealing with these individuals and that traditional concepts of deterrence and penalty had no meaning to them.

On one occasion they described an offence where there had been a fairly extensive investigation of three separate individuals at three different addresses. They broke into two of the addresses and apprehended the individuals, but one of them was able to get a warning off to the third one.

In spite of that warning, when they arrived at the third residence which was several hours later, the individual was still on the computer. He was so, as they put it “hard wired” in terms of his needs, if I can put it that way, that he would not shut the computer down. He did not flee. He simply stayed there and was apprehended.

That is the kind of deep psychiatric and psychological mental illness that we are dealing with. If we were to say, as my colleague from Abbotsford said, that we should double the penalty, it would not be a deterrent. The reality is that with this type of criminal there is no deterrent factor. We could make it 50 years or we could make it life, and it would still not make a difference.

What came out of the evidence that we took over that extended period of time, which was several months, was that the only successful way of dealing with this was, of course, through prevention. I know the member made a very good point about the computer program where people are, in effect, monitoring. That was first introduced by the Government of Manitoba. It has now been copied by three other provinces. In fact, Manitoba picked it up from England.

Specifically, it is a monitoring process. We are asking everybody who is on the Internet to, in effect, be part of the prevention system. If people identify a site, they can get it to the police immediately or, which happens rarely, if they can identify the individual children who are being targeted, they can pass that information to the police. It has been extremely successful in England, as it has been in Manitoba. It is just beginning to be effective in some of the other provinces that have implemented it.

I do not in any way want to demean the sincerity with which the member for Abbotsford approaches this problem and I am sure that every member in the House feels the same way. Our absolute first responsibility as members of Parliament and legislators is to protect our citizenry and, in particular, to protect those who are most vulnerable, our children.

If the government is really serious and if the member really wants to maximize the protection that we provide to children from these types of criminals, there is another route we can go. I have raised this a number of times in committee and several times in the House.

We have very sophisticated technology. I am being told that because of some of the work that I do in public security. We have some of the best in the world in terms of tracking people who use the Internet for criminal activities. That technology is being used now by Canada and by a number of its allies in fighting terrorism.

That same technology, which is available in this country and could be deployed in fighting this type of crime, whether it is child pornography or child luring over the Internet, is a great tool that we could be using with our police forces to fight this crime and to prevent it from ever happening.

If we were to talk to victims of crime, whether it be the parents or the children in this type of crime, and give them a choice between the crime never happening or sentencing the perpetrator to an extended period of jail time, they would always take the first one because they do not want to be victims. They do not want to have to live with the psychological scars that come from this type of crime in particular. If we could get the justice minister and the finance minister on side, plus our public security people, there is another methodology and we could be doing much more to intercept.

One of the interesting things we learned is that Bill Gates and his company have donated a substantial amount of money and services to begin to develop these types of tracking programs where in fact we can both intercept and track back to the source this type of communication.

The reality is that our security services have even better developed technology, much more effective technology both in identifying and tracking, so that we could get to the perpetrators before they get to their victims.

I have not decided whether I am going to support this bill or not, but I would urge the member to take into account some of my comments and press his colleagues in cabinet to consider spending money to develop a system for the purposes of fighting child pornography and child luring.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes this evening to speak about a blight that is affecting our global society. It is a scourge upon all countries where the widespread use of the Internet is common. It is the online victimization of children. In Canada we know this as Internet luring.

I would like to commend the member for Abbotsford for his efforts and the introduction of this important private member's bill.

The government is committed to protecting our children from the harmful affects of sexual abuse and exploitation. The predation of children for sexual purpose is not a new phenomenon, but the Internet has made it easier for pedophiles to reach potential victims.

New technology, including the Internet, has created new opportunities for Canadians and for the most part they have been extremely positive. However, they have also created new and harmful opportunities for would-be child sex offenders to anonymously and secretly enter into our homes through the Internet with a view to sexually exploiting our children.

In 2002 a new offence was added to the Criminal Code that criminalized such behaviour. Under section 172.1 it is now a criminal offence to use a computer system, such as the Internet, to communicate with a child for the purpose of facilitating a child's sexual exploitation or abduction. In other words, since 2002 it has been an offence to use the Internet to lure or groom a child for the purpose of exploiting that child.

To highlight the seriousness of this offence, I would like to speak briefly about a typical Internet luring case. For those who would doubt the seriousness of these cases, I would urge them to look at some of the recent case law and some of the recent cases. It is extremely disturbing what some people are doing in order to lure children.

Imagine a man who is 42 years old but portrays himself as a 17-year-old youth. Imagine that the victim is a 13-year-old girl. Internet lurers and their victims typically meet online in a topic-based chat room. They form an online relationship and then start to meet in private chat rooms where the talk turns to a more intimate personal and eventually a sexual nature.

This can escalate to telephone calls, video conferencing, and eventually the proposal of an in-person meeting. Hopefully, children become uncomfortable with the development of the relationship and either end it or inform their parents. Unfortunately, all too many times they do not. This example highlights a couple of key points that I want to note.

First, this type of online exploitation of children and youth is more common than we might think. Canada has one of the highest broadband connectivity rates in the world. This means that while our children benefit from all that the Internet has to offer, they are also at risk whenever they go on the Internet.

Second, this example illustrates the insidious nature of Internet luring. It shows how online predators systematically groom and condition children over long periods of time to gain and then betray their trust so that they can sexually exploit them.

