Bill C-291

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it has been almost a year since one of the most notorious serial killers in Canada was moved from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security facility under provisions of the NDP-Liberals' so-called justice legislation, Bill C-83.

This serial killer is infamous for his long string of rapes in Scarborough; the rape, torture and murder of his sister-in-law; and the rape, torture and murder of two very young, innocent girls from St. Catharines. We all know his partner in crime, his wife, Karla Homolka, skated with a 10-year sentence, despite actively participating in the crimes as per the videotape the police had in their possession. This rapist, this serial killer, this monster is Paul Bernardo.

Let me acknowledge the pain and suffering, and the repeated victimization, of the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. I cannot imagine the pain that they live with everyday. God bless them.

After Bernardo, that monster, was found guilty of his crimes, the judge correctly sentenced him to life imprisonment as a dangerous offender, meaning he should have stayed locked up in maximum security until he died of old age. However, no, our current government, this woke bunch of MPs who are running our justice system, decided that Paul Bernardo is the real victim, a nice, fine, misunderstood fellow who deserves medium security.

The Liberals passed a law, Bill C-83, which explicitly tells police, judges and Correctional Services Canada to impose the least restrictive measures on a person as possible. In practice, this means that this monster, Paul Bernardo, now lives in a dormitory, has a tennis court and ice rink for recreation, and access to sharp instruments when he gets that urge to murder again. It is not even close to maximum security. That makes no sense.

On June 23 last year, I asked the justice minister, in this very House. why Paul Bernardo gets such special treatment. What was his answer? Of course, he did not answer at all. Instead, one of the Prime Minister’s attack dogs got up to say that, just because Paul Bernardo is a bad man, it does not mean the Liberals did anything wrong with their legislation.

Yes, everyone heard me right: the Liberals refused to take responsibility for their own actions. However, members need not worry. Since the current NDP-Liberal government refuses to take responsibility for its own actions, it will be the Conservatives who once again step up to the plate to fix the situation.

What would that fix? Bill C-351 is a bill introduced by my great Conservative colleague from Quebec. This legislation would fix the mess created by the Liberals in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It would amend section 28 of the act, which currently states, “If a person is or is to be confined in a penitentiary, the Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with the least restrictive environment”.

That is what the Liberals have changed it to say. They made it as easy on the convicted criminal as possible. This is why Bernardo is getting all the special treatment.

My colleague's bill proposes to change that section to say, “ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with an environment that contains only the necessary restrictions”. In other words, only make it easier on a convicted criminal if it is absolutely necessary. This legislation is making a significant fix through changing the words “least restrictive environment” to “environment that contains only the necessary restrictions”. While it is a simple language change, it is a massive policy change.

When it comes to crime and what to do with criminals who victimize Canadians, Conservatives, such as myself, my colleague and our leader, have very different approaches than those of the NDP-Liberal government. Conservatives believe that victims of crimes, those who are innocent, who have been terrorized in their own homes, have had their cars stolen, have been mugged on our streets, who have been are raped and those who have had family members murdered, should come first.

The NDP-Liberals have a very different approach than Conservatives do to crime. I believe in common sense. If a crime was committed, the criminal needs to answer. The woke, NDP-Liberal approach is that the criminal is the single most important person in the justice system. They believe, and they have written into law, that police, prosecutors, judges, jurors, and jailers must take into account diversity, equity, inclusion and critical race theory when dealing with criminals. They have put into place checklists. Does this criminal have any sort of skin colour, racial background, sexual identity or anything in their background that would warrant that criminal to walk away scot-free? If so, let them go. That is the NDP-Liberal approach to criminal justice.

This woke crowd does not care if a criminal has raped a woman, kidnapped a child or murdered a indigenous man because, in their minds, that so-called underprivileged criminal is more important than any victim can be. In their topsy-turvy world view, it actually sees those committing the crimes as the people who need to be cared for, while the actual victims continue to suffer over and over again.

Senator Kim Pate, appointed by the current Liberal Prime Minister, summed up the Liberal hug-a-thug position quite nicely last year when she addressed the Fredericton City Council. She said, “Canada’s criminal legal system is unjust, discriminatory and biased against indigenous people and people of colour.”

I agree that it has been unjust against indigenous victims of crime like those on the James Smith Cree Nation. The coroner's inquest, which was held in my home riding of Saskatoon West, by the way, was clear on the point. The man who murdered all those indigenous people on the reserve should never have been released in the first place. However, folks like Senator Pate do not particularly care about those victims, do they? Instead, they are making excuses for the inexcusable. Senator Pate is one of the many examples of what is absolutely wrong with NDP-Liberal justice.

