Bill C-54 (Historical)

Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code
(a) to increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children;
(b) to create offences of making sexually explicit material available to a child and of agreeing or arranging to commit a sexual offence against a child;
(c) to ensure consistency among those two new offences and the existing offence of luring a child; and
(d) to expand the list of specified conditions that may be added to prohibition and recognizance orders to include prohibitions concerning contact with a person under the age of 16 and use of the Internet or other digital network, and to expand the list of enumerated offences that may give rise to such orders and prohibitions.

Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

moved that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to commence second reading debate on Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), also known as the protecting children from sexual predators act.

Bill C-54 fulfills the 2010 Speech from the Throne commitment to increase the penalties for child sexual offences. It builds on other concrete measures already taken by this government to tackle violent crime and in particular safeguard children against sexual offenders.

For example, the Tackling Violent Crime Act of 2008 raised the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years to better protect Canadian youth against adult sexual predators. This same act also provided all Canadians with better protection against dangerous offenders by providing police, crown prosecutors and the courts which much needed tools to more effectively manage the threat posed by individuals at very high risk to reoffend sexually and violently.

In addition to reflecting the government's unwavering commitment to tackle violent crime, Bill C-54 addresses something that is near and dear to the hearts of all Canadians, namely the protection of our children against sexual predators.

There are many issues on which parliamentarians may disagree but the protection of children against sexual exploitation should never be one of them.

The proposals in Bill C-54 have two objectives: one, to ensure that all forms of child sexual abuse irrespective of how they are charged are always treated as serious offences for sentencing purposes; and two, to prevent the commission of sexual offences against a child.

Currently an individual who commits sexual abuse and exploitation of a child victim can be charged and prosecuted under either child specific sexual offences or under general sexual offences that apply equally to adult and child victims. In deciding how to proceed, police and crown prosecutors take many factors into consideration, including the facts and circumstances of the case and which offence best applies to those facts and circumstances, including the intended penalty for the possible offences.

The penalties that are imposed for child specific sexual offences differ significantly from those imposed for the general sexual offences in one key respect. Twelve of the child sexual offences carry mandatory minimum penalties, whereas none of the general offences impose any mandatory minimum penalties. No less troubling, not all child specific sexual offences carry minimum penalties.

Bill C-54 proposes to change this to ensure that mandatory minimum penalties apply in all sexual assaults where the victim is a child. Some may think that this discrepancy is relevant in practice, perhaps thinking that the majority of child sexual assaults are charged under the child specific offences and therefore are subject to mandatory minimum penalties. Sadly, this is not the case.

In 2008, 80% of all sexual assaults of children reported to police were charged under the general sexual assault offence in section 271 of the Criminal Code, sometimes referred to as a level one sexual assault; 19% were charged under one of the child specific or other sexual offences, such as for example section 151, sexual interference; and the remaining 1% were charged under the two most serious general sexual assault offences, levels two and three sexual assault, namely sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm under section 272, and aggravated sexual assault under section 273.

From a sentencing perspective, this means in 81% all sexual assault cases involving child victims in 2008, there was no mandatory minimum sentence.

I recognize there are some who will say that this does not matter because irrespective of the starting point, the sentence ultimately imposed must reflect the facts and circumstances of each case and must always denounce and deter child sexual abuse.

In our view, that is simply not good enough. This government and the majority of Canadians take the position that the deterrence and denunciation of the sexual exploitation of children must be strong and it must be consistently reflected in the sentences imposed in all of these cases. This means that the starting point for any sentence calculation must be a sentence of imprisonment and not a conditional sentence of imprisonment or house arrest as it is sometimes called.

This is the first thing that Bill C-54 proposes to do to ensure consistency. It proposes to impose a mandatory minimum penalty in all sexual offences where the victim is a child. Bill C-54 proposes to add mandatory minimum penalties to seven offences that do not currently impose mandatory minimum penalties.

I apologize to those who are listening, but the content is not the type of thing that anyone really wants to talk about. These offences are: section 155, incest; subsection 160(3), bestiality in the presence of or by a child; section 172.1, Internet luring of a child; section 173(2), exposure to a person under 16 years; section 271, sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age; section 272, sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing bodily harm where the victim is under 16 years of age; and section 273, aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age. It is unfortunate that we even have to contemplate these things.

The second thing that Bill C-54 sentencing reforms would do is ensure that the mandatory minimum penalties, MMPs, imposed are commensurate for each offence and consistent with other offences.

Take for example the child-specific offence of invitation to sexual touching in section 152 of the Criminal Code. It is a hybrid or dual procedure offence. When proceeded with summarily, the offence carries an MMP of 14 days and a maximum of 18 months. On indictment it carries an MMP of 45 days and a maximum of 10 years. Clearly, these MMPs do not adequately reflect the correct starting point for calculating the sentence for that offence.

The MMPs for sexual touching are also inconsistent with those provided in other offences, such as making child pornography in section 163.1(2), which carries an MMP of 90 days and a maximum of 18 months on summary conviction, and an MMP of one year and a maximum of 10 years on indictment.

Accordingly, Bill C-54 would impose higher MMPs for seven existing child-specific sexual offences: section 151, sexual interference; section 152, invitation to sexual touching; section 153, sexual exploitation; subsection 163.1(4), possession of child pornography; subsection 163.1(4.1), accessing child pornography; paragraph 170(b), parent or guardian procuring unlawful sexual activity with a child under 16 or 17 years; and paragraph 171(b), householder permitting unlawful sexual activity with a child age 16 or 17 years.

As an example, for the offence of sexual interference in section 151, where the maximum penalty on indictment is 10 years, the proposed MMP would be increased from 45 days to one year of imprisonment. For the offence of possessing child pornography under subsection 163.1(4) where the maximum penalty on indictment is five years, the proposed MMP would be increased from 45 days to six months' imprisonment. On summary conviction for the same offences and for which the maximum penalty is 18 months' imprisonment, the proposed MMP would be increased from 14 to 90 days.

Bill C-54 also seeks to prevent the commission of a sexual assault against a child. It does so through two types of reforms: through the creation of two new offences and by requiring courts to consider imposing conditions prohibiting convicted or suspected child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that may facilitate their offending.

Many child sex offenders engage in practices that will facilitate their offending. For example, they may seek out occupations or recreational activities that put them in close contact with children. They may befriend children who they perceive to be in need of friendship or even financial help and then exploit that friendship by engaging in unlawful sexual activity with the child. They may provide the child with aids, such as sexually explicit materials to lower their sexual inhibitions, or they may make arrangements with another person that will result in the commission of a sexual offence against a child.

Bill C-54 proposes to better address this preparatory conduct by creating two new offences. The first offence would prohibit a person from making sexually explicit material available to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual or abduction offence against the young person. Child sex offenders often give such material to their victims to lower their sexual inhibitions and/or to show them the conduct they want the child victim to engage in, or to make the child believe that other children do this too.

It is already an offence to provide such material for any purpose where it constitutes child pornography. Bill C-54 would make it an offence to provide other sexually explicit material to a young person for this purpose. The offence would apply to transmitting, making available, distributing or selling such material to a young person for this purpose and would apply whether it is provided directly in a face-to-face encounter or over the Internet.

Bill C-54 proposes a clear definition of “sexually explicit material”, a definition that is consistent with its use and interpretation in the child pornography section 163.1 of the code, and voyeurism section 162 offences. The proposed new offence would clearly only apply when the material is provided for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an enumerated sexual or abduction offence against that child.

This “for the purpose” criteria is used in the existing Internet luring of a child offence in section 172.1, and was recently interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the R. v. Legare decision of 2009 as applying to preparatory conduct that helps to bring about, or make it easier or more probable for the young person to participate in the prohibited conduct. The proposed new offence would be subject to mandatory minimum penalties and a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment on summary conviction, and two years' imprisonment on indictment.

The second new offence proposed by Bill C-54 would prohibit using telecommunications, such as the Internet, to agree or make arrangements with another person to commit one of the enumerated sexual or abduction offences against a child. This offence was previously included in Bill C-46, the investigative powers for the 21st century bill, that the Minister of Justice had introduced in the previous session of Parliament and that died on the order paper on prorogation.

In addition to the new MMP and a more accurate marginal note or title for this proposed offence, it has also been modified from the former Bill C-46 version to ensure consistency with the other new offence being proposed by Bill C-54, and with the existing luring a child offence of section 172.1, all of which follow a similar approach.

For example, the listing of offences in each of these three offences will now all be consistent. Similarly, all three offences would be added to the child sex tourism provision in subsection 7(4.1), which would provide extraterritorial jurisdiction for a Canadian prosecution of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who engages in one of the enumerated child sexual offences while abroad.

Coordinating amendments with Bill S-2, the protecting victims from sex offenders bill, are also proposed to ensure consistent treatment of these offences for the purposes of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, and DNA provisions in the Criminal Code.

This proposed new offence would fill a gap in our existing law. Currently the existing prohibition against the Internet luring of a child, in section 172.1, applies to communications between the offender and the child. This new offence would apply to communications between, for example, two adults who arrange or make an agreement that would in essence result in the sexual assault of a child. The new offence would better address this preparatory conduct and help to prevent the commission of the actual sexual assault against a child.

Bill C-54 also seeks to prevent convicted or suspected child sex offenders from having the opportunity to facilitate their offending. Finding access to a child or the opportunity to be alone with a child is a key for many child sex offenders. An increasing number of child sex offenders also use the Internet and other new technologies to facilitate the grooming of victims or to commit other child sex offences.

Currently, section 161 of the Criminal Code requires a sentencing court, at the time of sentencing a person convicted of committing one of the enumerated child sexual or abduction offences, to consider imposing a prohibition against the offender from frequenting places where children can reasonably be expected to be found, such as a playground or schoolyard, or from seeking or holding paid or volunteer positions of trust or authority over children, or from using a computer system for the purposes of communicating with a young person.

Section 810.1 of the code provides a comparable direction vis-à-vis conditions that could be imposed as part of a recognizance or peace bond against a person who is reasonably believed to be at risk of committing one of the enumerated child sex or abduction offences.

Bill C-54 proposes to expand the list of enumerated child sex offences to include four procuring offences. It would also broaden the list of prohibitions by directing a court to consider prohibiting the person from having any unsupervised access to a child under the age of 16 years, or from having any unsupervised use of the Internet. The objective of these conditions is to prevent the suspected or convicted child sex offender from being provided with the opportunity to sexually offend against a child or to use the Internet to facilitate such offending.

In summary, Bill C-54 builds upon numerous past and current legislative reforms and initiatives to better protect all children against sexual abuse and exploitation.