Since its enactment in 2002, section 172.1 has served as a useful and effective tool for law enforcement and has resulted in convictions. In a recent Nova Scotia case, Kevin Randall was convicted of Internet luring as a result of engaging in explicit online communications with a person that he believed was a 13-year-old girl, but who was in reality an undercover police officer. This offender, who had a pocketful of condoms, had arranged to meet that 13-year-old girl at a coffee shop. He was apprehended by police.

Clearly, section 172.1 is an important tool for law enforcement. It is being used to successfully secure the conviction of offenders. However, our obligation as parliamentarians must be to ensure that our criminal laws remain effective and responsive.

This is what I understand to be at the core of Bill C-277. It seeks to ensure that existing penalties for Internet luring adequately reflect the serious nature of this type of crime and the serious weight that we as parliamentarians should give these types of crimes.

Last year Parliament enacted Criminal Code reforms that did exactly this. These reforms strengthened the criminal law responses to child sexual exploitation and abuse by increasing maximum penalties for some offences. The effect of these reforms was to underscore the importance of ensuring that sentences in these cases reflect the serious nature of the offences. The practical effect of imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty is also to prevent the use of conditional sentences. There has been much discussion around conditional sentences. It is also known as house arrest.

One of the issues highlighted by these important reforms is that the penalty for the Internet luring offence is less now than what is now available for the contact child sexual abuse offences. In other words, the maximum penalty for Internet luring remains five years' imprisonment, while the maximum penalty for child specific sexual offences as well as for the general sexual assault offences is 10 years' imprisonment on indictment. As well, conditional sentences are no longer available for the child sexual abuse offences that now include mandatory minimum penalties but continue to be available for Internet luring offences.

This bill highlights for me the following questions. Does the existing penalty for Internet luring adequately reflect the serious nature of this offence, particularly in comparison to other contact child sexual offences? Would the proposed new maximum penalty be consistent with the penalty for contact child sexual offences? Would it be consistent with the other measures that are currently before this Parliament, including in Bill C-9, which proposes Criminal Code reforms to prevent the use of conditional sentences for offences that carry a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment or more?

This bill highlights the importance of doing more to safeguard our children from the dangers that we know to exist on the Internet. As parliamentarians, we are duty bound to do everything we can to protect children from those who would prey on them.

I know that Canada in recent years has taken a multi-pronged, comprehensive approach to countering the perils of the Internet for our children by promoting prevention and national public awareness. We are promoting partnerships among government, law enforcement and the private sector, including Internet service providers. The federal government's national strategy to protect children against sexual exploitation on the Internet, led by the Minister of Public Safety, is doing exactly this, including through the RCMP's National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre and through the January 2005 national expansion of Cybertip.ca. This is Canada's national non-governmental 24-7 tip line for reporting the sexual exploitation of children on the Internet.

The use of the Internet by predators to develop a relationship of trust with a young person and then to shatter that trust is a serious issue. We will have to monitor the decisions of our courts to determine whether further action on the issue of Internet luring is necessary, but it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to closely examine Bill C-277 and to consider strongly the value of protecting our young people and the most vulnerable in society from those who would prey on them.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House resumed from May 31, consideration of the motion that Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-277, a one paragraph bill that simply proposes to double the maximum sentence for communicating on the Internet for the purposes of luring a child from five years to ten years.

No one will doubt that the act of luring a child over the Internet is simply reprehensible. In June 2002 the former Liberal minister of justice, Martin Cauchon, announced that tough new legislation protecting children from sexual exploitation, Internet luring and child pornography received royal assent.

The new law fulfilled a commitment made in the 2001 Speech from the Throne. The legislation also met with commitments undertaken by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice at their meeting in September 2000 to create a new offence of Internet luring. In these discussions, the penalty for this offence would have been discussed and a consensus would have been reached.

In the justice committee's deliberations on this new section of the Criminal Code, I was impressed with the presentation of a report on child exploitation and the Internet submitted by the Canadian Resource Centre for the Victims of Crime, and I wish to reference some of the information provided.

The Internet has made the world a smaller place. It has also made it more dangerous for our children. While we encourage our children to take advantage of the benefits of the net as a wonderful tool for education and obtaining information, we must also ensure that they are aware of the dangers and that we take the necessary steps to protect them. There is a dark side to the Internet.

Chat rooms have opened up our homes to virtual strangers who can pretend to be anyone, any age and either sex. They can talk to children in complete secrecy. They can prey on a child as the child's parents sit in the very next room. They can entice a child to meet in person, where the risk of sexual abuse becomes imminent, and they do. Pedophiles who used to be isolated can now find victims without leaving the security of their own homes, at little expense and reduced risk of being caught.

Millions of children are online in their own homes, in public libraries, schools, or at a friend's house. Children who come home from school to an empty house may turn to the Internet as much as they used to turn to television. They may not feel any threat by talking to someone online, especially when they believe it is a child like themselves. After a few weeks or months of communication, they are not strangers any more and that new-found friend is actually a sexual predator ready to claim another unsuspecting victim.

The Internet does not respect any global boundaries. This makes it difficult to police. Experienced users were operating with virtual anonymity, although law enforcement in some parts of the world are struggling to catch up. Countries like Canada have recognized this new form of child sexual exploitation and have begun to dedicate the necessary resources and attention to this growing problem.

The protection of children has always been a priority for Canadians as well. As more and more Canadians recognize the value of the Internet and get online in their homes, the risks to their children increase as online predators go searching for new victims. There is an acknowledgement, both inside and outside Canada, that we need a coordinated law enforcement to deal with this problem.