Once a crime is committed, the criminal must be punished, period. That is why a common-sense Conservative government will bring in tough-on-crime legislation. We will lock up the criminals. We will stop the crime. “Diversity, equity, inclusion” and critical race theory approaches that lead to “hug a thug” and to repeat offenders will be swept away. Common-sense Conservatives will bring back mandatory minimums. We will crack down on the people who sexually exploit our children and on the people who peddle sexually explicit images of children on the Internet. Indeed, my Conservative colleague for North Okanagan—Shuswap brought in his private member’s bill, Bill C-291, to do this very thing.

We will take the issue of women being trafficked into sexual slavery seriously and not laugh it off as sex workers and body positivity, as men pay their pimps in order to abuse and demean women. My colleague, the Conservative MP for Peace River—Westlock has introduced legislation in the House to accomplish this through Bill C-308, an act respecting the national strategy to combat human trafficking.

We will ensure that men who commit violence against pregnant women face stiffer sentences. The NDP and the Liberals voted to kill the legislation, based on the justification that beating a pregnant woman senseless is just another form of abortion, almost as if that were a good thing. I would argue that the last thing a civilized country like Canada should do is beat pregnant women and not punish criminals properly for it. I proudly supported the legislation brought forward by my Conservative colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville, that would have allowed the judge to consider pregnancy as an aggravating factor when sentencing someone who has beaten a pregnant woman.

Shall I give another example? Why not? Let us contrast, juxtapose and expose the soft-on-crime approach of the NDP-Liberals. My Conservative colleague, the MP for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, has introduced Bill C-296, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, which would make life imprisonment actually life imprisonment. That means that if someone commits—

Criminal Code

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I begin, I want to recognize that my wife's nephew, Dustin Dempsey, passed away this week. Obviously, this is quite unfortunate. He was quite young. He leaves behind his father, Rio, who is my wife's brother, and his mother, Vivian. My condolences go out to the whole family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I also want to send my condolences to a high school friend of mine and her family, Stacey Gagnon. Her father, Leslie Gagnon, or Les as he was commonly known, passed away recently. I offer my deepest condolences as well to her family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I find it interesting that I am here talking about this. There is something that I would have likely spoken about with my students when I was teaching an advanced criminal law or sentencing class at Thompson Rivers University in the Faculty of Law. It is a course that has since been taken over by one of my mentors, Judge Greg Koturbash. He is teaching tomorrow, so this may come up.

I would have spoken about the notion of dialogue. That dialogue is between a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada and Parliament. What we have often seen when it comes to criminal matters is that the courts speak and Parliament is supposed to respond. However, it feels as though often, with the Liberal government, the courts speak and Parliament does not respond.

One of the things that I noticed here is that Parliament has not responded when it comes to sexual offences. I put the minister on the spot and I anticipate he is going to ask me a question, and I invite him to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to look directly at him. I asked the minister, in a question, whether he supports restricting the use of conditional sentence orders, that is house arrest or jail in the community, particularly for people who offend against children. Yes or no? I really hope he addresses that question when we have time for questions and answers.

There is something that struck me and stuck out to me. This is the first provision. It is speaking about changing one of the provisions, somehow it got missed, section 153.1(1)(a) from five years to 10 years. I believe that is the sexual exploitation of a person with a disability. It says a person will be liable, on indictment, to 10 years.

Here is what is interesting about that, and it really frustrates me. It is not that we are raising it; it is that we are not raising it high enough. I tabled Bill C-299. I was heckled by the Liberals when I did it, but this is the thrust of Bill C-299. I am going to go through it one more time because I think it is extremely important and it is germane to this discussion when we talk about protecting children, which the Minister of Justice has said is a primary aim of this bill.

We have various offences in the Criminal Code that will end with a potential life imprisonment, as in life is the maximum sentence, and the one I always go to is robbery. Robbery is the deliberate taking of property without consent. Theft plus violence is robbery. It is the most basic thing.

What is sexual assault? What is a sexual offence? A sexual offence is a sexual element, violence and a lack of consent. What is the maximum term here? It is 10 years. The maximum term for sexual assault against an adult is 10 years. The maximum for most sexual offences against children is 14 years, yet we are falling into that same trap here.

We actually are valuing and saying that the taking of property without consent is more serious than taking somebody's sexual dignity without consent. It is only 10 years. That is what someone's dignity, inviolability and consent is worth: 10 years. It is incumbent on this chamber, and I will say to every single person here, that Parliament address this.

I would ask every single person here: Do members prefer to be robbed or prefer to be sexually assaulted? I can tell everyone right now, a hundred times out of a hundred, most people here would say, “I would take the robbery.” Why? It is because there is something about our bodily dignity. There is something about our bodily integrity.

There are victims, like the people with My Voice, My Choice, who spoke so eloquently to me in the past, who I found to be so compelling in their presentation. People in that position are often serving a psychological life sentence. When I ask the Minister of Justice whether he supports house arrest when these people are in a psychological jail themselves, there is a reason for it.