It proposes sentencing reforms to ensure that all sexual assaults against a child victim are equally and strongly denounced and deterred through consistent and coherent mandatory minimum sentences. It also proposes reforms to prevent the commission of sexual assault against children.

I hope that all hon. members will support the expeditious enactment of these reforms to provide children with the protection they need and deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one major concern with the bill, and that is the provision of the sexually explicit material. I understand the Supreme Court of Canada made reference to this. It is common knowledge, and anybody, whether psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker, who has worked on cases involving child sexual abuse is well aware of the technique that pedophiles use to engage younger children as well as teenagers by using sexually explicit material.

I have a question for the parliamentary secretary and my colleague on the justice committee. I am concerned by the way the bill has been drafted. I am asking if the justice department in particular has analysed it from this perspective: whether, by the way this section has been drafted, it will be seen by the courts as a way of getting around the definition of child pornography as it exists in this country now and as the courts have found in a repeated number of cases. Is it a technique to get around the definition so that if this material that is shown to a young person does not amount to child pornography, will the courts say that it does not fit into the definition of child pornography, it is way beyond the scope of child pornography, and strike the charges down because of that, under the charter, because it would be a charter argument?

I am just asking if the department has looked at it from that perspective. I hope I have made my question clear enough. I rambled a bit there.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and the statement he made earlier today on Bill C-22 that all hon. members agree and have an interest in making our laws more restrictive to ensure that no child is ever sexually abused in Canada.

With respect to his specific question, I can assure him that the department did look at the way the definitions of child pornography mesh with the provisions of material to a child for the purposes of grooming the child for sexual abuse. It is the view of the government and the department that both will withstand any charter challenge.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question on the bill. As a father of two young girls, there is no bill we are currently looking at that has more for parents like me to be concerned about than the safety of our own children, so the bill goes a long way to address some of the concerns that we have.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would address a point. My understand is that house arrest would no longer be one of the provisions that would be allowed for those people who have been convicted of some of these horrific crimes. I am wondering if he could express to me an assurance that the bill does address the fact that these people who have been convicted of these horrific crimes will not be let back into the communities, many times the same communities in which they committed their crimes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, for his concern and the good work he does to protect children in all of the matters he does, working on behalf of his constituents. I can assure him that the provisions of Bill C-54 will remove the possibility of a conditional sentence for a child sexual offender, and will replace it with a series of mandatory minimum penalties ranging from six months to 18 months of incarceration.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, while I certainly support the intent of this bill, I wonder whether we will see a move on the part of some of these people to engage in sex tourism in other countries. We have had that problem for many years, and the countries change over the years. Thailand was a big source for this activity and I am sure there are other countries.

Does the government have any plans, or is it making any effort, to make certain that we are enforcing our own sex tourism laws? What efforts are being made to deal with other countries to toughen up their laws?

If all we do is export the problem somewhere else, we are not really getting ahead on a worldwide basis.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice very frequently bring these issues up at international conferences, as do our ambassadors and foreign affairs officials around the world. They continually make the case that other jurisdictions must pass the same kinds of legislation that we have here in Canada against child sexual offences and they must enforce them.

In that regard, as the member will know because I know he listened intently to my speech, I said earlier today that Bill C-54 includes a provision, which will be in subsection 7(4.1) of the Criminal Code, that will provide extraterritorial jurisdiction for Canadian prosecution of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who engages in one of the enumerated child sexual offences while abroad.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member whether the government has any plans for a criminal injuries compensation fund similar to the fund we have in Manitoba that was set up under the NDP government of Ed Schreyer in 1969 or 1970.

There is a lot of damage caused to people on a long-term basis. Does the government have any way for these victims of crime to receive compensation? Are there any plans afoot to have a federal victims' compensation fund or provisions like that?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that this government has recently appointed a new victims' ombudsman, Ms. Susan O'Sullivan, who is a lifelong career police officer. She has an incredible amount of experience in law enforcement and brings all of that experience to bear in advocating on behalf of victims to make sure that victims' interests are taken care of by our justice system.

The member will also know that our government has spent more than any other government on victims' services. As well, it has increased the victims' services budget this year.

We encourage all police officers, current prosecutors and law enforcement officials to bring these services to the attention of all victims. Of course, victims are the number one priority of this government.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the criminal injuries compensation fund idea that was started in Manitoba some 40 years ago is something that his government should look at. It has certainly fulfilled a very valuable function in my home province.

If the government is as concerned as it says it is, and we believe it is, with the plight of victims in society, then it should not only talk about it, but actually do something about it. Certainly the experience with the previous holder of the office was that he was not happy with the lack of commitment to victims.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government is in close consultation with the victims' ombudsman to enhance all services to victims. We will take his suggestions and consider them in all seriousness.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

That concludes the time for debate at this stage. I am going to move now to statements by members since it is almost 11 o'clock.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing debate on this quite new statute. It was only introduced a month ago.

It is another of the government's many amendments to the Criminal Code, which for some reason it has not been able to package in one bill. I do not mind that if perhaps carving up these Criminal Code amendments into smaller pieces will make it easier for colleagues in the House, and maybe for the cabinet. Maybe the cabinet is not able to handle a big Criminal Code omnibus bill all at once. It is quite possible the members of the cabinet have limited capacity to handle those kinds of volumes.

I can assure the House that I have seen bills that are longer, larger, thicker, more complex than each of these Criminal Code amendments. Something tells me the procedure would go a lot faster and more efficiently if the government had chosen the route of larger bills.

Right now, I did a count on this, there are somewhere around 15 separate Criminal Code amendments in the House and in the Senate. It has dragged on from the previous session into this session, and in some cases from the previous Parliament into this Parliament.

In any event, let us say that we are catching up. We are trying to accommodate the volume, keeping in mind that every bill must be debated in the House. The bills have to go committee. Almost all bills do go to committee for study after second reading, then come back here for possible amendment or concurrence or third reading, and then off to the Senate for analogous procedures.

All of that takes time, no matter how we cut it. I am merely saying this because with the addition of this new bill, it will simply add to the list that the Minister of Justice will, from time to time, refer to and pretend that the House is taking excessive or inordinate amounts of time to pass.

He has made the same complaint with the Senate, although I do notice that since the Conservatives achieved a working majority in the Senate, the other place, he does not seem to criticize the Senate quite as often as he used to. Indeed, that Senate has to do the same kind of work we do. It has to pass these bills.

If there is anyone to blame for the lengthy investment of procedural time on these bills, it must be the government itself because it is the one that decided that instead of having two or three separate bills, it wanted to have roughly 15 bills. That is simply the state of art as it is now.

This particular bill focuses on the area of sexual offences in relation to children. It is a three or four part rework of a number of sections of the Criminal Code, sentencing provisions and prohibition orders. There is an insertion of one, two or three new provisions, and I will make reference to those in my remarks.

The concept of adding some mandatory minimum sentences to the code is not new. We have been doing this in Parliament for 10, 20 or 30 years, but not doing it on a wholesale basis. It seems to me that every time the government moves around now it includes mandatory minimum sentences in whatever it does in relation to the Criminal Code. I do not think that is good public policy. There are a whole lot of people who do not think that is good public policy.

That is not to say that we do not need minimum sentences. There are situations and circumstances where they are appropriate and useful, and should be there. In this particular bill, while there are a whole lot of mandatory minimums added, I would have to accept that in some cases the mandatory minimum is appropriate with one proviso.

As I read the bill, and as I said it has only been on the order paper for a month, I compared the new provision to the old provision. I found that the old provision already had a mandatory minimum sentence built into it. I wondered what was happening here.

This is like a bidding war such that “I can legislate a bigger mandatory minimum sentence than they can”. I hope that is not what is going on here. I hope that the mandatory minimum sentence provisions that have been chosen and inserted into some of these new bills have been thought about and canvassed among people who understand how the sentencing system works. I hope this is not just a political reaction of “look how big of a sentence I can propose in my legislation”.

The bill also expands the list of conditions and coordinates the conditions with convictions. For example, on a type of offence involving children there may be a condition during or post sentence that the individual is prohibited from doing certain things or being in certain places. That is usually involving children.

There are a couple of other new arrangements in there that we should take a look at, and I will in my remarks if I have time.

One of the newer interventions in the Criminal Code in dealing with children is the arrival of the Internet and computer. At one point in our legislation we actually used the term “computer”. About 15 or 20 years ago we defined what a computer was and the types of offences that would involve a computer and other people, or a computer and children.

Now, of course, we have convergence in the technology universe. The basic hand-held telephone is the equivalent of a computer. We now have to reinvent the terminology we use because a cellphone is not a computer, yet it is capable of being part of a series of actions involving a criminal offence.

I can see there is a reversion in the definitions here to go back and reincorporate telephones and telecommunications in addition to the computer. We may have to abandon the concept of “computer”, there may be some other concept of technology that we have to refer to.

Of course, we will be forever revising and amending our Criminal Code as we go into the future because these things will happen. Our society will change, technology will change, and we have to keep updating our codes. I do not object to the concept at all.

I have mentioned mandatory minimum sentencing as a concept and it has been inserted into many sections in the bill. I have to ask the question again: Do mandatory minimum sentences work?

The answer is not clear. There is not a simple yes or no answer to this. It appears that a mandatory minimum sentence can work as a deterrent if it is associated with public education and good enforcement. We learned this with reference to the drunk driving and the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code.

It appears to us that the mandatory minimum sentences provided for in the impaired driving sections have had a deterrent impact. Keep in mind that the mandatory minimums there are associated with other penalties, escalating penalties and good enforcement by police who are out there stopping drivers, using breathalyzers, and doing a very good job of enforcement.

Did it get rid of impaired driving? No.

Has it diminished it? The statistics show that it has.

We accept that a mandatory minimum penalty will work. We have evidence that it does not work. The mandatory minimum penalty for murder is life in prison, 25 years before parole. Does that deter murder? Let us accept that it does but we still have a lot of murders. Obviously the toughest sentence we have does not deter.

Lurking behind this issue of mandatory minimum sentencing is the problem that most people who commit criminal offences do not even think about deterrence in the first place. When they commit the offence, they actually do not believe they will be caught. If they do not believe they are going to get caught, then they could hardly be expected to turn their mind to a mandatory minimum sentence if caught. If the mandatory minimum sentence is going to deter an individual, that individual has to think he or she will get caught.

I also have to accept that mandatory minimum sentences are not there only for deterrence. Mandatory minimums can also be used for what is called societal denunciation, meaning society says the individual has done a bad thing so that no matter what he or she has to go to jail.

We have had a lot of litigation on this. There has been a lot of sociology on this. As Canadians, we are entitled to put a firm penalty into a Criminal Code offence. We are entitled to say that someone who has done a bad thing must serve some time so that the person knows and everyone knows it was a bad thing.