Pedophiles may use the Internet for a variety of reasons, including validation through communication with like-minded people, to find potential victims and to trade child pornography. Pedophiles who use the Internet to search new victims may be the predatory type who have above average intelligence and have the economic means to operate the Internet, as was referenced in the publication “Use of Computers in the Sexual Exploitation of Children”.

Some online services and Internet service providers allow parents to limit access by their children to certain services and features, such as adult oriented websites, chat rooms and bulletin boards. In addition, there are filtering features built into the popular Internet browsers that empower parents to limit their children's access only to those sites that have been rated appropriate for children. Other useful tools are software programs that block websites, newsgroups and chat areas that are known to be inappropriate for children.

Most of these programs can be configured by the parent to filter out sites that contain nudity, sexual content, hateful or violent material, or that advocate the use of drugs, tobacco or alcohol. Some can also be configured to prevent children from revealing information about themselves, such as their name, address or telephone number. They help, but they are not foolproof.

Children benefit from being online, but can also be targets of crime and exploitation in this as in any other environment. Just like there are good and bad people in schools, parks and our homes, there are good and bad people on the net.

The fact that crimes are being committed online, however, is not a reason to avoid using these services. To tell children to stop using these services would be like telling parents not to send their kids to school because of some high profile cases of teachers preying on their students. Parents need to instruct children about both the benefits and dangers of cyberspace, and how to protect themselves.

We all have a stake in protecting our children. Governments, Internet service providers, educators and others should focus resources and efforts into educating children and parents about the dangers that the Internet presents.

There are over 100 million Internet users around the globe. The overwhelming majority are people who use the net for work, research or to communicate with family and friends. Even if cyberstalkers and predators represent only a small percentage of users, we are still talking about a significant number of offenders and even more potential victims.

The complexity of the Internet means that solutions are equally complex. The net is truly international and laws about crime committed against children, in particular child pornography, vary from country to country.

We owe it to our children to do what we can to protect them from predators, whether it is a family friend, camp counsellor or a pedophile on the net. It is only logical that Canada would enforce the same laws on the net that we do in the real world. While this may be a difficult challenge, society's efforts to protect children must not change simply because technology has changed.

The global nature of the Internet makes any police response difficult because offenders and/or victims may not be in the same country. This underscores the need for an international approach to this problem and Canada must be at the forefront of such an initiative.

Society is only now beginning to learn of the dark side of the Internet. The sexual exploitation of children is only one of the many other types of crimes committed online. Sabotage, fraud and hacking all present major problems for companies, individuals and governments, and all deserve a law enforcement response. However, there is no more precious commodity than our children and no more important priority than their well-being.

What is an appropriate sentence for the Internet luring of a child? That is really the crux of the debate today. I would suggest that there are a wide range of opinions. For a child who has been sexually abused or harmed in other ways, and most especially the parents and friends of such child, 10 years imprisonment as suggested by the bill may be inadequate. That is an understandable response. For the sponsor of the bill a maximum of 10 years is more in line of what he feels is appropriate.

For the government of the day four short years ago and its justice minister, as well as the justice ministers of our 10 provinces and three territories, five years imprisonment would have been an appropriate response. The approach of the Conservative government and its predecessors, the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party, have the same theme: more incarceration and double, triple the prison times. That will certainly deter child sex predators and pedophiles, that will be the fix for them.

Four years ago the former Liberal government put in place this offence with a sentence that was thought to be appropriate under the circumstances. Before we change that sentence, I would like to see the empirical evidence and statistics to support the premise that an increase in penalties, a doubling of penalties, is warranted. Then we can respond to this legislation in an informed and educated way.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-277.

Indeed, as members probably know, I have a 13-year-old grandson of whom I have legal custody. This issue is very important to me because I am aware that for a 13-year-old child, chatting on the Internet is much more interesting than doing homework. Every day I have to bring myself to discipline him to make him understand that too much chatting is not good.

Unfortunately, I believe this bill does not achieve the goals that it sets out to achieve. The Bloc Québécois has always recognized the need to better protect children and it took an active part in the pursuit of this goal, including through the recent addition of provisions on the luring of children to the Criminal Code. However, the increased maximum sentence proposed in Bill C-277 for this offence is aimed specifically and deliberately at increasing the scope of Bill C-9 on conditional sentencing.

In fact, Bill C-277, combined with Bill C-9, will give judges less flexibility and will take away from them the possibility of handing down a conditional sentence in certain minor cases. Currently, conditional sentences allow judges to give a person who is not a threat to society a sentence of less than two years to be served in the community.

Bill C-9, introduced by the Conservatives in the spring, eliminates conditional sentences for offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more.

The Bloc Québécois opposes this bill because the list of offences for which conditional sentences would be eliminated is arbitrary and includes offences such as graffiti, counterfeit money, credit fraud, false prospectus and mail theft.

Furthermore, by removing judges' prerogatives to order sentences in the community, Quebec and the other provinces would assume the additional financial burden of having to imprison more people, while that money could be better spent on rehabilitation and prevention.

The Bloc wants to do whatever it takes to protect children from predators. Unfortunately, the Bloc believes that Bill C-277 is not the way to achieve this.

Once again, the ideology of this Conservative government is modeled after the Americans. The government's proposal is based on the slogan Tough on crime. The idea behind this is simple, that is, to put as many criminals as possible in prison where the living conditions are intolerable and to keep them there as long as possible.

According to the Conservatives, this should get the criminals off the streets and dissuade others from committing crimes.

Furthermore, they believe that punishment is the key to controlling crime. The philosophy behind their policy is this: if penalties are lax, crime rates go up; if they are tough, crime rates come down.

