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, 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—