Denunciation is a part of this but it cannot be the rock bottom foundation. For public safety purposes we need deterrents and a whole range of other factors in sentencing. They are all listed in the Criminal Code in one of the sections revised about 15 years ago.

A lot of us in the House come from urban areas or urban-rural areas close to big cities. A few of us come from rural and remote areas with a lot of very small communities. Not every small community has a court and a jail. When we enact in here a provision that says there must be a mandatory minimum sentence and a crime takes place in a remote community that requires that mandatory minimum sentence, the individual has to be picked up and taken to a court somewhere. Even if there is a courthouse in the community there may not be a jail. If the individual is convicted, he or she has to be moved another 500 miles or kilometres, or whatever it is, to a detention facility. That is pretty costly. I ask the question and I leave it unanswered: Is that the most appropriate type of sentence for an offender in a remote community, to lift him or her up and take them away from where they are?

We have to do that because there is a mandatory minimum sentence. It is not like we could resort to some other form of appropriate sentencing. Even if everybody in the village believes the sentencing is appropriate if it does not involve mandatory detention, it would not matter because we are passing a law that says there must be a mandatory sentence attached to it. The person would have to be taken away. In any event, that is a fact of life in Canada.

This is really unfortunate if a crime happens in a rural area. I am thinking of first nations communities. I really wish that we and our first nations communities could handle some of these justice matters ourselves and not have the boys and girls in Ottawa imposing mandatory minimum sentences.

One of the sentences in relation to which the government is proposing a mandatory minimum does not involve a few months. A five-year minimum sentence applies to incest involving a child. This is a serious offence. Unfortunately, incest reflects a serious social problem. I question whether a mandatory five-year minimum sentence in every instance, every scenario, every case is appropriate. Five years would be mandated by this new section.

I think we see that in some circumstances the sociology of drug addition, the sociology of alcoholism, the sociology of mental illness, all are factors in some of these cases. Just presuming that we appropriately respond and solve that problem by imposing a mandatory five year minimum sentence, without even know the facts, seems backhanded. It someone's view of denunciation.

I do not for a moment condone this type of criminal activity. It is reprehensible, but I am not so sure that the government's knee-jerk five year minimum is what is appropriate in our system of justice.

Members will have an opportunity to look at this in the committee and we will see what the justifications are.

Another proposed section of the bill seemed like it was concocted in a crime novel, and that is new section 15. It creates a new offence under section 172.2. This is one of these sections where we have to reach back and add in the word “telecommunications”. It states:

Every person commits an offence who, by a means of telecommunication, agrees with a person, or makes an arrangement with a person, to commit an offence...

A whole raft of sexual offences are there. However, the essential part of that is making an arrangement by telephone. By the way, it sounds like the Criminal Code to commit an attempt type offence because the offence actually does not have to happen. The sexual act or sexual encounter does not have to happen for the offence to take place.

In creating the new sentence, the bill removes the defence of whether we knew the person was under or over 18. Some people would say that if we did not know, it would be our own fault. However, do not forget, this offence happens on the telephone.

Then there is another section that takes away defences. It is no defence that the person on the telephone was a police officer or was put up to it by a police officer. That is not a defence, so a police officer can do that. Then it says that it is not even an offence if the person who the arrangement was made with did not even exist if there was a peace officer involved on the other end of this. It is an entrapment machine. We need to have a very good look at this.

I am happy to see this concept of setting up an arrangement or a rendezvous with a young person under 18, then under 16 and under 14, as set out in the section, as a potential criminal offence. I am not happy to see the defences removed. A person might not even know the age of the person. It says that one is still guilty unless one took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person. I am not so sure that in a telephone conversation like that, someone will ask for a driver's licence and ask for age. Therefore, this has to be looked at very carefully.

Police officers may feel this will enhance their ability to snare predators and that may well be the case. I do not mind if it does, but, as always, we have to ensure that our Criminal Code provides procedural fairness for everyone, not just the bad guy. There but for the grace of God sometimes go all of us. We never know when we will get caught in a trap, when someone sets us up. I think most of us have seen enough television or read enough novels to know about that.

The last thing I want to refer to is section 26. Again, we are using and reusing terminology—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I could not get his attention. Perhaps he can finish his speech in response to questions and comment.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to listen to the comments of the member for Scarborough—Rouge River on Bill C-54.

I was intrigued by his observations that the government had introduced perhaps 15 Criminal Code amendments, which are fairly simple. The suggestion he has made, being a well-regarded lawyer who has been around the House for many years, is that perhaps the government could have proceeded by way of an omnibus bill. It certainly managed to that with the 980 page budget bill, which was not appropriate for that case. However, in this case, a revamp of the Criminal Code, putting all these amendments into one bill, would not only be appropriate, but would probably be the preferred way to do.

The other aspect of it is that the Criminal Code is 100 years old and is probably in need of a very large revamp as it is. Does the hon. member agree that perhaps the federal government should have engaged in consultation with the provinces and had a series of road show type hearings across the country about what should be involved in a total rewrite of the Criminal Code? The Conservatives could start by involving the opposition parties. By doing that, they would have a better possibility of having a productive Parliament and actually achieving something during the government's tenure in office.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made the point about the non-omnibus bill. It would have been a lot more efficient to have one.

In terms of reworking the Criminal Code in a big way, yes it needs it. The statute is very old. There are some pretty old sections in it. However, there are right ways and wrong ways to do that. Most jurisdictions have found that if they do not lay the groundwork properly, they do not seek the political consensus and they do not get the new rework through quickly, they get stoned to death. They get nickeled and dimed to oblivion.

I recall about 25 years ago when the state of Indiana did a rework of its Criminal Code. It was reputed that it did it the right way. We could do it here with the right kind of collaboration and laying the right groundwork. However, we should all agree that with these short parliaments we have now and minority governments, this would be very difficult to do, but some day we will get around to it.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, this legislation, the protecting children from sexual predators act, is supported by me as well as members of the House because so many of us have children, grandchildren and people in our families who we want to protect. I know the legislation would go a long day to doing that.

The hon. member talked about remote communities. I represent many remote communities, communities that do not have, as he described, access to court and jail institutions. However, removing these people from remote communities is absolutely essential. First, it would ensure the protection of the community. It would also allow the children against whom these crimes have been perpetrated some ability to heal by not having to see the perpetrator on a daily basis. In many of these remote communities, there are only several hundred people. There is a good chance that if the perpetrator is not removed, the children would continue to see this person on an ongoing basis. I am a strong promoter and believer that these people should be removed from those communities.

The member talked about whether five years was an appropriate sentence. I have met with victims of incest. We might find that people, especially victims of these horrible crimes, would agree five years is not long enough. In fact, it should be much longer, and I appreciate that.

In his description of mandatory minimum sentences, the member described the fact that they were deterrents as well as denunciations. However, he did not comment on the fact that these are good protections. We know sexual predators who are in the practice of victimizing children have a very high propensity to reoffend. If these people are put under house arrest and are sent back to the communities where they perpetrated their crimes, there is a very good chance they will continue to victimize children.

Would the hon. member agree with me that mandatory minimum sentences would do what he describes, act as deterrents and denunciations, but, more important, would provide additional protection of the community and children because these people would be unable to continue to perpetrate and victimize children?

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

Madam Speaker, I can agree in many cases that the member is accurate. My comments about mandatory minimums were not with respect only to sexual offence, but across the whole range of the Criminal Code.

He spoke about perpetrators committing sexual offences against children. If the perpetrator is convicted of some other criminal offence, not a sexual offence in relation to children, the mandatory minimum would removed that person from the family and put the individual in another jail in another place. That would be another impact on children. This has nothing to do with sexual offences.

The focus on the bill is sexual offences, protecting children against sexual offences. I think this has pretty wide support in the House. As we go forward on mandatory minimums, I want to ensure we target properly and get it right.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments about the mandatory minimums and the common expression for mandatory minimums being “deterrents”, in a general sense.

Let us look at the murder rates and how the mandatory minimum talks about 25 years imprisonment. Let us compare Houston to Toronto. One has the death penalty, one does not and one has a higher murder rate, which would be Houston.

Could he comment briefly on that?

The member mentioned section 26, but did not have time to talk about it in his speech. Perhaps he could start by making his comments on that section known to the House and to the public.

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

Madam Speaker, the point I wanted to raise in relation to section 26, for which I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to do so, is the section refers to one of these prohibitions during and post-sentence where a person is convicted. It states:

prohibit the defendant from using the Internet or other digital network, unless the defendant does so in accordance with conditions set by the judge;

What is a digital network? We are fishing around in the new age of technology. A digital network could involve a hearing aid that a person is wearing. It could involve a telephone. Even when we watch T.V., we are watching something that is a part of a digital network.

I want to ensure we have our terminology right. The intent is clear and I support it. I want to ensure when we use these terms, we use the right ones.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, the member suggested that the government should have introduced perhaps one bill instead of 15 separate bills. I would simply like to remind the hon. member that the government has extreme difficulty pursuing any one of the 15 bills.

He is a member of the justice committee and he will know that his party objected to Bill S-6, the faint hope clause bill. The Liberals claimed that they were going to reintroduce it in a future government, if they were ever to form a government.

Can members imagine what would happen if all those bills were combined into one bill? It would never get through Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I did not say one bill; I said a few. I think I mentioned the number three, or perhaps four. We have to get 15 down.

The member has partly made my point. He says they have trouble getting one bill through. Then they have trouble getting 15 bills through. If they would reduce it to three or four bills, they would only have trouble getting three or four bills through and we would get through this stuff a whole lot more quickly.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-54, which was introduced by the Minister of Justice on November 4 and which amends the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), also known as the protecting children from sexual predators act.

It is important for the people listening to us to understand the scope of this bill, which I will summarize in five points. The bill increases or imposes mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children; prohibits anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child; prohibits anyone from using any means of telecommunications, including a computer system, to agree or make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child; ensures consistency among those two new offences and the existing offence of luring a child; and expands the list of specified conditions that may be added to prohibition and recognizance orders to include prohibitions concerning contact with a person under the age of 16 and use of the Internet or other digital network, and to expand the list of enumerated offences that may give rise to such orders and prohibitions.

New technologies are forcing us to rethink the offences set out in the Criminal Code. The Bloc Québécois believes that the all-important fight against crime—especially when the victims are children—must be realistic. Crime rates in Quebec have been dropping over the past 15 years, as they have in Canada.