However, our American neighbours have proven that this model does not work. The homicide rate in the United States is three times higher than in Canada, and four times higher than in Quebec. California spent $14 billion to build prisons between 1982 and 1993. The prison population increased by 500% and the overall crime rate went up by 75%.

In 1992, the situation was compared to that of Texas, which reacted very differently to the pressure on its prison system in the 1980s. In an economic recession, Texas decided to build fewer prisons and to impose more conditional releases. The only difference noted between the two crime rates was a certain increase in the repetitive nature of offences against property, although certain indications also attributed this to high unemployment rates in Texas during that time.

According to the information available, there is simply no compelling evidence that imprisonment or various periods of imprisonment have a greater deterrent effect, even for property offences. There are even some reasons to believe the opposite: recidivism rates for imprisoned offenders are higher than those for individuals given non-custodial sentences.

This is why the Bloc Québécois disagrees with this way of thinking, and it is not alone. In the 1988 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General entitled “Taking Responsibility”, the committee admits that imprisonment has had no effect on rehabilitation, has not been a great deterrent and has contributed to protecting society only temporarily.

It also says that sure solutions to crime prevention are further sharing of wealth, working on better social integration and relying on rehabilitation. We can also see the success of the Quebec model, based on rehabilitation. There are fewer violent crimes in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada.

In the past, the Bloc Québécois has taken concrete measures on several occasions to better protect citizens. As evidence of this, we have antigang legislation, the reversal of the burden of proof, the reopening of RCMP detachments—thus better border region security—and protection against sexual exploitation and forced labour. The Bloc Québécois pressed the government to give priority to adopting this bill that will provide more legal tools to police officers in the fight against the scourge of sexual exploitation and forced labour. We also have a DNA bank. These are real tools that we can work with. Imprisonment is never the best solution.

Victims of violence are always foremost in our concerns.

Better protection for citizens is also and primarily accomplished by attacking the root of the problem and the causes of crime and violence. Poverty, inequality, and feeling excluded are the breeding grounds of crime.

The report by the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec deems conditional sentencing to be a tough, safe, and coherent measure that serves as a deterrent. In addition to its punitive value, conditional sentencing promotes the social reintegration of offenders without compromising the safety of our communities.

This measure, which has the support of the public, makes it possible to have a longer period of supervision for offenders jailed for committing similar offences. Abolishing conditional sentencing for more than 160 offences will not lead to improved safety of our communities. On the contrary, in the medium and long term, safety could be compromised.

Incarceration, particularly when unnecessary, can significantly impact offenders and their families in several ways: it can lead to loss of employment, poverty, isolation, worsening of social problems, loss of custody of children, inability to carry out certain responsibilities, loss of independence and so forth. These factors can place offenders and their families in a situation that is even more precarious and that could increase the chance of recidivism or firmly establish a lifestyle based on crime.

Before handing down a conditional sentence, the judge must make sure that the offender does not represent a threat to society. This helps ensure that conditional sentencing is a safe alternative.

It is also said that serving time in prison tends to increase the risk of reoffending, as compared to community-based sentences. That is also true. We are talking about crimes that can sometimes be abhorrent in some instances and pretty minor in other instances, but the judge could no longer use his or her discretion in sentencing. That is really dangerous.

Public opinion is in favour of conditional sentencing, while showing a legitimate concern about the individuals' dangerousness and about certain types of violent crimes. The Supreme Court of Canada has pointed out that conditional sentences are designed not only to punish and denounce, but also to rehabilitate. The highest court of the land further stated that such a sentence provides an alternative which promotes both monitoring and behavioural improvement.

Moreover, this is a sentence that allows people to show that they are able to function properly in society, to take responsibility for their behaviour and to abide by the mandatory and optional terms and conditions of the conditional sentence order.

I will conclude with these words of my brilliant colleague from Hochelaga:

Let me be clear, we are not saying that luring children is not important... It is not that the member's bill... is not important. In fact, it is so important that we supported it when it was introduced by the previous government. We cannot, however, agree with the idea of increasing the sentence from five years to ten so that people who are found guilty of luring children under the Criminal Code cannot serve their sentence in the community—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the private member's bill of the member of Parliament for Abbotsford.

I want to begin my remarks by putting things into context from my perspective.

As a teacher, I was involved with training young people about media awareness. I had the pleasure to work with the Media Awareness Network, which is based in Ottawa. Its work has been picked up and used as a model throughout the country. In fact, it is internationally renowned. What it does is educate young people. As its name suggests, it brings to schools, to children and to young people the tools they need to navigate not only the Internet, but various other media as well.

This is really important. All we have to do is turn on the television, walk down the streets and see the billboards, or look at our magazine stands. I believe we have taken the wrong direction in our society in how we display children and women and how we have sexualized and turned women and children into objects. Part of luring is about objectification, how we have commodified human beings.

I have two young boys. Sadly, it is something that I have had to educate them about at a very early age, about why we have magazines displayed that objectify women in advertising to sell products, when it has nothing to do with the product. We have this kind of pollution put in front of us and seemingly as a society we okay it or we do not do much about it.

With Media Awareness Network, we were able to teach students from the elementary level to high school and show them what kinds of media were out there and how to interpret some of the images. Let us be honest, it is quite confusing for someone who is four, five or six years of age to see some of these images in magazines, on television screens and on the Internet, and to try to understand how that relates to what they see in their everyday lives.

Quite clearly, if one were to take all the images that are thrown at our young people and children, put them in a context and say that this is reality, I think we would find that most children would be very confused and very disturbed if they were not given the guidance that most parents and teachers give. They need to be told that this is not reality, that this is a version of someone's reality and it does not reflect our human family and our human dimensions.

