Bill C-10 (Historical)

Safe Streets and Communities Act

An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts

Part 1 of this enactment creates, in order to deter terrorism, a cause of action that allows victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters. It also amends the State Immunity Act to prevent a listed foreign state from claiming immunity from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts in respect of actions that relate to its support of terrorism.
Part 2 amends the Criminal Code to
(a) increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties, and increase maximum penalties, for certain sexual offences with respect to children;
(b) 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) 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 any other digital network;
(d) expand the list of enumerated offences that may give rise to such orders and prohibitions; and
(e) eliminate the reference, in section 742.1, to serious personal injury offences and to restrict the availability of conditional sentences for all offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life and for specified offences, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.
It also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marijuana) production and to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I.
Part 3 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to
(a) clarify that the protection of society is the paramount consideration for the Correctional Service of Canada in the corrections process and for the National Parole Board and the provincial parole boards in the determination of all cases;
(b) establish the right of a victim to make a statement at parole hearings and permit the disclosure to a victim of certain information about the offender;
(c) provide for the automatic suspension of the parole or statutory release of offenders who receive a new custodial sentence and require the National Parole Board to review their case within a prescribed period; and
(d) rename the National Parole Board as the Parole Board of Canada.
It also amends the Criminal Records Act to substitute the term “record suspension” for the term “pardon”. It extends the ineligibility periods for applications for a record suspension and makes certain offences ineligible for a record suspension. It also requires the National Parole Board to submit an annual report that includes the number of applications for record suspensions and the number of record suspensions ordered.
Lastly, it amends the International Transfer of Offenders Act to provide that one of the purposes of that Act is to enhance public safety and to modify the list of factors that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness may consider in deciding whether to consent to the transfer of a Canadian offender.
Part 4 amends the sentencing and general principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as well as its provisions relating to judicial interim release, adult and youth sentences, publication bans, and placement in youth custody facilities. It defines the terms “violent offence” and “serious offence”, amends the definition “serious violent offence” and repeals the definition “presumptive offence”. It also requires police forces to keep records of extrajudicial measures used to deal with young persons.
Part 5 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow officers to refuse to authorize foreign nationals to work in Canada in cases where to give authorization would be contrary to public policy considerations that are specified in instructions given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Safe Streets and Communities Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. for Windsor—Tecumseh on the justice committee.

He talked about his concern regarding minimum mandatory sentences, saying that they might actually have the opposite effect of what the government contemplated. The example he cited was that they might actually preclude the judges from giving higher sentences than what is in the minimum mandatory.

I am perplexed by that and I want to challenge him. The current Criminal Code has maximum penalties for every offence and the judges do not use as the benchmark. They tailor a sentence in the appropriate range.

Why is he fearful that the minimum mandatory might become a ceiling rather than a floor?

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I disagree with his analysis of the law, at this point, and the sentencing practices in our courts. The maximum penalties in our code are very clearly seen quite rigidly by our judges as the maximum they will go to. They will not tailor it below, but they are very clearly saying, “Where does it fit in this range?”

For this kind of offence, if the legislature says that the minimum penalty at the low end should be six months, as a judge I think the low end should be a year. However, what has happened, and I say this, as well, from the perspective of legislation like this that has passed in the United States, the tendency has been that the judges there have tended to stick fairly rigidly to the mandatory minimums when it is at the low end.

I want to make this final point before we go on to other questions. We have excellent judges in our country. I am not saying many of them would do this, but I think some of them would fall into that trap.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in a question I referred to an article by Mr. Peter Blaikie, a very distinguished Canadian lawyer, founding partner of Heenan Blaikie and a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I would like to quote from his article again and get the member's reaction to it. He said:

The [Prime Minister's] government wants to send more Canadian young offenders to jail and for longer periods of time, no doubt creating more recidivists. One twice-jailed young offender had the following comments on the legislation:

“For the most part, harsh sentences do not deter crime and actually work against rehabilitating offenders. My brief time in incarceration only ensconced me more deeply in the criminal culture.”

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that deterrence generally does not work with regard to young offenders.

Every study that we have ever seen, and the government has never been able to produce one to the contrary, has indicated that with regard to young offenders, because of their age, their immaturity, deterrence does not work at all. Everybody agrees, even most government members. Yet Bill C-10 contains provisions that would open the door, even if only a crack, and reintroduce the deterrent concept, which has been ruled against all the way up to the Supreme Court. If that part of the bill goes through, it will eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work not only on the bill before us but on several others.

It is important to get his reflections on what has just taken place. My colleague offered a reasonable solution in an effort to advance the cause of protecting children in our society. He suggested that part of this legislation be moved to the Senate. It needs to be highlighted that the Conservatives have denied that consent, yet we have done this before in the past. There have been many times when unanimous consent moved issues through the House. Would he reflect on that?