Some of the measures proposed in this bill definitely warrant attention, such as the creation of new offences or new restrictions imposed on delinquents. But, once again, this bill contains minimum sentences. That is not a surprise, but the Bloc Québécois has always maintained here in the House that minimum sentences are ineffective and unfair by nature.

It is important that those watching us understand. We have inherited our justice system from our ancestors. The Criminal Code has always been based on maximum sentences. Judges use case law and the circumstances of each case—in criminal law, each case is unique—to determine the most appropriate sentence for the individual before them and for the crime committed. That is how our ancestors founded criminal law and passed it on to Quebec and Canadian society.

In recent years, with increasing media involvement, there has been a strong tendency to use the Criminal Code as a substitute for judges through the imposition of minimum sentences. This has been even more evident since the Conservatives took power. The trend is to not let the judge determine the penalty but to set fixed sentences in the Criminal Code. This trend is purely a matter of partisan opportunism. When something is reported in the media, it is amplified, tempers flare and people think that the sentence is never stiff enough for the crime committed, especially when the media get involved.

Our ancestors left us a justice system that was sheltered from such impulsive public reactions. As our societies evolved, things have changed. When I came into politics in 2000, the Internet was around, but it was not as efficient as it is today. With social networking, some situations end up online so quickly that the public finds out even before the media can report on it.

What does this mean? It means that the public develops an opinion before the police even start handling a case or before it can even be reported on properly.

You may say that our ancestors did not have that, which is true, but they still left us a historic form of logic. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the justice system allows the judge to determine what sentence is appropriate for the crime committed, in light of all kinds of factors. For example, the judge must consider whether it is a first or second offence, and so on. This is what has developed from what our ancestors left us. The case law or jurisprudence changes and evolves, and judges adapt.

The government wants to introduce minimum sentences because it thinks that the system is not fast enough. It thinks that our legal system is slower than people want it to be. However, once again, it seems to me that popular opinion is being artificially manipulated by the media, by all media. Some of them have completely different interpretations. That is important. When something happens and we hear about it at home via the Internet, Facebook, Twitter or some other channel, initial versions of events may differ from those conveyed by the media. Then, once all the facts are laid before the court, there is often a huge difference between people's first impression of events and the court's interpretation in handing down a verdict. The courts analyze each case, review the evidence and get to know every little detail about the crime, how it was committed and the person who committed it.

Once again, I want to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois wants to study this bill in committee. The new offences seem appropriate to us because technology has evolved. People make contact through the Internet, not necessarily physical contact. But some virtual contact may become physical, and that should be condemned. We have to create new sentences.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois has some serious reservations about minimum sentences. During the committee's study of this bill, we will call the necessary witnesses to help the Conservatives understand that minimum sentences are not necessarily the best solution.

I will review the new jail sentences included in this bill. It covers sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, incest where the victim is under 16 years of age, luring a child through the use of a computer, and exposure. There are provisions that create two new offences. I want to take the time to mention these because I find them interesting.

The first is to prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child. This hybrid offence would carry a mandatory prison sentence of 30 days—once again, this is the minimum sentence—and a maximum penalty of 6 months when proceeded on summary conviction, and a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days—once again, this is the minimum sentence.

The second is to prohibit anyone from using any means of telecommunications, including a computer system, to agree or make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child. This new offence was previously proposed as part of former Bill C-46 in the previous session of Parliament. This proposed hybrid offence would now carry a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days—once again, this is a minimum sentence.

I would like to reiterate that we concur with the new offences that have been added. However, we question the idea of mandatory prison sentences that even a judge cannot interpret or adjust based on the seriousness of the situation.

At first glance, we need to make sure in committee that the measures related to these two offences will facilitate the work of police, since that is the goal. The Bloc Québécois has always acted responsibly in this House and, in particular, it was the first party to fight organized crime, among other things, by requiring the reversal of the onus of proof for members of organized crime groups.

Before the Bloc Québecois intervened, the state had to prove that goods in the possession of organized criminals were not acquired legally. The onus of proof is now reversed thanks to the Bloc Québecois, which succeeded in convincing Parliament that such should be the case. Now, when a crime is committed by members of an organized crime group, these individuals must prove that the goods were acquired using money earned doing legal activities. If they are not able to prove that such is the case, the goods are automatically considered to have been obtained illegally.

Inevitably, this has had a considerable impact on the seizure of assets belonging to criminals who are members of organized crime groups. I think this has, among other things, made the job of police officers in Quebec a little easier. There was Opération Printemps 2001, the Carcajou squad and the whole fight against organized crime led by the Parti Québécois government of the day, which practically guaranteed the disbandment of organized biker gangs like the Hells Angels and other groups. They have been practically obliterated. Authorities were able to arrest their leaders, because they could not prove that their assets had been lawfully acquired.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois's approach has always been responsible and effective. Our approach puts faith in the justice system. We learned this approach and this trust in the judicial system from our predecessors. Judges are supposed to be the most competent individuals in the legal community. They are the best qualified to determine the appropriate sentence based on the crime committed and the criminal history of the person on trial.

We even demonstrated our sense of responsibility in this House with our plan to deal with economic crime. During the recent economic crisis, several white collar criminals profited from the largesse of many people who were not very knowledgeable.

When the economy is doing well, everyone makes money and the hope is to make more than everyone else. That has always made me laugh, especially when it comes to our bankers. There are organizations that were even paying bankers to give talks. The major bank presidents of this world were giving talks and getting paid to do so.

Then, like sheep, they were all fleeced. They all lost money. No one saw the financial crisis coming. They relied on their junior staff and passed themselves off as geniuses when everything was going well. The worst part is that in the wake of this crisis, they continue to earn their big fat salaries. That is just wrong.

The Bloc Québécois has its own way of fighting economic crime. First, we have always maintained that parole after one-sixth of a sentence needs to be abolished. One of the reasons for public cynicism is the fact that a person sentenced to six years can be eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of his sentence.

In other words, that person can be released after one year. When someone spends months behind bars before the trial, that time counts for double. We have always wanted to abolish this two-for-one rule. In my example, the six-year sentence would be reduced to one year because the offender is eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of the sentence. Having already spent two months in prison, the offender would get a four-month credit. Even though the offender gets a six-year sentence, he will have only eight months left to serve before being released.

This is out of the hands of the judiciary. Politicians are the ones who decided on parole and the two-for-one rule. Judges apply sentences, and if the person is deemed eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of the sentence, then he will be paroled. In the case of economic crimes, we are saying in no uncertain terms that there should not be any parole after one-sixth of the sentence. If the person was sentenced to six years, he must serve six years, period. Nor should any time count for double.

We wanted to amend the Criminal Code provisions on confiscating the proceeds of crime in order to include measures covering fraud over $5,000, reorganize police forces, and require that banks report irregularities in trust accounts. All these responsible measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois were not accepted or took some time to be acknowledged by the Conservative Party.

All that to say that we have always anticipated what the people want, while respecting the legacy our ancestors left us. The legal system is a legacy. The Bloc Québécois's position will not change and it will always hold the same opinion about Bill C-54. The new offences to be added, which are often made necessary by new technologies, are a no-brainer. They have to be created, especially when children are concerned.

My beautiful little grandson is just 14 months old. If anything at all were to happen to him, I would be tempted to take the law into my own hands and I would have to restrain myself. It is our job, as decision-makers, to protect these beautiful children. It is awful that new technologies can corrupt our children and even subject them to sexual crimes. We must support these new sentences and this means of fighting crime that targets children.

But do we need a system of minimum penalties that goes against the justice system left to us by our ancestors? According to that system, judges are the best able to decide, not journalists or members of Parliament, because they are subject to public pressure and want to establish a fair system to be passed on to future generations. We need a proper debate on this, and that is what will happen when this bill is sent to committee. We will have to hear from expert witnesses to find out how minimum penalties have been used in other societies. The Americans have used them. There are examples from other parts of the world that can show whether minimum penalties have prevented, reduced or solved the problem of crime.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading to ensure that it can be studied in committee and that it meets everyone's expectations.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech and I am pleased to hear that his party will at least support sending this very important bill to committee.

He raised the issue of mandatory minimum penalties. Of course, we have heard this from the Bloc before, but I am a little confused because a few weeks ago when we were debating Bill S-9, the bill on auto theft, there was a mandatory minimum penalty of six months for a third conviction offence of auto theft. In the House a member of his party, in fact I think it was the justice critic for his party, said that the Bloc was not rigidly ideologically against mandatory minimum penalties, and as an example, the Bloc was going to vote in favour of the bill because those members think six months is reasonable. Then when the bill went through committee, the Bloc moved a motion to have that deleted because the Bloc members decided they were in fact ideologically opposed to mandatory minimum penalties.

Perhaps the member would like to explain why including a mandatory minimum penalty for accessing child pornography and sexual exploitation of children and moving the minimum on summary conviction up from 14 days to 90 days, and on indictment from 45 days to six months is outrageous. Perhaps he could also comment on the impact on people's faith and confidence in the justice system when they see child sexual predators spend a minimum of 15 days in jail.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc's position has not changed. As I said in my speech, it is based on Quebec and Canada's legal history, on the legacy that we inherited from our ancestors. Our version of justice puts trust in the judiciary. In contrast, we see that the Conservatives do not trust the judiciary, which is quite disturbing. The Conservatives' unfortunate approach is like that of the Republicans in the United States—replace judges with people who think as they do. We have been quick here, and they have not dared do the same in Canada. Their other option is to amend the Criminal Code and add minimum sentences wherever possible.

I understand the hon. member. We can look at an offence and have witnesses testify, and see justice has been done. The judiciary should still be trusted. That has always been our approach. And it will be the same with the bill before us: it will go to committee, we will bring witnesses forward and we will study how the bill can contribute to our society's evolution.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, earlier today when the member for Scarborough—Rouge River was making his presentation, he indicated that he had added up all the amendments to the Criminal Code and found that the government has 15 amendments to the Criminal Code. He stated that the government could have simply created one omnibus bill and brought it before the House, in much the same way the government seemed to be able to do with the last two budgets.

That brings us to the next suggestion. The Criminal Code is now 100 years old and is in serious need of a complete revamp. Perhaps the government should come clean with the citizens of Canada and approach the provinces and look at public hearings on a complete rewrite of the Criminal Code.

Is that a reasonable suggestion for the government to follow, or does the member think the government is simply interested in bringing amendments out one at a time for short-term political gain?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that we should at least consider what the hon. member is suggesting because the harsh reality behind the 15 bills introduced by the Conservative Party—the real and most troublesome reason for the bills—is that the Conservatives are taking advantage of events that get a lot of media attention. They have many other bills to work on, but they wait for newsworthy events in order to score political points. They want to use public outcry and disapproval, stirred up by the media, to make political gains. It is all the sadder because, often, once the event is over and new polls are taken, everything settles down. Everything returns to normal.