I wanted to start off with that because in essence what we are talking about is the objectification, the exploitation, the sexualization of young people, of children and of women, and we have seen that in the past. That is the heart of this issue. It is how we can tackle what really has become the commodification of human beings.

With that in mind, what we did with the Media Awareness Network was put young people onto the Internet and have them show us the kinds of sites and images that they saw on a day to day basis. This had to to do with advertising, the kinds of things that kids are confronted with all the time. We pointed out there were places that were dangerous and what they should do if someone talked to them on a chat line, how to prevent being lured and why these people do this. Again, it is very confusing for young people. Quite rightly, we hope, young people trust others. Sadly, there are people who exploit that.

What we really need to do is give them the tools to ensure they are not victimized. On that I guess I am a little surprised at the government's approach to this. On certain days we will hear the government say that this kind of behaviour is the fault of poor parenting. In essence, what it saying is that the government will be the parent because the parents are unable to do this. The government will make sure it does it. It will have the big hand of the law and take care of everything.

I am sad to say that this is not good enough and it is intellectually incongruent with what this political party asserts most of the time.

I also have to mention this weeks cutbacks to literacy to help grassroots organizations, schools, community organizations and libraries. They work with young people to give them the tools they need to ensure they are aware of what is out there, the kinds of predators, the pitfalls when one turns on a computer. They need to know there are people out there of whom they should be weary.

I find it strange that we have a government that on the one hand is saying we need to have a law like this, I would suppose, and without prejudice, because it would take care of the problem of luring children. On the other hand the government seems to be taking away all the tools that have been provided to prevent this. Ultimately, the way to deal with problems such as luring children is to prevent hee crime from happening.

I want to turn my attention to what has been done to date in other jurisdictions and what can be done. For the Ottawa police service and for many other police services, one of the problems they have right now is they do not have the tools to deal with the Internet being used as a tool, be it for luring children or for other crimes. Yet as Canadians, we are probably best suited to deal with this problem. We are at the top of the class in developing software and other IT tools to track this kind of phenomena. We have seen that when we have had to deal with and seriously take on concerns around terrorism.

On the other hand, when we are talking about police services and their ability and financial and human capacity to deal with Internet crimes, it seems as though it is an afterthought. That is not because they have not identified it. I happen to know the people on the police services board in Ottawa. I happen to know that this is a concern around the country, and I am sure other members know this. One of the problems police services are having right now is they do not have enough person power. They do not have enough of the IT tools that are necessary. Particularly, the police do not have people who are trained and who can remain in those positions.

This is the kind of approach we need. It is the kind of thing we need to do to prevent these kinds of crimes from happening. We need to be able to identify predators who are on line. Then we can arrest these people and make sure something can happen before the crime happens.

My major concern about the bill is not enough attention has been paid the prevention of crime. I extend that to an analysis on the approach the government seems to be taking on crime in general. Getting tough on crime is hard to argue with in some instances. However, it begs the question, what is the government doing to protect people and prevent these crimes?

If we are unable to have a debate and to put in the tools to prevent crime, then we are not fulfilling our responsibility and our jobs as legislators. Ultimately, we have failed our communities and we have failed children.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for his hard work on Bill C-277 and for bringing it to this House.

I would also like to comment on some of the addresses that have been made in the House.

The Liberal member said that more information is needed to find out whether or not this bill is on the right track. Then let us send this bill to committee so we can have that debate and let us hear from the witnesses.

The Bloc has said that rehabilitation is needed. Let us send the bill to committee so that we can hear from the witnesses how to rehabilitate these pedophiles.

The NDP has just said that we need to prevent the crime and provide the tools. Let us send this bill to committee so that we can find out what tools are needed.

Bill C-277 addresses the seriousness of a criminal behaviour that targets our children: Internet luring.

Since 2002 it has been a crime in Canada to use the Internet to communicate with a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of child sexual exploitation or abduction against a child. Because we criminalize this behaviour, we have to be able to track for the first time the prevalence of this type of activity.

Over 600 Internet luring cases have been referred to the police by Cybertip since 2002. The trend seems to show that it is becoming an increasingly more common problem.

Cybertip has been Canada's national tip line for child sexual exploitation on the Internet. It has been in operation collecting valuable data and referring child sexual exploitation cases to the police since 2002. The data provided by Cybertip.ca and the anecdotal evidence that has been collected over the last four years paints a disturbing picture of a typical Internet luring case.

Picture a man in his mid to late 30s who portrays himself as a 17-year-old boy, who spends his time online in teen chat rooms. Now picture a young girl, 13 years old, who likes to chat with her friends in the teen's chat room, where the conversations get a little racy. Imagine this man gaining the trust of this young girl, striking up a friendship, talking about life, love and sex. Imagine this man taking the relationship to another level, telephone calls, using webcams and perhaps even in-person meetings. This is a typical scenario and escalation of events in cases where a real victim is at risk.

This criminal behaviour is becoming increasingly prevalent, which means that Canadian children are increasingly at risk.

When the luring provision was originally enacted, it was introduced to address a problem. The problem was not related to luring per se because luring itself is not a new phenomenon but one that has been greatly facilitated by the Internet and its associated technologies.

The problem with the act of luring, the grooming and enticing of a young person, was at that time there was no specific offence of luring to commit a child sexual offence and it fell short of an attempt to commit a child sexual exploitation offence. Canadian jurisprudence that dealt with the issue of attempts required that the act, which would constitute the attempt, would be more than mere preparation. It would be difficult to characterize chat or email as more than mere preparation, hence, the creation of the offence of luring a child. The new offence criminalized communicating for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a child sexual exploitation or abduction offence.