We, as legislators, have not kept up with the research that tells us the pernicious effects, and sometimes the insidious effects, of sexual violence against children. Yes, a registry is one step, but punishment itself is a primary step. I do put it to the Minister of Justice and hope he asks a question. It will just be a simple “yes” or “no”. Does he support the elimination of conditional sentence orders for sexual offences, particularly sexual offences against children?

My message here is not just for all of us here. We talked about a dialogue. Mr. Iacobucci talked about that in one of his decisions from many years ago. This is a dialogue I wish to have with judges, Crown prosecutors, of whom I was one, defence lawyers, and most importantly, victims: that those of us who are in this chamber will stand up for victims every single chance we get.

I have said it before and I will say it again. If we, as Conservatives, if I, myself, as the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, am ever given an opportunity to legislate in this area, I will not take my foot off the gas pedal until the views of every victim in this country are represented and the gravity of offences, particularly offences of a sexual nature against children, are adequately reflected in the punishment received by those who would take the innocence of a child.

I do have some experience with the publication ban end of things. It is something my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke asked my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul after her excellent presentation. I can remember, and it is one of the first times I can ever remember this happening, where a victim set aside her publication ban. We did have a number of people from My Voice, My Choice come forward and say, “I have been a victim. Please leave it to me whether or not I get to speak.” That will debated at committee. My hope is a representative from that group will be permitted to attend.

This legislation also imparts a new application for a victim that they can put an application forward and that the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the order is revoked, and will include the victim's wishes. Far too often we do not incorporate the victims. They are an afterthought.

Sentencing is so often an offender-centred approach, and I understand why. They are the person. However, when we ultimately look at who is impacted, it is not just the offender who is impacted, particularly when we are talking about sexual offences. One of the primary offences, for instance, is section 163.1 listed here as “child pornography”. It is my hope that term will never be used again in this legislation.

Bill C-291, which I drafted and my colleague from the Okanagan put forward, is currently at third reading in the Senate. It would change the name of “child pornography“ to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” to reflect the actual harm done.

I see I am running of time. I hope the Minister of Justice rises right now in questions and comments to indicate whether he does favour eliminating house arrest for those who would steal the innocence of children when those children are themselves abused.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑291 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material), be read the third time and passed.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this House as the representative of the great people of North Okanagan—Shuswap as I make some final comments on Bill C-291.

Bill C-291 proposes to change the term in the Criminal Code from “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”. I would like to acknowledge and again thank my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who drafted this bill after recognizing the need for Criminal Code amendments that this bill proposes. I also acknowledge members from all parties who have made meaningful contributions to the development of this bill, both in this chamber and at committee stage.

Committee review of the bill strengthened it by adding the words “and exploitation” to the proposed new term in the original bill, and I thank the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Justice for their collaboration and continuation on this important initiative.

Expressions of support and collaboration from all sides reflect that this bill is a step in the right direction, a step that must be followed by more steps: additional steps toward strengthening the Criminal Code and other federal laws to increase protection of children; additional steps to increase capacities of those entrusted with enforcing and prosecuting offences; and additional steps to support healing and recovery of those victimized by child sexual abuse and exploitation.

I want to thank people who have approached me in North Okanagan—Shuswap on the streets and at events to express their support and appreciation for this bill. The spontaneous face-to-face support from constituents is always reassuring that we are moving in the right direction. I also thank all of the Canadians who supported the bill by signing petition e-4154 initiated by Rachel Enns back home in Vernon. I would especially like to acknowledge and thank the organizations that have expressed support for this bill, that work every day to fight child sexual abuse and exploitation.

I look forward to the vote on Bill C-291 and I hope all members support this important bill to move it forward and send it to the other place toward completion so that it will establish the proposed changes in Canada's Criminal Code.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑291. Some bills seem less substantial than others, but are just as important. The bill amends the Criminal Code to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” and make consequential amendments to other acts. Words sometimes carry great weight.

As I just mentioned, this bill makes no other changes than replacing the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”, and has no legal consequences per se.

First, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. Even though this bill has no legal consequences, it does make us think about the importance of terms, their scope and their deep meaning. According to the bill's sponsor, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, the objective is to link the charge of child pornography to sexual abuse. Without changing the definitions, since the notions of consent and current sentences will stay the same, Bill C‑291 explicitly expresses the fact that such an offence is an act involving the sexual abuse of a child.

We understand and support the underlying principle. In my speech, I will share my thoughts on the importance of the words used to provide additional detail about this bill, reiterate the importance of training judges and conclude by expanding my argument to include cybercrime.