As I was saying, we cannot sweep away the legal philosophy we have inherited from our ancestors just because something happens and causes a public outcry. I believe this philosophy is deeply rooted and that things tend to calm down afterwards. What is dangerous is allowing a party such as the Conservative Party to take advantage of single events that are sensationalized by the media, especially since the government is in a minority position. The Conservatives have a great deal of difficulty being accepted all across Canada and it is even worse in Quebec, where disapproval of this government is evident. It is even more terrible because it is as though they were using the public, without its knowledge, to try to win an election. That is hard to take. As for our colleague's proposal, completely overhauling the Criminal Code, I believe it is worth at least a look.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder about the hon. member's reaction to the question from the parliamentary secretary from Mississauga—Erindale who asked how one would feel if a person who assaulted a child got only the minimum 15 days.

I would be willing to bet the parliamentary secretary my personally autographed copy of Bill C-54 that he does not even know the average sentence that has been given out to offenders who have committed offences against children. He does not even know, yet in our debate he is challenging with the question of how one feels about a 15-day sentence, without any facts or statistical data at all. That is not a good way to debate public policy.

How does the member feel about that?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my Liberal colleague understands perfectly. I know he is an eminent legal expert. The justice system is far too important for us to leave it in the hands of political predators, for that is what the Conservatives are. They exploit events and crimes committed in society that are sensationalized by the media, and use them to play politics. It is political predation. Maybe one day that will be added to the Criminal Code and become a crime.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, the member for Scarborough raised a point. He said that he did not think I knew the statistics for average penalties imposed on sexual predators. He probably missed the speech I made earlier this morning. Had he been here he would have heard that, in fact, in 2008, 80% of the people convicted of sexual offences against children in this country got no minimum sentence whatsoever, because they were charged under provisions of the act that do not even have minimum penalties.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that I think my Liberal colleague was quite right to suggest that the Conservative member autographed the bill without even knowing what was in it.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-54.

I want to say at the outset that the NDP caucus will be supporting this bill and will be encouraged to see it make its way in due course to committee. I think there is potential for an amendment or two along the way.

There is a possibility of a charter issue. We would not want to pass a bill through and then see it successfully knocked down by a charter challenge. I believe there are ways to deal with that at committee. The member knows that our critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, is certainly on top of that issue and will be bringing that up at the committee stage.

The bill creates mandatory sentences for seven existing offences related to child exploitation, including sexual assault where the victim is under the age of 16 years, section 271; aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, section 273; incest where the victim is under 16 years age, section 155; luring a child through the use of a computer, section 172.1; and exposure, subsection 173(2).

Bill C-54 also creates two new offences of making sexual explicit materials available to a child and agreeing to or arranging to commit a sexual offence against a child. As well, the bill expands the list of conditions that may be added to prohibitions and recognizance orders to include prohibitions concerning contact with persons under 16 and the use of the Internet.

By way of explanation for past history, the substance of this bill has in fact been introduced by former and current colleagues of mine in the House. As a matter of fact, on May 13 of this year, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam reintroduced legislation to strengthen laws to protect children against child luring and abuse. That was just a few months ago. That was a rework of bills previously introduced by Dawn Black, a former member of this House. So the NDP has a history of concern for this issue, and more than concern but actually doing something about it by introducing legislation in this House.

I know my time is limited today and I do want to follow up on several points.

A very important point was made by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River. Not only today but on previous occasions, not only that member but another member of his caucus, also a lawyer, have noted that the Criminal Code has been around now for over 100 years. It is basically being held together by sticky tape. We simply keep amending the Criminal Code, with little bits and pieces here and there over many years and many decades. Even the language is out of date.

It is way overdue that a government, and maybe not this government but perhaps a future government, will have to pull out the Criminal Code and sit down and start working on a revamp. The revamp can happen by the government announcing it, and in co-operation with the provinces, having hearings across the country and getting many groups involved. In many ways I think that would have been a more sensible way for the government to proceed overall on crime and perhaps it would have done better with the public as result.

By way of an example, I once again want to mention what happened in a similar minority government in Manitoba with Gary Filmon. Gary Filmon was a very smart premier who knew early on that the way to get legislation through the legislature was not to bully, fight, cajole and threaten like this government does. His approach on any controversial issue, such as Meech Lake and Charlottetown, was to call in the leaders.

The leaders were Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party who is now a senator; and Gary Doer, who is now a Conservative appointment as ambassador to the United States. Those leaders worked together very well. They dealt with the smoking ban. As a matter of fact, the smoking ban was actually introduced by a Conservative member who was in opposition under an NDP government.

I am just pointing out that the practice set up by Mr. Filmon not only followed through his government in a minority situation, but because it worked so well, he continued doing it for the rest of his tenure as a majority Conservative premier. When former premier Doer took over, he had a majority government and ultimately did not have to listen to the opposition, but he kept doing what had been working in the past.

I have not had the time to go back and look at the minority government of Lester Pearson, but we are getting dangerously close to the current government being in office almost as long as the Liberal government of Lester Pearson. The difference is that while this government has accomplished almost nothing because of its antagonistic views toward the opposition, the Lester Pearson government actually accomplished many things. It got medicare, it unified the forces, and it brought in a new Canadian flag. These were not just simple issues that it had to deal with. These were very controversial, divisive issues in the country at the time. Yet after six years, the Lester B. Pearson government was able to show a lot. It was actually a beacon.

My question always to the government is this: why can it not learn from best practices? It does not have to go overseas to check this one out. It is right here in its backyard. There is its own Gary Filmon in Manitoba and it can check out what happened there. There is also the Lester B. Pearson experience.

I know that when premiers and prime ministers become elected to office, the game changes for them. They start thinking in terms of legacy and what they are going to show for their time here. I have no idea why the Prime Minister would have frittered away literally five years. The member opposite is trying to bring in some changes to question period and things like that, which he has to fight his own members to get through.

However, just to get back to the bill at hand, the fact of the matter is that Bill C-54 recognizes that children are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation. The government committed in March of this year, during its Speech from the Throne, to better protect children by increasing penalties for sexual offences against children. The proposed bill, which would be called the “Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act”, supports this commitment in two ways: it ensures that the penalties imposed for sexual offences against children better reflect the extremely serious nature of these acts and are consistent with each other; and it seeks to prevent child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that would facilitate their sexual offending or reoffending.

The legislation would amend the Criminal Code, and I want to say that there has been a sea change in our attitudes towards these sorts of offences over the years. Many years ago, these offences were happening probably at the same rates as right now, but it was swept under the carpet and it was hidden. We have to thank people such as Theo Fleury and certainly Sheldon Kennedy, two hockey players who have come forward with their previous experiences.

Even before that, I recall Senator Sharon Carstairs, who was leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party at the time, appearing before the legislature in a very emotional manner and telling us how she was abused as a child. There was not a dry eye in the house. It probably made some people uncomfortable. It was certainly groundbreaking. Up until that point, I do not think any politician would have done something like that. She explained her situation and people were very happy that she did.

My example of the case of hockey coach Graham James, Theo Fleury and Sheldon Kennedy just masks part of the problem. Graham James abused dozens if not hundreds of boys who are still afraid to come forward. We are seeing only the tip of the iceberg here. It is important to have role models, people to come forward and talk about their experiences. Hiding the abuse leads to more problems for the individual along the way.

We have gone through the whole residential schools issue in the native communities and all the abuse that was involved there. We know about the abuse that has gone on in church organizations. Up until the 1970s it was probably whispered about. There was no openness about the whole issue. However, people who were abused are now coming forward and are finding that they are being embraced by society. They are not being rejected and vilified the way many thought they would be. They have come forward.

This is a very good bill.

I do want to make some observations on the sex tourism issue. It is important for the government to get tough on criminals in this country. Having said that, we do not want to be exporting our problems somewhere else. We have laws against sex tourism, and it is debatable. Some people say they are not being enforced properly, that they are not tough enough. The laws have to be enforced and have to be toughened if necessary. The government has to show a clear example here that this type of activity will not be tolerated and will be punished.

We have to do work throughout the world to try to influence governments in some of these areas like Thailand and other countries where sex tourism is flourishing, to have them bring in similar laws and enforcement in their jurisdictions. I recognize that it is a never-ending game because, like the Internet issue, the problem gets solved in one place but simply goes somewhere else. That does not mean we should not try to work on this issue.

With the few minutes I have left I want to talk about the role of the victims and why we should be supporting victims, particularly in situations like this.

In 1970-71, among many initiatives, for example, the guaranteed annual income program and state-run auto insurance, the Manitoba government under Ed Schreyer, the very first NDP government in Canada, set up what is known as the criminal injuries compensation act. That act has been operating as a fund for the last 40 years, providing compensation to victims of crime, so that if someone is a victim of being attacked and beaten up, for example, he or she receives compensation from this criminal injuries act. Ontario has one as well.

It is incumbent upon the Conservative government to set up a national fund. The federal government should set up a national fund if it really believes in helping victims of crime, which it certainly talks about a lot.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has five minutes remaining in his presentation.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-54.

At the outset, I want to indicate that one of our previous members, Dawn Black, introduced a bill on this subject on two occasions. Then the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam reintroduced those bills in the last few months.

We are encouraged and happy that the government has taken the necessary steps to introduce Bill C-54. We intend to support the bill going to committee. Hopefully, we will be able to study the bill in committee and make whatever necessary amendments need to be done.

The government has recognized that children are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation. In its Speech from the Throne in March, it promised to increase penalties for sexual offences against children.

The proposed Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, supports the commitment in two ways: first, by ensuring that the penalties imposed for sexual offences against children better reflect the extremely serious nature of these acts and are consistent with one another; and second, by seeking to prevent child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that would facilitate their sexual offending or re-offending.

The proposed legislation amends the Criminal Code in a number of ways. It provides mandatory prison sentences for 7 existing offences relating to child sexual exploitation, including sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, incest where the victim is under 16 years of age, luring a child through the use of a computer and exposure. Also, the addition of mandatory prison sentences for these offences would also have the effect of eliminating the use of the conditional sentences or house arrest for any of these cases.

The bill would create two new offences. The new offences are aimed at certain conduct that could facilitate enable the commission of a sexual offence against a child. These offences would prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child.

This hybrid offence would carry a mandatory prison sentence of 30 days imprisonment and a maximum penalty of 6 months when proceeded on summary conviction and a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days imprisonment and a maximum penalty of 2 years when proceeded on indictment. In addition, it would prohibit anyone from using any means of telecommunications, including a computer system, to agree to make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child.