Why is all of this very important? Because this is how the current penalty of the luring provision was determined.

Under the Criminal Code the penalty for attempts is half that of the substantive offence that was attempted. Therefore, since the new luring provision, in a way, criminalized activity that was somewhat less than what could normally be characterized as an attempt, it was seen as appropriate that the penalty should be half of what the other child sexual exploitation offences carried.

Today we look at Internet luring very differently. The prevalence of this criminal behaviour and the risk of physical contact have been two supporting factors for treating this crime more seriously.

However, it is the direct contact that is made between the predator and the victim via the Internet, where a relationship of trust is created for the sole purpose of exploiting the young person and betraying his or her trust, which escalates this behaviour above that of an attempt and puts it onto a level with that of the other child sexual exploitation offences.

The last time we debated the bill, a number of questions were posed in relation to it. After careful consideration of its aims and purposes, I think we may have the answers to those questions.

If members will allow me to refresh the collective memory of the House, the questions were the following. Does the existing penalty of Internet luring adequately reflect the serious nature of this offence, particularly in comparison to other contact child sexual offences? Would the proposed new maximum penalty be consistent with the penalty with contact child sexual offences? Would it be consistent with other measures that are currently before Parliament, including Bill C-9, which proposes Criminal Code reforms to prevent the use of conditional sentences for offences that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment or more?

These are good questions. I believe I have already answered the first question, in that the current penalty scheme does not adequately reflect the seriousness of this type of criminal behaviour. Internet luring should be treated in the same way as the other Criminal Code offences relating to child sexual exploitation.

Second, Bill C-277, as amended, which calls for increasing the maximum penalty on indictment and summary conviction for the luring offence to 10 years and 18 months respectively, is completely consistent with the maximum penalties for the other child sexual exploitation contact offences. Only two child sexual exploitation offences continue to have a five year maximum penalty on indictment. Both are related to child pornography, possession and accessing, where contact with the potential child victim is not an element of the offence.

Finally, the bill is also complementary to government bills currently before the House, namely Bill C-9, on conditional sentence of imprisonment, and Bill C-22, on the age of protection. Bill C-277 also fits into the government's priority on tackling crime and, more specifically, on treating child sex exploitation crimes more seriously.

If enacted, Bill C-277 would, by virtue of raising the maximum penalty on indictment for the luring offence to 10 years, bring the offence up to the threshold contemplated in Bill C-9, which would remove the possibility of a conditional sentence, or house arrest, if the accused was prosecuted by the way of indictment.

Bill C-9 in its current form proposes to remove the possibility of conditional sentencing orders, which we commonly refer to as house arrest, for all serious crimes. Bill C-9 currently defines serious crimes as those crimes that carry a penalty of 10 years or more on indictment. The use of conditional sentencing in child sexual exploitation cases has been seriously criticized and Bill C-277 and Bill C-9 together will answer that criticism in part.

BillC-22, on the age of protection, although not directly linked to the penalty enhancements that are being proposed in Bill C-277, will expand the protective shield of section 172.1, the luring offence. Currently all children under 14 years are fully protected by section 172.1, but only some youth between 14 years and 18 years are protected by it. When Bill C-22 is enacted, the full protection of the luring offence will be extended to all children under 16 years.

New technologies, including the Internet, have created new opportunities for Canadians, and for the most part they have been extremely positive. However, they have also created new opportunities for would-be child molesters to anonymously and secretly enter into our homes through the Internet with a view to sexually exploiting our children.

Since its enactment in 2002, section 172.1 has served as a useful and effective tool for law enforcement and has resulted in convictions. In a recent Nova Scotia case, Kevin Randall was convicted of Internet luring as a result of engaging in explicit online communications with a person he believed was a 13-year-old girl but who was in reality an undercover police officer. The offender had arranged to meet the 13-year-old girl at a coffee shop, where the police apprehended him with a pocketful of condoms.

Clearly, section 172.1 is an important tool for law enforcement and it is being used to successfully secure the conviction of offenders. Our obligation as parliamentarians--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a member in this place who does not have a great deal of concern about issues that impact children. The cliché is that children are our future, but they, together with seniors--and I suspect people would agree with me--are the most vulnerable in our society because they can be taken advantage of depending on their circumstances.

We really get into a situation where people are now saying that this is even more serious. In fact, I have had a private member's motion that called for more serious penalties for those who abuse a spouse as opposed to committing assault against another person, the reason being that when someone abuses their spouse, they are violating a trust relationship. Therefore, it is an exacerbating circumstance and the penalty should be greater than the penalty for simply getting into a fight with a stranger in a bar and punching him in the nose. There is something different and it is called an exacerbating factor.

I think members would agree that issues to do with harming children is an exacerbating factor. One member even said he did not think current penalties reflect the seriousness of the crime.

A Bloc member spoke about her grandchild and the need to take care of that grandchild to give it the guidance it needs. If something untoward happened to that grandchild and we asked what should be done in terms of the response of the juridical system, the person with the emotional attachment is going to say, “Throw away the key”. The person will say that the individual who harmed that grandchild has absolutely no right to be in our society. That could be the solution to all serious crimes, to just throw away the key. The trouble is that it is not something we can do. I know that this point alone on just throwing away the key when people do bad things would be a very interesting debate in Parliament.