First, the term “pornography” seems overused and ambiguous in the sense of both the legal definition and the general definition, because its scope is very relative and can depend on a given individual's sensitivity. Moreover, some schools of thought disagree on the degree of consent pornography supposes and whether pornography is essentially a form of violence. Some feminist thinkers see it that way, and regular consumption of pornography also contributes to rape culture.

One thing is clear: Pornography in and of itself is not a crime, but there are the exceptions we are all familiar with, including child pornography. In other cases, it is difficult to see a clear and consensual difference between eroticism and obscenity, pornography and violence. It all comes down to the participants' consent, which is impossible to establish or obtain. When children are involved, the Criminal Code pretty clearly defines the acts, but I will spare my colleagues a reading of that.

It is understandable to be shocked by the fact that a term with no criminal or even negative connotations is attached to such despicable acts, hence the principle of Bill C-291. In the healing process, it is important, from the outset, that the victim is relieved of guilt about the events and that the burden is carried by the abuser. Naming the abuse can also help the victim. It may not seem important, but being a victim of child pornography does not have the same connotation as being a victim of child sexual abuse. A person charged with possession of child pornography will not be charged with sexual assault. However, they are indirectly participating in it by not reporting it and by taking advantage of the situation to deliberately indulge their deviant urges.

Most of the time, the victim is not mentioned in child pornography cases, except to say that they were indeed a child. When we talk about child sexual abuse material, we are doing two things: We are naming the abuse that the child is suffering, and we are calling the accused a child molester. These are much more powerful words, even though we are talking about the same act. They put things in perspective. In a crime involving child pornography, there is a victim of abuse and there is an abuser, the child molester.

In many types of crime, there is often a grey area, extenuating circumstances, possible doubt over the degree of guilt, participation and consent of the victim. In the case of child abuse, everything is clear and we have to call a spade a spade.

What is more, this term is already being used by some advocacy groups, including the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and Canada's national tipline for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children. Children are disproportionately the victims of sexual offences and are especially vulnerable. In Quebec, 54.4%, or the majority, of victims of sexual assault are adults, but the number of victims under 18 is growing faster than the number of adult victims, with annual increases of 9.5% and 4.3% respectively. Victims of other sexual offences are nearly exclusively minors, at 90.8%. These offences include sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, luring and publication of intimate images.

These statistics make it clear why victims and their loved ones feel as though these situations are being downplayed.

If an offence is not a direct aggravated sexual assault, then it gets classified under “other offences”. In reality, however, the possession of child pornography often involves sexual assault that is often even documented.

According to the Quebec Department of Public Safety, these types of crimes are on the rise. Cases of sexual interference and luring have risen by 6% and 9% respectively. These are moderate increases. Cases of incest have risen by 4.3%. Cases of publication of an intimate image without consent have risen by 7.4%, and cases of invitation to sexual touching have risen by 1.4%, and that number has held steady. These are chilling statistics.

Sexual acts and activities must only take place with the free and informed consent of the participants. The concept of consent is essential. It is based on the idea that the person is fit to make a decision and that they understand the implications and consequences.

In Canada, the age of consent to sexual activity is 16. However, in the case of all minors, including those who are aged 16 and 17, a young person cannot legally consent if a sexual partner is in a position of authority over them. If the young person is dependent on their sexual partner for support and has nowhere else to go and no one else to care for them, then they are in a relationship of dependency.

The relationship is exploitative when, as of the age of 12, there are close-in-age exceptions. A person who is 12 or 13 can consent to sexual activity if their partner is less than two years older. A person who is 14 or 15 can consent to sexual activity if their partner is less than five years older. That means that even if one of the partners is over the age of majority, as in the case of a couple consisting of a 15-year-old and a 19-year-old, consenting sexual contact can take place with a minor as long as they are close in age.

This also means that, conversely, in a situation where one member of the couple is over the age of majority, as in the case of a 14-year-old and a 19-year-old, the child cannot legally consent to sexual activity and the act becomes a sexual offence, even with the consent of the minor's parents. There is no possibility of consent when a child is under the age of 12.

It is worth noting that the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee took only 30 minutes. This is an uncontroversial bill, despite the number of amendments that were moved. In fact, most of the amendments came from the government. There was absolutely no debate on the substance of the bill, and all the amendments proposed by the government, 15 in all, were adopted unanimously. This is important work. Amendments G-1 and G-12 essentially added the notion of exploitation to the term “child sexual abuse material” to make it clear that possession of such material automatically involves the exploitation of a child. Naturally, these amendments were also adopted.

Also, not all judges have the knowledge required to deal with sexual assault cases or cases involving certain groups. We have been talking about this for a long time. Training for judges is important. The case of Judge Jean-Paul Braun is a shocking example. He said out loud during a trial that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the assault, had a pretty face and should feel flattered to have attracted the attention of an older man. An Alberta judge was fired after making what were considered sexist and racist remarks about indigenous people, abused women and victims of sexual assault.