We try to find some common ground here in the House. I cannot understand what excuse the government could provide for not protecting children sooner. That is exactly what would take place. Would he comment on that because it is a tactic that has been used in the House by all parties at different times? It is unsettling that we are not getting that movement right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually meant to mention this in my opening remarks.

We just did this in June in the House because of a decision in a Quebec court to turn loose, under a cloud, 30-plus Hells Angels because it was going to take too long. The government agreed with us at the time that we needed the megatrial bill immediately. It was not the government's suggestion; it was ours. The government came onside.

It is more important that we look at the experience we had in the Homolka pardon case in the spring of 2010. We had to fight tooth and nail to sever off part of the bill that would have prevented Ms. Homolka from getting a pardon. It was our work. The member for Welland in particular worked very hard on this. He spoke to the family. We managed to get that through.

I do not know why the government is refusing today to take those extra steps. It is quite simple. This is not an unusual procedure that I have proposed. It is quite easy to do this. We could get the bill in place in the next week or two and protect our children more adequately.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons this evening to speak on second reading of Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act.

I would like to add to the comments made by my friend, the hon. Minister of Justice, with respect to the provisions in Bill C-10 that would ensure individuals who sexually abuse children serve sentences that reflect the severity of their heinous crimes committed against the most vulnerable and defenceless members of society.

Over the duration of my almost 40 years of practical experience in law enforcement, I have played a leading role in helping protect victims of child abuse and exploitation.

Canadians have long supported this government's efforts to put the plight of victims ahead of the rights of criminals. The commitment was made in the June 1, 2004 document entitled “Demand Safer Communities”, the Conservative plan for Canada’s criminal justice system. wherein it stated:

--prohibit conditional sentences for child sex offences to ensure that all of those charged with these offences will serve prison time and be removed from the community.

Our government has listened to the plight of victims and law-abiding Canadians. Our government has received successive strengthened mandates from Canadians to pass these long-needed reforms to give law enforcement and victims the upper hand.

That is why I am honoured to rise as a member of this government today. We are delivering on the promise to Canadians by working to pass this important legislation without further delay.

One of the other objectives of our legislation to address child sexual exploitation is preventing the commission of a contact sexual offence against a child in the first place. It does so by proposing two new offences, and proposing to require courts to consider imposing two new specific conditions that would serve to prevent a suspected or convicted child sex offender from engaging in conduct that could facilitate their sexual offending.

These proposals remain as originally introduced in former Bill C-54. The first new offence would prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that young person. This practice is often used by child sex offenders to groom their victims to make it easier to sexually exploit their victims.

This conduct is already prohibited where the material consists of child pornography, but if the material in question depicts adults engaged in explicit sexual activity, the Criminal Code does not currently prohibit this use of material. This does not meet the very high threshold of the legal definition of obscene material under section 163 of the Criminal Code.

This current definition only applies to depictions of explicit sexual activity coupled with violence or that are judicially determined to be degrading or dehumanizing. Clearly, this creates a gap in our criminal law, and Bill C-10 represents an appropriate and reasonable response to that gap.

This new offence would carry a penalty similar to that of the existing obscenity/corruption morals offence in section 163, namely a maximum of six months imprisonment on summary conviction and two years imprisonment on an indictable offence. It would impose a mandatory minimum of 30 days on summary conviction and 90 days on an indictable, more serious criminal offence.

The second new offence proposed by Bill C-10 would prohibit anyone from using telecommunications to agree or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child. Again, this new offence would fill a gap in the current law.

Currently, the offence of luring a child, section 172 of the Criminal Code, prohibits using a computer system to communicate directly with a child for the purposes of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child. This offence does not apply where the communication does not directly involve the child victim.

The new offence uses the term “telecommunications” which is defined by section 2 of the Federal Interpretation Act as the emission, transmission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by any wire, cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar technical system.

In my view, this broad definition and approach ensures that the new offence will apply to the same prohibited use of any new technology that may be created after this offence is enacted. This new offence would operate in a manner similar to the existing luring a child offence under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. For example, both contain the same provisions about presumed or reasonable but mistaken belief in the age of a child. Both preserve the common law defence of entrapment for an accused in the appropriate circumstances, and both would carry the same penalties, a mandatory minimum of 90 days and a maximum of 18 months imprisonment on summary conviction and a mandatory minimum of one year and a maximum of 10 years imprisonment on an indictable offence.

Bill C-10 proposes to add these two new offences to schedule 1 of the Criminal Records Act. Individuals convicted of these new offences would be ineligible to apply for a record suspension, currently known as a pardon and which part 3 of Bill C-10 proposes to rename as a record suspension.