But in our system today, even those who commit the most serious crimes such as first degree murder, punishable by a sentence of 25 years' imprisonment, eventually will be released into society. They will be released with certain conditions, but they will be out of jail. That, in certain circumstances like the Clifford Olson crimes, is totally unacceptable. There are provisions for incarceration for longer periods of time, but in general first degree murderers eventually get back into society.

That is why our judicial system is based on the principle of rehabilitation. It means that if someone in jail for a serious crime admits their crime and takes programs to rehabilitate themselves to reintegrate into society, they may qualify for probation and get out a little earlier. That is only if they behave themselves and take the program. Those who do not want to probably do not even get probation. Many get turned down because they are not sorry for their crimes. They do not realize the seriousness of their crimes or the damage they have caused to society.

I am going to support Bill C-277 at second reading to go to committee. I am going to recommend it to my caucus colleagues because I think that although we have had a very large debate going on in Parliament, very piecemeal, this private member's bill may very well be the proxy for us to start talking about the whole sentencing and judicial model and whether or not we have confidence in our judges and in the courts, and whether we believe that some cases are different from others, even for the same crime. I can give members an example.

For instance, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba surveyed people in their prisons and found that about 50% of them suffered from alcohol related birth defects, fetal alcohol syndrome. It is a mental illness. Rehabilitation is not applicable to them, but they are in jail. Why are they in jail? They committed crimes, but they did not know the difference between right and wrong. Should they get the same penalty? Should they be in the same system where rehabilitation is what we do? Probably not. They should probably be in appropriate institutions to help them learn how to cope with their disability and their mental health.

The courts have taken a greater latitude in looking at each case individually to find out whether there are exacerbating or in fact mitigating circumstances. I do not believe the latitude can be taken away from the courts and judges to be able to determine whether there are exacerbating or mitigating factors.

This bill, although it is very simple in saying to just increase the penalties from 5 to 10 years, is quite straightforward, but the enormity of the implications and the breadth of the discussion are absolutely phenomenal.

This is a hybrid offence. It means that matters can be handled by a summary conviction or by indictment. It may also still permit, in certain circumstances, conditional sentencing. It may in fact impose a mandatory minimum, effectively, in an inappropriate circumstance. I am not sure whether there is a model that is going to fit all. I am not sure whether raising the penalty from 5 to 10 years is going to be the best solution.

I am one member of Parliament. I have some concerns. I know we do not have the tools to be able to deal with these complex issues in debate of private members' business. We do not have the same opportunity to have a fulsome debate on the vital issues and all the relevant issues, but we do know one thing. We know that at committee we will have the opportunity to have that clear debate with the officials from the justice department and from groups and organizations who are advocating on behalf of protecting children and from the public at large through their members of Parliament. That is where this should happen. That is why I think it is extremely important that we get this bill to committee.

I should specifically indicate with regard to the bill that although it simply doubles the sentence from 5 to 10 years for a conviction by indictment for luring a child into a sexual act through the Internet, the bill does not alter the existing availability of summary conviction procedure, where the maximum sentence would be six months in prison. People will never understand a sentence of six months' imprisonment for someone who is a sexual predator. There is something wrong with that, and I agree.

It appears there is a second purpose of the bill. That is to bring this offence within a class of offences for which government Bill C-9 would remove conditional sentencing as an option if and only if proceeded with by indictment. We have to note that all other sentencing options, including suspended sentence, probation, fines, et cetera, would in fact remain with this bill whether the indictment or summary procedure was used. It is not exactly as advertised, as just increasing the sentence from 5 to 10 years. There is a lot more included in the family of possible outcomes with regard to a case.

The offence of luring in section 172.1 prohibits only communication to facilitate possible sexual acts. It is not the actual acts themselves that are dealt with. So the bill may be short, but the implications and the related issues are very broad.

I would like to conclude. I tend to agree with the speaker from the New Democratic Party who wanted to reach out to the House and to Canadians and say that bad things happen in this world but human beings are not born bad. They are a function of their environment. Loving, caring parents who guide them and give them a good sense of values help them to grow up to be good contributing members of society, but those who do not get that loving, that caring and that teaching obviously are the ones who have a higher probability of getting into some difficulty.

We do not need just tougher sentences. We still have to use all of the tools available. They involve prevention and education. They involve rehabilitation. They involve, in some cases, mandatory minimum sentences. In other cases, quite frankly, they require putting a person away and throwing away the key because there are cases that turn out like that.

I want to thank the member for bringing the bill forward, but I think members have shown the House that this bill has many more sweeping implications and that it should go to committee for us to properly address those other aspects of the bill.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can generally say that bills introduced by backbenchers are well intentioned. Members are rather radical in the solutions that they offer, probably because it is so difficult for them to take their bills all the way to the House, and it is even rarer that they get them passed. That is perhaps what is happening here.

All members of my party and of this House certainly feel that child exploitation in one form or another—whether sexual exploitation, which is one of the worst forms of violence, or child exploitation for economic or other purposes—is an absolutely reprehensible type of conduct that is naturally condemned. However, the clause at hand deals with only one means of luring children: through the Internet.

However, if the individual continues, if he or she commits other offences, even rape, after luring the child through the Internet, these offences will be liable to tougher maximum sentences, up to and including life imprisonment. This can lead, in many cases, to more than 10 years of imprisonment, so that the judge must apply the maximum five-year sentence for luring. Moreover, he or she can decide to impose a concurrent sentence.

Certainly, when the judge makes the decision, he will consider the added rape or sexual exploitation, taking into account the fact that this started with the luring of a child through the Internet. Luring is thus secondary to offences that people find really reprehensible and that already carry very tough penalties under the Criminal Code. I say very tough, but I see that there are now in this House a majority of members who believe that we are never tough enough in Canada.