An acquittal was overturned because a judge who found a man accused of sexually assaulting children not guilty relied on stereotypes. The judge suggested that, because nobody noticed anything, the girl, who was only between the ages of 6 and 12 at the time, was not credible. The judge said the child's testimony was not transparent, reliable, sincere or credible. Forcing all judges to participate in sexual assault and social context training would destroy certain stereotypes and myths that influence judges' decisions and their attitudes toward victims.

Fortunately, Bill C‑3 called on the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure that federal judicial appointees to various courts have the tools to help them preside over sexual assault cases. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who worked on that bill, pointed that out. The third time around, Bill C‑3 was finally unanimously passed by all MPs. It was passed on division in the Senate and received royal assent on May 6, 2021. It is an important bill.

In addition, the whole issue of cybercrime is also troubling. Last week, I had a chance to talk with Hugo Loiseau, a professor at the Université de Sherbrooke who is studying this issue. A cybercrime is a criminal offence committed through a computer system that is usually connected to another network. This whole issue of child pornography content, along with incitement to terrorism or hatred, falls under the category of cybercrime.

In conclusion, the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking is following this issue closely and is considering recommendations that could be made to the government to take action.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise this evening to speak to and express my support for this very important bill. This bill was brought forward by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap. Bill C-291 is an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, namely child sex abuse material.

I will underscore the fact that words do, indeed, matter. Definitions matter and language matters. It matters for the elected officials and the staff who work in this House of Commons. It is why the legislative drafters write the technical text of legislation and spend hours upon hours and days upon days refining and crafting the language.

Once a bill becomes law, it sets the parameters and the boundaries of behaviour within a free and democratic society. Bill C-291 is a very important bill that would ensure that there is no confusion around what “child pornography” actually is. It is child abuse.

As a former litigator, I am proud to see a common-sense and important change being proposed. As a mother, I am encouraged to see this House take action to protect and fight for our children, our country's most precious gift.

Changing the term “child pornography” in our federal laws to “child sexual abuse and exploitation” is not just semantics. If we understand the power of our words, especially when codified, then we know that this change will affect how we see and categorize this evil perpetrated against our children, and how we must all unite and fight against it.

This change would increase the clarity, the understanding and the precision in our legislative and legal framework. It would recognize that when pornography involves children, make no mistake, it is not pornography; it is sexual abuse material.

As Judge Koturbash said in a decision on this subject, “These are not actors. It is not consensual. These are images and videos of child sexual abuse.”

This kind of material is abhorrent. It cannot be consensual. These images are serious and they cause lifelong damage and trauma to children. Therefore, we must fight it with every tool that we have at our disposal in society. Without clarity and precision in our laws, and in the Criminal Code, there is confusion.

In this case, as Judge Koturbash said the current phrase “child pornography” actually dilutes the true meaning of what these images and videos represent. This change will recognize that children are victimized by such material.

As has been mentioned earlier, here in Canada, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16. There is no legal basis for a child to consent to participate in such material, and this, absent of consent, constitutes abuse and exploitation.

Around the world, we have been seeing similar initiatives to make this clear distinction. Child advocacy groups in the United States, like the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, as well as the 2016 Luxembourg Guidelines, which were put forward by 18 international partners, have sought to harmonize the terms and definitions that relate to child abuse and protection.

We need to see more decisive action from the government to bring perpetrators of sexual violence to justice. We need laws that will prosecute the broadcasting of sexual abuse and violence materials. We need laws that will make it clear that it is a crime to sexually exploit children.

This is one small but very significant step forward in protecting vulnerable boys and girls in Canada. Once again, I want to commend and thank the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap for his excellent work. I also want to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for his work on this bill.

I believe this bill reflects the collective strength of this united House and that we will stand together in denouncing child abuse and strengthen the laws to protect children from all forms of abuse. I believe that this bill would save lives. It is my honour to publicly support and vote for this bill.

The House resumed from December 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material), be read the third time and passed.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by expressing my sincere condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Jim Carr. He was a devoted parliamentarian who worked tirelessly for his community. He will be missed forever.

I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, regarding child sexual abuse and exploitation material, introduced by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap on June 17.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleague for introducing this bill, which has a very important objective, to ensure that the terminology used to refer to child pornography means that this harmful material is actually abuse of children.

The Government of Canada is committed to preventing and protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind, including in Canada and abroad.

Canada works closely with international partners to combat online child sexual exploitation—

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, this includes materials such as works of fiction that promote the sexual abuse of children, as well as the sexualized portrayal of adults as children. I am pleased that the new term was adopted unanimously by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as it is an important step towards bringing Canada in line with the general trend away from the term “child pornography”.