This proposed offence was previously proposed as part of former Bill C-46, Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, in the previous session of Parliament. This proposed hybrid offence will now carry a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days and be punishable by a maximum of 18 months on summary conviction and a mandatory prison sentence of one year and be punishable by a maximum of 10 years when proceeded on indictment.

The mandatory prison sentences for seven existing offences would be increased to better reflect the serious nature of these offences, as well as to bring greater consistency in sentencing in these cases. For example, the existing mandatory prison sentences for 3 child specific offences, which carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment when proceeded on indictment, would be raised from 45 days to 1 year.

The existing mandatory prison sentences for possessing and accessing child pornography, which carry a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment when proceeded by indictment, would be raised from 45 days to 6 months. The existing mandatory prison sentences for the indictable offence of a parent or guardian procuring their 16 or 17-year-old child for illegal sexual activity and for a householder permitting illegal sexual activity with a 16 or 17 year old, both of which carry a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment, would be doubled from 45 days to 90 days.

In addition, new restrictions are being created for offenders. These reforms would also require judges to consider prohibiting suspected or convicted child sex offenders from having any unsupervised contact with a young person under the age of 16 or from having any unsupervised use of the Internet.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last time I was involved in a discussion here, we discussed what constituted sexually explicit and whether that was well enough defined terminology with regard to the one element of the bill about using sexually explicit materials to have someone agree.

It would seem to me that different people have different views as to what constitutes something that is sexually explicit. I wonder if the member is satisfied that the precedent and/or the bill satisfactorily cover that question.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a well considered point and it has been mentioned in the past. I guess that is one of the reasons that we are supporting the bill at second reading in principle and wish to send it to committee so we can examine, through the process of expert witnesses, that particular point that the member makes.

I also want to point out that the bill proposes coordinating amendments to other bills currently before Parliament which would include reforms to better protect children against sexual predators, namely, Bill S-2, protecting victims from sexual offenders act, and Bill C-16, the ending house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious and violent offenders act.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague indicated that Dawn Black introduced this bill twice and that our current member for New Westminster—Coquitlam has also introduced the bill. We are glad the government has kind of copycatted the bill and added a few more things because we think it is important that we have the protection of our young children at heart. We cannot condone child exploitation.

We have concerns about certain aspects of the bill, for example, the unintended consequences of maximums and minimums. We need to keep that in mind. Perhaps my colleague could indicate why it is important to send the bill to committee so we can ensure this is not just a bill that will fill prisons but that we also look at rehabilitation.

Perhaps the member could talk about the importance of which groups should be coming to committee to talk to us about this.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the actions of our former member, Dawn Black, having introduced the bill a number of years ago on two occasions, and our current member for New Westminster—Coquitlam are y evidence enough that the NDP is not only tough on crime but also smart on crime, unlike the government.

The member's points are well taken. It seems to me that at committee we will have ample opportunity to look at all the different aspects of the bill. Her point about having rehabilitation in the prison system is not just building $9 billion worth of prisons to house people without any rehabilitation components to it, is certainly not acceptable and something that society absolutely needs to deal with this problem in a smart on crime approach.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague was running out of time which is probably why he did not get a chance to say which groups would benefit from coming to committee and the importance of these groups. Our audience needs to be aware of what committees actually do and which interest groups would be involved in this particular matter, because it does, as I have indicated, deal with the safety of our children.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with the computer age upon us, this is becoming an expanding and exploding area of activity for people involved in the exploitation of children. Governments and authorities in general always seem to be behind the curve and never in front of the problem. They are reactive rather than proactive to what is happening in society.

The point I am trying to make is that the NDP saw this problem very early on. After putting in a lot of effort to consult with groups and people, former member Dawn Black was able to get a bill before the House. At that time, the government did not support or adopt her bill.

Several years went by and then the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam reintroduced the bill and, bingo, the government has now seen the light. It sees that this was a smart on crime approach by two NDP members and it has now simply copied it. It is great because it is now doing what we in the NDP wanted done. It is certainly the right thing. The public is ready for it and wanted to see this happen long ago.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see that the NDP is finally coming around to the Conservative government's position of fighting crime for Canadians.

I find it interesting that NDP members continually oppose our tough on crime legislation but today, because it was originally an NDP idea, they are prepared to back the government. I am wondering if it is the NDP's motto that if it is not an NDP idea, it is not a good idea and, therefore, it will not support it. Is that the position of the NDP today?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member is adjusting to the cold weather in Ottawa but this is not something that only members of the NDP noticed. The luring of children and child exploitation has been with us for centuries. However, since computers have been around, it has become a much more serious issue in the last few years.

Yes, the NDP did get on this file a lot earlier than the other parties and Dawn Black did the research and work necessary to bring the bill before the House. Where was the government and the other parties at that time. Why did the other parties not see that this would become the problem it has become? Why did the government not get smart on crime at that point and support the bill? Why did it leave it until months before another election before it decided to copy Dawn Black's good bill and the recent bill introduced by the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam? The government simply copied them, which is not a problem. We endorse that and think it is great. We are trying to point out to the member that it is really the NDP that is tough in crime but also smart on crime, unlike the government over there.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), is to increase the mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children.

I will digress a little and explain what a child is. A child is any person from the age of 0 to 16 years. It was the Liberal opposition that pushed this age of consent and finally drove the government to pass this legislation.

Bill C-54 was introduced on November 4 by the Minister of Justice. It would increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children.

When one looks at the various changes to the subsections of the Criminal Code and one looks at the minimum penalties for different offences, it is important that the bill, which we support, goes to committee. A lot of issues need to be addressed and a lot of witnesses need to be called. It is important that everybody speaks from the same page because children are a very important asset. We have heard about heinous things being done to children. Not a day goes by without hearing a report on sexual activities against children. It is important that the bill is sent quickly to committee so we are able to really put into effect protection for children.

The bill would impose mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children. It would also prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child.

With the proliferation of things going back and forth on the Internet at such high speeds, it is very important that we look at this issue very critically. With the providing of sexually explicit materials to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against the child, one needs to figure out how that child would be implicated, how the adult was involved and one needs to figure out through what means this was done.

The bill would also prohibit anyone from using any means of telecommunication, including a computer system, to agree or make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child. Too often we have seen the ramifications of child pornography where children are used as sexual toys for the pleasure of adults who have absolutely dehumanized them.

This is an important aspect of the bill because we need to understand how we would catch the perpetrators, how we would ensure that children are protected and how we would ensure that a child understands because children aged 0 to 16 are naive and vulnerable. They are our asset that needs to be protected. They believe in people.

I attended a memorial service for the victims of the December 6 massacre. I listened to Stevie Cameron talk about girls, about the fact that children are taught that they can do anything possible, that they are the masters of their destiny, and about how we protect these children and then suddenly somebody takes their life away.

With this bill, I am hoping we are able to not only ensure that the laws are in place but that we have a mechanism in place that will enforce the protection of our children, not only in Canada but worldwide because if we look at what is happening in today's age, we see child trafficking across the globe.

If we look at the sex trade or visitors who go to places like Thailand to have sex with little children, it is pornography that gives them that problem. It is the access to pornographic sites on the Internet that dehumanizes the poor child. Therefore, it is important that when we are looking at all of these aspects we are consistent in our enforcement, in what we do.

The third thing that the bill will do is ensure consistency among those two new offences and the existing offence of luring a child. Here I would like to bring to bear what happened to Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. They were unsuspecting kids who were lured by a pedophile, and we reflect upon how this bill may have protected them or given a harsher sentence to Karla Homolka.

The fourth thing that the bill would do is expand the list of specified conditions that may be added to prohibition and recognizance orders to include prohibition concerning contact with a person under the age of 16 and the use of the Internet or other digital networks, and expand the list of enumerated offences that may give rise to such orders and prohibitions.

That brings me to what has been happening currently. Our kids go onto computers and they are more computer savvy than their parents. They access Internet sites and the parents are probably not aware of it. These may be latchkey kids or they may be kids whose parents are at home, but when they are locked in their rooms and they are on Facebook, they have no idea who they are communicating with. It is important that we have checks and balances in place that go after the providers of Internet services to ensure the protection of these kids, to ensure the traceability of the information.

The protection of children is a priority for the Liberal Party. As a party, we have stood firmly against the proliferation of online child pornography for over a decade. In 2002, the former Liberal government made it illegal to deliberately access a website containing child pornography, rather than just having possession of such materials, and it was the Liberal government that put into place Cybertip.ca, an online reporting tool for child pornography. Cybertip is an important tool because, as I mentioned, with the Internet and its proliferation, it is important that we know how to trace the source, to ensure that our children are safe, to ensure that we find the children who have been abducted for the purpose of the sex trade, and to find the perpetrators.

Making laws without having the tools or the means to enforce them does not make for good law, so I hope that when this legislation goes before committee, it will be calling on numerous witnesses so that they can have a wholesome discussion and a wholesome production. I am pleased to see that Bill C-54 introduces a series of new minimum penalties for crimes against children, but as I mentioned, the bill has so many other permutations and combinations that it is important that it be looked at properly at committee. The Liberals will be supporting this legislation to go before committee, in order to hear from a variety of witnesses, and we will assess at that time whether the Conservatives have introduced sufficient penalties or whether additional amendments are required.

As I mentioned earlier, what comes to mind here is the Paul Bernardo case. When he and his wife abducted two kids, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, it horrified Canadians. It horrified the whole country to know that such heinous crimes could be committed, that we had such disturbed individuals in our midst.

My question would be does the bill do enough to ensure that what happened with Karla Homolka, who was able to reduce her sentence through plea bargaining, cannot happen again? We all want safe communities. We all know that there are sick minds that access the Internet and pornographic sites that dehumanize children and women. This dehumanizing makes victims be treated as objects of pleasure.

If one looks at the five things that the bill has introduced, I would love to see a very strong enforcement tool that would allow police officers, or people who are given the duty to ensure enforcement, to be able to access the material, to be able to trace the source, be able to ensure that protection takes place, be able to facilitate that information whether it be across Canada or with Interpol or other agencies, because this type of crime, as I mentioned earlier, is not only done in Canada but is worldwide.

Children being abducted for the purpose of sex slavery is a horrendous crime and it is a crime against all children. In countries in the developing world where they do not have the same protection we need to ensure that when we enforce legislation we have a global approach to it because the globe is where we need to look at. A troubled mind will do anything.

We need to also invest in areas like mental health and education. The Liberals unconditionally supported Bill C-22, which would make the reporting of Internet child pornography mandatory for Internet service providers and other persons providing Internet services. In fact, we believe that the government took too long to bring this to bear and we need to ensure that if we are serious about crimes against children, if we are serious about protecting them, if we are serious about ensuring that children have safe lives, that we live in safe communities, that we are not always looking over our shoulder, or over the Internet to ensure the safety of our children, then we need to see that Bill C-54 be sent quickly to committee and be looked after.