Bill C-10 also includes former Bill C-54's proposals to expand the powers of a court to prohibit a convicted child sex offender, under section 161, and a suspected child sex offender, under section 810.1, from engaging in conduct that could facilitate their commission of one of the enumerated child sexual or abduction offences.

Specifically, these proposals would broaden the list of offences for which these conditions may be imposed to include the four child procuring prostitution offences in section 212. These are described in the actual words in the Criminal Code. It would also direct a court to consider imposing a condition prohibiting the offender from having any unsupervised access to a young person or from having any unsupervised use of the Internet.

The objective of these conditions is self-evident. If we deny a known or suspected child sex offender access to a child or from having access to a tool such as the Internet that can enable that person to sexually exploit a child, then hopefully we can prevent the victimization of yet other victims.

As chief of the London police force, I led an investigation into a network of individuals involved in child sexual abuse and exploitation. I believe that we must do better. In these circumstances, I can relate the statement of a 15-year old victim. In referring to his victimizer he said, “He preys on street kids. He'll feed them, give them drugs, money. He doesn't even care what he's done. He couldn't care less about any one of the kids, including myself”.

Bill C-10 proposes welcomed reforms to better protect Canadians, particularly to better protect vulnerable children and youth against sexual abuse and exploitation.

As I have noted, many of these proposals were previously debated and studied in the previous Parliament. Accordingly, I think all members should be able to work together to ensure the expeditious enactment of these long-needed reforms. If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

It has been stated that even in the most ungoverned kingdoms, animals protect their young. We collectively, as a responsible society, can do no less to protect our children from those who seek to sexually violate them.

There has been a lot of talk and discussion about the role of judges, and there are judges who really, I believe, have captured the significance of what it is that we are talking about in terms of the imperative need for us to rise to equip our police officers, the courts, and the system as a whole, to better protect vulnerable people, especially our children.

I wish to quote Mr. Justice Moldaver from the Ontario Court of Appeal. Adjudicating with his colleagues over a case, he stated:

While...the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation will always warrant consideration, the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and the need to separate sexual predators from society for society’s well-being and the well-being of our children must take precedence.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the government presents an omnibus bill which packs nine bills into one and then it limits debate. The moment an hon. member on our side presents a motion that would seek to expedite the passing of the very part of the legislation that the hon. member opposite is speaking to, the government decides to stall.

I want to ask the hon. member opposite, how can he justify that action?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the justification that all Canadians would very much appreciate is everybody getting their act together, quit all the back and forth, and pass this very important piece of legislation.

It is critically important to law enforcement officers if we want them to do the job that they are mandated to do. It is critical to the courts and it is critical to society, especially to vulnerable people.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. minister's speech today and congratulate him for many years of service in the OPP, the London police force and elsewhere, but I am surprised at the answer he gave to the previous question because it seems to me the point of the questions was that if there are parts of the bill which the opposition is prepared to support and expedite, why would the government not want to do that?

The minister said to get this moving, get it going, and get the measures that he is talking about today moving forward. That is what my hon. colleague who spoke a moment ago was talking about exactly.

I do not comprehend why the minister would not say yes, that is the right move. Why, when there are other issues in this bill that opposition members in both parties, enough that he is not concerned about, why not separate the bill? It is a huge, omnibus piece of legislation. Why not separate it and move forward quickly with so many of the measures on which there is agreement?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to realize that many of these things have been debated, up, down and sideways, certainly in the previous Parliament, namely Bill C-54.

We feel very strongly that what we have put together is a response to the mandate that has been given to us by the Canadian people. We campaigned on these issues. We are fulfilling our responsibility, our mandate, and our accountability to the people who sent us here.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Associate Minister of National Defence for his excellent contribution to the debate.

He mentioned his many years of law enforcement, for which he has been recognized.

I am quite certain he probably talks to some of his law enforcement friends from time to time and I am curious, through those informal consultations, what information he has been able to gather concerning the appropriateness and the effectiveness of this impending legislation?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the impact will be significant in terms of our ability to fill gaps that now exist. Our ability to better protect, especially, as I indicated, children, but more so dealing with the current and emerging threats that we all have to deal with and about which we all have to be concerned, including terrorism.

At the end of the day, and I know there is a lot of talk about the impact on offenders, one of the best forms of crime prevention is to ensure that recidivist criminals are locked up, and that is what we intend to do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the minister.

My understanding is that if we compare a child predator, who is trying to get a child to do something such as watch pornographic movies, to someone who gets caught growing six marijuana plants, there is a stricter penalty or consequence for the individual who is growing the marijuana. Is that not correct? If so, would he agree that something is wrong there?