The second amendment proposed by the government is an entirely new provision, a one-year coming-into-force provision for the entire bill. I am pleased that this measure, too, was adopted unanimously by the committee.

This proposed amendment came about as a result of studying Bill C-291 after it was introduced. The government noted that the federal regulations made pursuant to An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service would require amending as a result of this bill, as they contain the term “child pornography”.

Those regulations will not be amended as a result of the enactment of Bill C-291 and, therefore, time would be required to get the process under way. I also learned that there are at least 50 pieces of provincial and territorial legislation from across Canada that incorporate or make reference to the term “child pornography” as defined by the Criminal Code, statutes as well as regulations.

Giving the provinces time to adapt their legislation, if they wish, to ensure the coherence of the legislation across Canada, is an important government responsibility. The one-year coming-into-force period would allow time for those amendments to be made in their respective jurisdictions. This delayed coming into force would also allow time for necessary administrative changes to be made at both the federal and provincial levels in places such as courts administrative systems and IT systems.

Finally, the third amendment proposed by the government, which was also unanimously passed in the committee, was the addition of a transitional clause. This new provision would assist participants in the criminal justice system to understand how ongoing proceedings that use the term “child pornography” would be affected on the date of the this bill coming into force.

This new provision clearly states that the changes of terminology would not affect the validity of any ongoing proceedings that have already begun under the old term “child pornography”. Similarly, the validity of any documents related to those proceedings would not be affected by the change in terminology.

In short, this transitional clause tells the criminal justice system participants that this change is a change in the name only. There should be no impacts on ongoing prosecutions as a result.

These three government amendments will, I believe, better achieve the objectives of not only calling these materials what they truly are, but also ensuring that the transition to the new terminology is done in a coherent and non-disruptive way.

I would like to thank the members of the justice committee for voting in favour of the government's amendments and for co-operating in bringing this bill through the House so quickly.

It should not be a surprise to members that the pandemic has contributed to a rise in the sexual offences committed against children, nor should it be a surprise that these offences are primarily committed via telecommunications networks.

In fiscal year 2021-22, the RCMP's National Child Exploitation Crime Centre received 81,799 complaints, reports and requests for assistance relating to online child sexual exploitation. This was a 56% increase compared to the previous fiscal year and an 854% increase compared to 2013-14.

Police-reported crime data from Statistics Canada which includes the first year of the pandemic indicates that incidents of making or distributing child pornography increased by 26% in 2021 compared to 2019. Possession of or accessing child pornography increased by 44% in 2021 compared to 2019 and represents a 146% increase since 2017.

There are many things needed to help combat child sexual exploitation. Clearly, we need to have comprehensive and robust criminal laws against it. We need to have strong and effective law enforcement. We need to continue to advance and support measures that seek to meet the needs of victims and survivors. The government supports the national strategy for the protection of children from sexual exploitation on the Internet, which has four pillars: raising awareness, reducing the stigma associated with reporting, increasing Canada's ability to pursue and prosecute offenders, and working with tech leaders to find new ways to combat the online sexual exploitation of children.

I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap for sponsoring this important bill and for co-operating with all parties to bring it to the House.

I also am thankful for the opportunity to speak.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join the third reading debate on Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, regarding child sexual abuse and exploitation material, which was introduced on June 17, 2022, by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak today on this important legislation, Bill C-291, from my Conservative colleagues, the members for North Okanagan—Shuswap and Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, and to help move this piece of legislation along.

Changing the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” is not only more accurate, but the terms “abuse”, “sexual abuse” and “exploitation” also currently exist in the Criminal Code and better align with the facts. As a mother, I have to say that I am not sure what could be more disturbing than child exploitation through sexual abuse material. The victims are children, and the unimaginable robbing of children of their innocence should be reflected in our Criminal Code.

Our 21st century digital age has brought many great things to our lives, but it has allowed the darkest and most pervasive crimes imaginable to be available to anyone. As a result, the ability of predators to monetize their evil behaviour means more children than ever are at a risk of repeat victimization.

It is shocking that in 2021 there was a 14% increase in sexual violations against children. A Statistics Canada 2021 report detailed how child sexual abuse material is a growing problem across Canada. We need to sharpen our laws so they ensure that the prosecution and punishment of offenders reflects the crime. Words do matter, and it is important this bill passes quickly in this place.

I am proud to support this bill, and I call on all members to join the Conservatives in acting to protect innocent victims, the children of today, who are the leaders of tomorrow.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment, since it is my first time rising since the passing of our colleague Jim Carr, who was the member for Winnipeg South Centre, to express my condolences to his family and friends and to say that I faced Jim across the aisle here for quite a long time. The flowers on his desk today certainly remind us all of his absence. We often shared a nod, a headshake or a smile at things that happened in the chamber. He was one of the MPs who exemplified to me the best of what it means to be a member of Parliament.