Today, December 6, is a day of remembering the 14 women who were gunned down by a crazy person. These were students at university. Violence against women is not just violence against women themselves, but it is violence against children as well. When a woman is abused it affects the child and the psychology of that child. It affects the whole family. It makes the family dysfunctional. Violence against women that results in death at the hands of a spouse, or common-law partner, or a deranged person still makes society unsafe.

It is important that the government not speak from both sides of its mouth. If we want smart solutions for violent crimes then we need to ensure that our gun laws are strict, that registration is there, that women and children are protected.

I would urge the government not to just see things in silos but to take a holistic approach to this bill. I would ask the government to ensure that we have a wholesome discussion on the bill and that we find a solution relevant to the whole community.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the government has taken a long time to bring forward this legislation. She was part of the previous government and it had 13 years to put forward legislation but it never did. Our government did.

My question does not circle around this particular piece of legislation because all parties have agreed that it is a great piece of legislation. My question has more to do with the agenda today. The Liberals are saying they pushed the age of consent legislation and that they are tough on crime. NDP members are saying that they are tough on crime and they do smart crime fighting. The Bloc has said that it stands up against white collar crime. I do not understand then why it is so tough for this Conservative government to get tough on crime legislation through the House, legislation that would punish criminals instead of rewarding victims.

This government has brought forward scores of legislation yet either the Liberals, the Bloc or the NDP, the coalition, continuously blocks us either at committee or in the House through hoist motions and a number of different tactics. Why do they continue to do that? With all parties agreeing to be tough on criminals, why does it take so much for this Conservative government to get legislation through?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is disingenuous. Every time the government introduces legislation and opposition parties agree to go along with it, the government prorogues. I think out of 16 pieces of legislation, 10 were passed. Take Bill C-22, for example, which would protect children. It took the government 90 days after the resumption of Parliament to even introduce it.

The Liberals are smart on crime. The Conservatives are called stupid on crime for the basic reason that they cannot keep on introducing the same legislation over and over again, 16 times, without really being committed. The Conservatives are not committed. They keep on introducing the same legislation. I wonder if there is going to be another prorogation.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, not only do we need tough laws in Canada but we need tough laws on a worldwide basis, because we do not want to be exporting the problem to another part of the world, whether it is Thailand or another place.

I would like to ask the member if she thinks we are enforcing our own sex tourism laws as toughly as we should? Does she think the government is making any real effort to encourage other jurisdictions that have an identical problem, like Thailand, to bring in their own legislation similar to this?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has not been very strong on its sex tourism legislation. People probably say they are going on a holiday and if they are found guilty in another country then the extradition should take place.

We need a global approach to legislation that would allow all police forces to enforce the law. There is a gentleman in Canada who looks at what is happening in the Philippines and he makes a point of going there himself to educate the girls and he tells them that they can do better, that they do not have to fall prey to those tourists who come and offer them goodies.

Legislation has to be there. Enforcement has to be there. A global cohesion has to be there if we really want to protect our children and the future of our country.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, a previous question was about the delay in some of this legislation. I would like to refresh the memories of the hon. members in the House on the way things worked out.

A lot of this legislation was introduced back in late 2007 or 2008. The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, which meant everything disappeared from the order paper. It was reintroduced and debated and he called an election in violation of the fixed election date act, and that again removed everything from the order paper. About a few weeks or a month after our return, he prorogued Parliament again. Then we were back for another six months, and in January of this year, after this legislation was reintroduced, discussed and debated and some of it sent to committee, he prorogued Parliament again, which meant everything was dropped from the order paper. So we can see the whole sequence of event.

My question to the member is whether this sequence of events, these many, many prorogations and the election that was called, contrary to the fixed election date act, in any way contributed to the delay in the legislation.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, there were pieces of legislation that the opposition had already agreed to.

The government tries to say it has a tough on crime agenda, or a crime agenda, and we sit here wondering what crime agenda does it really have. If it were really tough on crime, if it really cared about issues, if it really cared about the safety of Canadians, the safety of kids, it would not be proroguing Parliament on a regular basis, because the legislation on the order paper disappears. Private members' bills do not, but those other ones go to zero.

Yes, there has been an impact on Bill C-54 and Bill C-22, and these are the bills that really need to be reinforced and introduced quickly, because we need to protect kids.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member's comments and the questions. I have just a really brief question, because I know time is running out, with respect to prorogation and some of the delays.

I wonder if the hon. member could explain the delay of more than 4,750 days under the previous government to deal with the crime agenda in this country, and the over 13 years and five mandates that Canadians waited to actually have a government, the previous Liberal government, actually talk about crime, and once with the interests of the victims ahead of criminals.

I wonder if, in the context of what she just talked about with respect to elections and prorogation, she could explain why the previous government waited over 4,500 days and five mandates, or were the Liberals just simply waiting to win another election before they would talk about it?

If that is part of the agenda that saw them do nothing about the GST, nothing about child care in this country and nothing about health care, if she could explain that, I would greatly appreciate it. I am sure Canadians would like to have the answer to that question too.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I go by the statistics, though I know the government and the hon. member do not believe in Stats Canada, but crime had gone down totally and the deterrent of crime was investment in social housing, in literacy, and in education. We had the Kelowna accord. We had Kyoto. We had child care. Come on; the hon. member should give me a break.

All these are crimes against humanity for sure, because it is crime against the environment; it is a crime against anybody's health. Basically the question has no merit.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is professing that it is really tough on crime and it wants to get these bills through.

We had the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism on national radio just yesterday, saying that on the immigration and refugee bill, the government is contemplating, as we speak, probably in the backrooms right now, making it a confidence vote; and if it were to fail, we would be into an election right now and all these bills would have to be started over again after an election.

Where is the seriousness on the part of the government to get this legislative agenda through?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the hon. member. Another prorogation or another election and these bills will go by the wayside.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-54 purports to deal with child sexual abuse. To some degree that title is accurate, although significantly overblown.

I know we were hearing some of this in questions and comments in the last member's debate, but there is no question that there is a need for Parliament and the government at the federal level, being responsible for the Criminal Code, criminal legislation, and the whole criminal justice system, to establish reforms in this area. By that I mean legislative reforms. That is Parliament's responsibility.

I want to be very clear, though, that the role we can play at the legislative level in terms of its effectiveness in preventing this type of crime is small in comparison with what our courts, meaning judges, prosecutors and police in particular, could be doing with added resources. The role we are going to be playing in the discussion and debate around this bill, and hopefully, ultimately passing, probably with some significant amendments, will help our police and prosecutors in particular in doing their jobs. There are some provisions in this bill that do that.

On the other hand, the bill is all too typical of the approach by the government to the criminal justice system, to think entirely in terms of punishment and deterrence, even when all of the evidence shows that it does not work in making our society and streets safer, and in particular, in preventing future crime. There is absolutely no evidence.

It is interesting that one of the ministers was asked by a local reporter to provide studies that showed that deterrence works. The minister sent several articles, two of which actually advocated that deterrence did not work and the other one was totally inconclusive. That was the best evidence the minister could come up with.

The government does not drive its legislation, whether in the criminal justice area or elsewhere, by the facts or the evidence but purely by ideology. The government's ideology is very narrow in terms of how it thinks it can make the criminal justice system work better and it all centres on punishment.

We see in the bill a huge number of additional mandatory minimums, which I will come back to, but before I do, we have to set the context with regard to who we are dealing with. As I said earlier, this bill is about the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children. There is no question that it is going on and has gone on forever in society. What the Conservatives see when they are addressing this type of perpetrator is the classic, stereotypical pedophile, people who do not have the ability to control their violent tactics and sexual urges.

About five years ago we were dealing with another bill under the Liberal administration that dealt with sexual abuse. In the course of those hearings, three witnesses, who by any standards and recognition had the best credentials in the country, gave testimony. They were experts specifically in the field of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, sexual crimes against children.

I want to be very clear. These were not people who are soft on these perpetrators, but they were extremely knowledgeable. All three of them took a quite similar approach in terms of the analysis of who we are dealing with and how best to deal with them.

They broke down the perpetrators into three categories. First is the stereotypical one, and they are there; they are not made up. They are not just figments of the Conservatives' imagination, but they are a very small proportion. These are the ones who we lay people would refer to as being hard-wired. Basically all three of these witnesses, two of whom were psychiatrists and one was a psychologist, said these people are either impossible to deal with in the sense of any treatment or any way of bringing them back from their totally reprehensible conduct, or very difficult to almost impossible. But it was a relatively small percentage of all the perpetrators of the crimes that are committed.

They then said there is a second category that is workable but very difficult.

Then there is the final category. Usually they are young offenders, individuals over 18, so they are in the adult criminal justice system, but still relatively young. Oftentimes it is their first offence of a sexual nature against other children and they are treatable relatively easily. By that I mean counselling, supervision, mentoring, and in some cases, penalties from the criminal justice system, but are treatable.

In fact, what came out in terms of the percentages was that the hard-wired perpetrators account for probably 5% to 7% of all the child sexual abuse crimes that are committed in this country. The middle group is 30% or 35%, or maybe 40%. The balance is as much as 50%, the ones who are treatable.

Having set that context, we then look at the bill and what the government has done here, with a few exceptions, is to take sections of the code where there already are mandatory minimums, but from the government's perspective, they are not tough enough, and it is increasing these.

With regard to those, there are a couple of exceptions and I want to be clear on this, where in fact we may be dealing with hard-wired convicted persons and those mandatory minimums are appropriate. However, the vast majority of the mandatory minimums that the government is introducing here, either as new ones, and there are five or six new ones, or the other 15 or 20, are simply increases.

The people that the government is going to go after, on whom the mandatory minimums are going to be imposed, fit into that larger category, first offenders, people who in fact can be treated. What is going to happen is what is happening already. They are going into the provincial system, because there are no mandatory minimums in here of more than two years. All the mandatory minimums run from 30 days up to one year.

All these people are going to go into provincial institutions, and in most cases, are going to go into local jails and spend their time there after conviction. They are going to get absolutely no treatment. They are going to be exposed to other more serious criminals, some of those serious pedophiles, the hard-wired ones. They are going to learn new techniques to be able to access, for instance, child pornography and the whole pedophile network. So they are actually going to learn how to perpetuate, when they come out, the crimes that they went in for. They are going to get absolutely no treatment, because for the short periods of time that they are there, none of the provinces have programs in place that will provide them with any treatment. They are just not there long enough.