This is all too apparent in this bill. It is not that a five-year sentence for luring a child—in addition to the sentence the offender will serve if, in the worst case, he goes as far as committing rape or sexual assault—is deemed insufficient. The worst cases will be treated according to the offence committed. No, that is not the issue. It is that some would like this offence to be in another category. They want to put it in a category where a judge cannot impose a sentence of deprivation of liberty. They want this offence to be punishable by a sentence to be served in the community.

I do not know why this fairly recent provision in the Criminal Code is being attacked. I believe it was approved in 1996 or 1998. I think it was 1998. I do not know of any serious studies that show that judges have abused this provision, especially since they still have recourse to probation, with what is called a suspended sentence.

The difference between a conditional sentence and a suspended sentence is very simple. Under a suspended sentence, the accused is released under certain terms and conditions. No sentence is passed by the judge. If the accused abides by these terms and conditions, the judge will no longer have the ability to pass sentence. But if the accused violates the terms and conditions, he or she will be brought back before the judge to receive the sentence the judge could have passed initially. At that time, the judge may adjust the sentence, imposing a tougher or lighter one.

Under a conditional sentence, the judge gives a sentence of two years or less, which the accused may serve in the community under certain terms and conditions. These generally include a curfew requiring the individuals to be home by a certain time in the evening, the obligation to work, the obligation to support their family, and so on. If the terms and conditions are violated, then the accused has to serve the rest of his or her sentence in prison.

In other words, a person sentenced to serve 18 months at home who abides by the terms and conditions for 17 straight months, and then violates them after 17,5 months, will have to spend two weeks in prison to finish serving his or her sentence.

Had the same person received a suspended sentence and violated the terms and conditions after 17 months, the judge would have said, “I gave you a break; now, I am sentencing you to imprisonment”.

The Bloc Québécois is among those who have most actively promoted this change to the Criminal Code. We believed that the legislation had to take into account new technologies and the new ways they provide of luring children. The Bloc Québécois therefore supported the establishment of a new offence. This needs, however, to be set in a broader context. We also have to look at the offence of using a computer to lure a child from the perspective of sexual assault. I think members will agree that sexual assault is a more serious offence than luring a child. Bear in mind that a child is under the age of 18 or 16—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry, but I must interrupt the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, since there are only five minutes left in the debate. These last five minutes are provided to the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to close the debate on what I believe is a significant step forward in protecting the rights of children across Canada in order to be safe from sexual predators.

As the sponsor of the bill, I am encouraged by the support the bill has received today. I had hoped that debate on this bill would transcend our partisan differences and for the most part it has. I especially want to thank those members of the opposition parties who have agreed to support the bill at least as far as the committee stage is concerned. For those who have expressed concerns, I respect those perspectives. I am hoping that all members of the House will at least agree to have the bill sent to committee for further review.

There may be some who will ask whether the bill is an overreaction to the problem of child luring. I would respond by looking at the experience in other countries such as Britain, Australia and yes, the United States. When we look at the maximum sentences for child luring in those jurisdictions, we see a range of 12 to 30 years in prison. In some cases the legislation provides for mandatory minimum sentences of five years.

By comparison, Bill C-277 represents a relatively modest increase in the maximum sentence from 5 to 10 years imprisonment. As my colleagues know, our government has also introduced legislation, Bill C-9, which will remove conditional sentences including house arrest where serious crimes are concerned. Increasing the maximum sentence for child luring for sexual purposes makes a clear statement that this is a serious crime and will ensure that sexual predators do not receive house arrest.

Members should also know that of the cases successfully prosecuted under the current child luring law, the large majority of the sentences are for terms ranging between 6 and 18 months, and most of those are conditional sentences to be served in the community.

My heart tells me that the protection of our children is worth much more than that. There is no doubt in my mind that offenders who are so depraved that they would take advantage of a vulnerable young child deserve tough sentences, not a sentence served in the comfort of their homes and communities.

I would invite members of the House to reflect on our fundamental role as members of Parliament. That role is to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians, and to use the utmost diligence in protecting and defending the interests of the most vulnerable in our society. Clearly, young, impressionable children are included in that group. They face growing threats from a rapidly changing world, a world which is becoming increasingly less friendly and safe. More importantly, those who prey on and exploit children are becoming increasingly bold in their attempts to gain access to our children.

In fact, as I stated earlier, many of these predators cannot be treated and will remain a constant threat to our communities for the rest of their lives. It is our job as members of the House to ensure that we do everything within our lawful power to provide our justice system with the legal tools to keep sex predators away from our children. It is very simple. We have a job to do. Let us do it well.

Parents also have a job to do. I encourage parents to listen to and understand their children, inform themselves about parental controls on their child's computer, keep their child's computer in a public place, stay involved and remain vigilant, educate themselves, and understand that the Internet is not as safe as they may have assumed.

Bill C-277 achieves three goals. First, it condemns in the strongest terms the sexual exploitation of our children. Second, it brings the maximum sentence for luring into line with other sexual offences. Third, it ensures that such offenders serve their sentences in jail, not in the comfort of their homes where they continue to have access to the Internet.

The message of the bill is very clear. If people choose to prey on our children, they will pay a significant price. I encourage the members of the House to put aside partisanship and do something significant for our children. At the very least, refer the bill to committee. Our children deserve nothing less.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 2:30 p.m., the period of debate has now expired.

Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 4, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 2:32 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:32 p.m.)

The House resumed from September 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-277.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #39

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)