Turning to the subject at hand, Bill C-291, the NDP will be supporting this bill as it has been retitled, “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”.

I accept the good intentions of its author and its sponsor in the House, and I believe that it is more than magical thinking, as some have accused. I think it is about making clear what we are doing and what we are condemning. We are broadening that definition so we can more easily get prosecutions done under this new title of “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”, and removing the word “pornography” takes away the sense that, somehow, there was anything ever consensual about these kinds of materials and activities when they involve children.

Those in the House now know that this is part of my own story. I stand in the House not just as an ally of child sexual abuse survivors but as one of them. I have a strong message for all of those out there, every time I speak, and it is that this could happen to anyone. It has happened to many of us, and it need not destroy our entire life, but it is a burden that we will carry forward. I am glad to see all of us supporting strong action against these kinds of crimes against children.

When it comes to child abuse and sexual exploitation, we know what works, and I am hoping that those who have sponsored the bill and all of us who are supporting this bill will also be there when it comes time to have additional resources for enforcement, and when it comes time for additional supports for those who have survived these crimes. I trust that we will all be there when that time comes.

I trust what the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap said today, in that we can agree to keep our speeches short and to limit the number to make sure that this bill can pass today before we rise for the holiday.

I know that there have been some discussions and some back and forth here today, and I am siding with the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap in that hope that we can do our best to make sure this is concluded so we can vote tomorrow to send it off to the other place.

I am really at the end of what I wanted to say today, so let me also take this opportunity to wish my colleagues, however they celebrate, a very happy holiday season. I look forward to being back here at the end of January to continue the important work we do on behalf of Canadians.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, next time I will remember to ask for a lectern.

As I was saying, child sexual abuse has a significant connotation. It is pedophilia. When people talk about pornography in today's society, there is apparently some ambiguity around that word. The meaning and significance of pornography vary considerably from person to person. Some people may consider certain actions pornographic. Some actions, some audiovisual material and some books may be considered pornographic by some and art or just sexuality by others. To some people, it is not that at all.

I think we can live with some degree of ambiguity with respect to pornography. That may be a subject for another time in another place, but child pornography is something else entirely. Child sexual abuse is unacceptable in our society, and I think it is important not to mince words. The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑291 because we think it is essential.

The point I want to make about pornography is that it has everything to do with the participants' consent. Child sexual abuse is totally different.

Let us look at the statistics. We are told that, in Quebec, the number of victims under the age of 18 has grown faster than the number of adult victims in recent years. We are talking about an annual increase of 9.5% in cases of child pornography, cases of sexual assault against children. Meanwhile, the number of crimes involving pornography or sexual assault against adults increased by only 4.3%. That is a lot. I am not saying that it is not significant. I simply want to emphasize the fact that what we consider abusive, namely sexual assault against adults, increased by 4.3% and we find that unacceptable. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that, for children, that increase amounted to 9.5% a year.

I think we need to take action. There are all kinds of ways to do that. I am thinking about the possibility of educating children on the topic in schools and the need to make adults more aware of this problem. All sorts of measures can be taken as part of the administration of justice to ensure that children are better protected.

In the federal Parliament we work with the Criminal Code. Yes, we may need to review some provisions of the Criminal Code, impose harsher sentences or find other approaches. One thing is certain, what Bill C-291 is proposing is no minor matter, unlike some bills that simply seek to change the terms that are used without doing anything that has a real impact.

At the same time, I think we have to keep the issue of the healing process in mind. In the current system, an adult who sexually assaults a child could be charged with sexual assault or with using child pornography, without any real understanding of what that means. Often, children will feel responsible for acts that should be blamed on the adult who abused them.

During the victim's healing process, it is important to ensure that the victim does not feel responsible in any way. This is important. It is equally important, for the victim's sake, that we ensure that the abuser is blamed and identified as the perpetrator of the acts.

I think that being accused of having consumed, used or sold child pornography is already a serious matter. Being accused of child sexual abuse is much more serious, much more significant. Young victims will understand that the burden of what took place falls not on them, but on the abuser, the person who is accused of child sexual abuse. I think that will help in the healing process.

In closing, Bill C-291 is not a panacea. I said earlier that perhaps we need to review certain provisions of the Criminal Code in terms of how we deal with the offenders in question, but we also need to ensure the sound administration of justice.

We recently passed a bill that requires training for new judges who will be appointed in the federal system. They will be required to take training on sexual assault law. This is important. We want to avoid a repeat of what happened in 2017 with former judge Braun, who made wholly unacceptable comments about a young girl, saying that she should perhaps feel proud, or something like that, to have been forcibly kissed. It was unacceptable and despicable. The Court of Appeal refused to hear his appeal, as did the Supreme Court. We never want to see anything like that happen again. Training for judges is therefore important.