So the mandatory minimums are going to do nothing in terms of preventing these individual criminals from committing crimes in the future. In fact, in every argument we have made, we will actually be exposing society to a greater number of crimes because of the length of time that they are going to be spending in custody.

I want to go through a number of these sections. Clause 3 of the bill moves the mandatory minimum from six months to one year if it is an indictable offence.

Currently if it is a summary conviction offence, which is the Crown making the decision that the offence is not very serious and will proceed in that way, it is now moving to what is now a mandatory minimum under that section, from 14 days to 90 days. In reality, of the 90 days, the person will get a at least a third of the time off, if not two thirds of the time. So instead of spending 7 days in jail, he or she will spend 30 days in jail.

Other than the Conservative Party saying that it is tough on crime and trotting out victims' groups for photo ops, in those circumstances this bill does nothing to prevent that criminal, who has committed and been convicted of a crime, from re-offending, or in effect build in some real prevention mechanisms to see to it that that person is given the proper counselling, the proper supervision, the proper mentoring so that they do not go back out and re-offend under the same types of circumstances.

Going through clause 4, again an indictable offence, currently an offender would spend 45 days in custody and that is being moved up a year. For a summary conviction it is 14 days to 90 days, and we can just go through section after section.

This is not about being at all serious about dealing with this perversion in terms of adults perpetuating oftentimes quite serious violent acts and at the very least minimally violent acts on children.

How do we properly deal with this? All of the evidence we have shows that these silly mandatory minimums have nothing in the way of a preventive mechanism in them. There is none whatsoever.

As a legislature we are going to be able to say that we think this is bad and we want the judge to give more difficult or harsher penalties. The reality is that if we leave this to the judges, in some cases they will impose even harsher sentences and in other cases it will be less.

However, they will also see to it, if it is a probationary order, that once the offender is out of custody that a probation order in fact has meaningful provisions in it so that the supervision, mentoring, counselling and treatment, psychological and psychiatric, is in fact imposed, and in the vast majority of cases, especially in that 50% of files, is successful in preventing and seeing to it that the person does not commit another crime of this nature.

It is a major problem with this legislation. As we have heard from other members of my party, there are other parts of this bill that we have been pressing both the Liberal administration, when it was in power, and the government for well over a dozen years to push for a real, strong, clear mechanism within the Criminal Code to deal with the luring of children under 16 years of age, over the Internet, by telephone and in any number of ways.

The government is moving on this. Currently the luring provision in the code that it is amending talks about just a computer, and now what it is proposing to do is to expand that into telecommunications, using that terminology. It is still too narrow. There are other ways and there are going to be other ways. Anyone who would stand in this House and suggest that we have gotten all means of technology for communicating under our control and use is being extremely naive or ignorant of where we are going with our technology.

We need broader language. It is kind of interesting. One of the sections in this bill, an amendment to the existing code, is really giving judges more authority to restrict communications. In looking at the way communications is defined, it is a very broad wording. It basically says one cannot communicate with anybody under 16 years of age.

We need that kind of wording. That is what was in the NDP private members' bills, talking about communications by any means if the intent is to lure a child, anyone under the age of 16, into a sexual relationship. We need that kind of broad wording.

The government has been extremely narrow in its expansion and that is one of the reasons we will be looking to amend this bill when it gets to committee, and clearly it is going to get to committee. The government is now moving from just a computer definition to a broader telecommunications definition, but it is still not broad enough. I believe that in the future, and even now with some of the material, we may have any number of instances where people may be charged under this section but come forward with technical defences that it will not fit within the definition of telecommunications.

We need to call expert evidence at committee as to ways we can look at technology as it is now and broaden it beyond just the telecommunications wording. Hopefully we would have someone with vision who can look down the road to the next 10 to 20 years and come up with wording that will catch the future developments in our ability to communicate, especially in this kind of criminal activity. That is one area where I believe we do need amendments.

The other concern we have with this bill is that we think there may be an attempt on the part of the government to get around the Sharpe case. As members will recall, that was the individual from British Columbia who was ultimately able to convince the court that it was not pornography that he had produced. However, the government is moving from the current definition of child pornography to saying that it is an offence to use sexually explicit material in the course of this type of offence under various sections that are in this bill and in the code more generally. In effect, it is a crime.

The worry I have is that we may be exposing a number of defences here that are not needed. We will probably need to look to constitutional experts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other people from the arts and culture community on whether this would expose us to a long run of litigation, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court. We need to determine whether this is an end-run around the Sharpe case, and I do not think there is any reason to do that. We are trying to get at the perpetrators of these crimes. I think this is dangerous as it may refocus attempts to seriously get at those hard-wired perpetrators. They are the ones we really have to be after.

Also, and I do not see the bill addressing this at all, a good deal of child pornography is produced by organized crime. There does not seem to be anything in this bill that is really addressing that in terms of the production of that material.

There are a couple of sections in here specifically on the age of consent, and this goes back to other bills that we have worked on. We supported raising the age of consent; however, the Conservatives at one point were prepared to criminalize as many as 800,000 of our youth in this country, by raising the age of consent. If the sexual act was between people who were within five years of each other, it would be a criminal act. We built in that defence, but there are a couple of sections in here where I think we may be faced with the same problem. We would be criminalizing sexual activity between people who are within four or five years of each other, who may be about the same maturity age, but one is chronologically younger than the other. I think we have to take a look at that and build that defence into a couple of these sections as well.

I see my time is up and I will be happy to take questions.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the victims of crime. In a Winnipeg Free Press article by Mia Rabson, she quoted Sheldon Kennedy as saying, “...child victims spend the rest of their lives trying to handle the psychological trauma of their abuse...”.

What sort of avenues and compensation are available for victims of crime?

In Manitoba, under the Ed Schreyer government, which was the first NDP government in Canada, in 1969 or 1970, we introduced legislation to set up the criminal injuries compensation fund. This has been operating in Manitoba for 40 years now. I understand there is a similar type of fund in Ontario. However, there is no fund for Canada.

For a government that pretends it is supportive of victims, why would there not be a criminal injuries compensation fund on a national basis? What would be the scope of that fund? Would there be any help for victims of this type of crime?

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill in fact does not address compensation for victims of child sexual abuse at all. The attitude of the government has generally been to leave that to the provinces. Ontario has the most extensive compensatory program in the country, but it has an absolute maximum of $25,000 that could be paid out for victims.

I have done a lot of work on this. When I was in law school, I wrote a major paper on child abuse including child sexual abuse, and I have done a lot of work on this particularly in the early part of my career as a lawyer. The figure of $25,000 would not even cover the counselling for children who have been seriously sexually abused, especially if there was extensive violence and over an extended period of time.

With the number of cases province-wide, we do not have enough people, child psychiatrists or child psychologists in particular, to be able to provide them with treatment. There is a whole bunch of areas where we could be doing much more work to assist victims and to deal with both monetary compensation and also trying to get children reinstated into society as full functioning human beings.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated my colleague's speech on this. He talked about the fact that often what we see in some of the legislation that is being brought forward by the government is regurgitated laws that are currently in place, and it tries to add something else that we have to be very mindful of. We need to make sure that the bill goes to committee to look at the safeguarding of charter rights and the important common law concept of judicial discretion.

Could my colleague talk about the potential unintended consequences of creating additional mandatory minimums?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for the question, because I did want to spend more time on this in my speech, but I ran out of time. There are potentials here, and I have said this in the House before, but this is another example of it. We are increasing mandatory minimums and in a number of cases introducing a few new ones. The risk, especially with judges who are upset with the number of mandatory minimums both the current government and the Liberals before it introduced to restrict them, as the judiciary in this country sees it, comes where we have a serious offence for which there is a mandatory minimum. Let me use the example where there is no mandatory minimum and now one is being imposed.

The tendency on the part of members of the judiciary, both because they are upset with mandatory minimums that are taking that discretion away from them and on the other hand, being deferential to the legislature in our decision making to do this, is that they might say if that is the mandatory minimum and this is a first offence, that is all they are going to impose. If this had been up to the judge, he or she would have imposed a sentence much greater, on the basis that this is a much more serious offence than six months or one year calls for. That is the real risk that we have, especially with the detail of the number of sections we have gone into here where we are increasing sentences from very small amounts in some cases to not much larger amounts in others.

As much as the Conservatives want us to believe otherwise, members of our judiciary are very deferential to the legislature when we make these kind of decisions. I actually wish they were less so and would simply say they were going to impose a more severe penalty because of the facts and scenario in front of them and the limited ability of the person to rehabilitate himself or herself, so they would impose a more severe penalty in order to protect society. They may in fact not do that.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I have always been somewhat nervous because the NDP members talk a lot in the House, but after last week's byelection results, I became a little less nervous. I would like them to speak a heck of a lot more because, quite clearly, they are not on the side of Canadians and Canadians are starting to judge them that way.

In Vaughan the NDP barely eked out a victory over Elvis Priestley. The massive number of 600 votes that party received in Vaughan is more of a testament to the fact that the NDP is not on the same side as Canadians and that Canadians want their government to do what it is doing with its focus on crime. The NDP is suggesting that it is too tough on criminals when they are asked to double-bunk, and heaven forbid there would be deterrence in the system, go figure. That is what the NDP is advocating. That is why that party lost in Winnipeg and it is why the NDP barely eked out 600 votes in Vaughan. After the next election, I am sure Elvis Priestley will actually do better than the NDP in Vaughan.

Canadians have said once and for all that they want a government to do what this government is doing.

Would the member agree that being consistently on the opposite side of Canadians is what has really hurt the NDP and it is why the NDP is not connecting with Canadians and it is why Canadians, in massive numbers, are turning their backs on the NDP?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my colleague that his ignorance of the outcome of the byelection in Winnipeg is about as equal to his ignorance on the level of how effective deterrence is.

In the byelection in Winnipeg, that party's candidate dropped from second to third, a distant third. She tried to make crime the principal issue in that game and it all just went downhill. Certainly there is nothing to learn from that in terms of what we are talking about here.

In terms of the issue itself, I challenge my colleague and any minister over there to give me one study that shows deterrence works, just one. If the Conservatives are really serious about their position, let them put some evidence behind it. There is not any. There is not one study that shows that deterrence works.

I have to mention a story that came up at that same committee. We were dealing with child pornography. The police told us about this case where they had tracked down a chain of child pornographers. They were going in systematically and arresting them. Those people knew the police were coming. Yet the final person the police got to was so hard-wired that he was watching child pornography on his computer when the police broke down the door and arrested him. That is the kind of person we are dealing with. Deterrence would mean absolutely nothing to those people whatsoever.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)