The bill we passed is important, but there is still more to do. Quebec and the provinces will no doubt follow suit with measures to ensure that kids in our schools and adults who work with young people are very aware of this issue. The federal Parliament has done its job with Bill C‑291, and I congratulate the member who introduced this bill. I think it will be good for everyone.

I will conclude by wishing everyone a happy holiday.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that in the case of Bill C-291, words carry weight.

We are debating replacing the term “child pornography”, which is currently used in the Criminal Code, with “child sexual abuse material”. The RCMP proposed the use of the term “child sexual exploitation material”.

Whether we use the term child sexual exploitation or child sexual abuse, I think that we should clarify these actions or describe them for what they really are.

Pornography in our society—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑291 is a bill that could, in other circumstances, be described as practically useless. It only changes some words. Changing the title of a bill and the name of a crime in the Criminal Code may seem rather inconsequential.

In this case, there is absolutely nothing inconsequential about it. In this case, we are talking about holding criminals responsible for their actions.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, at the outset let me acknowledge that I am speaking to you from the traditional lands of the Algonquin and Anishinabe people.

As this is my first opportunity to speak since the passing of the Hon. Jim Carr, I want to express my deepest condolences to the Carr family and my appreciation to them for sharing Jim with us, both in Parliament as well as in Canada, and for the remarkable legacy that he leaves in being who he was, such an honourable gentleman who crossed party lines and in many ways reached out across the aisle. I am heartened to see so many very positive comments coming from everyone, from all parties.

I wanted to particularly express my condolences to Ben Carr, whom many in the House may know as someone who was very much part of our government at the beginning stages. He moved on to Winnipeg, to serve his community locally.

As we close the year, Jim's passing should give us some guidance in terms of how we should not only work with each other and towards strengthening this institution, but also work across the aisle to make things happen for Canadians. As we know, one of the last things Jim did was see the passage of his private member's bill to build a green prairie economy, Bill C-235, which received unanimous support.

Today, we are in a very similar moment here, with Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts in respect of child sexual abuse material, brought forward by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, providing that opportunity.

I would note that during this process we worked very well together, collaboratively, with him and his colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, in terms of getting this bill both through the House and through the committee stage at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I want to thank the member and his colleague, and all members who are part of the justice committee, for working on this bill expeditiously and getting us to this point.

We must take measures to fight child sexual exploitation. We have comprehensive and robust criminal laws against it. We need to have strong and effective law enforcement, and we need to continue to advance and facilitate measures that seek to support victims.

I would like to take this time to highlight the vital work done by the child and youth advocacy centres across this country. These centres provide a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach in a safe, comfortable environment to address the needs of children and youth and their families. Children and youth who are victims or witnesses of crime in Canada deserve protection and justice. Online child sexual exploitation is some of the most disturbing conduct facing society today. The pandemic has contributed to a rise in sexual offences committed against children, including their facilitation through technological means.

In the fiscal year 2021-22, the RCMP's national child exploitation crime centre received 81,799 complaints, reports and requests for assistance relating to online child sexual exploitation, which was a 56% increase compared to the previous fiscal year in 2020-21, with only 52,306 reports received, and an 854% increase compared to 2013-14, when 8,578 reports were received, based on the internal numbers provided by the NCECC.

The website cybertip.ca, run by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, reported a 120% increase in reports of children being victimized online in comparison to prepandemic rates.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2020, police reported crime data which included the first year of the pandemic, as indicated, and that incidents of making or distributing child pornography had increased by 26% in 2021 compared to 2019, and by 58% over the five-year period of 2017 to 2021. Possession of or accessing child pornography increased by 44% in 2021 compared to 2019, and represents a 146% increase since 2017. Incidents of luring a child via a computer have gone up 23% compared to 2019, a 48% increase from the previous five years.

This bill changes the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”. This new term captures the full scope of Canada's law, as well as the jurisprudence available from the last 30 years. The Government of Canada, therefore, is committed to preventing and protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind, including internationally.

Canada works closely with international partners to combat online child sexual exploitation. This includes not only the extent of information regarding new and emerging threats, but also the sharing of best practices and lessons learned in combatting this crime.

Canada is a state party to a number of international agreements to protect children from sexual exploitation, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and the convention on cybercrime, or what is called the Budapest convention.

The sexual exploitation and abuse of children has devastating and long-lasting consequences on victims. We remain committed to taking meaningful action to combat child sexual exploitation and abuse materials. Canada's existing criminal laws against child sexual exploitation and abuse materials are among the most comprehensive in the world. The Criminal Code prohibits all forms of child sexual exploitation and abuse materials, including against possessing, accessing, making or distributing it, which can be punishable with a term of imprisonment of up to 14 years for each event.

Serious crimes deserve serious consequences. I, along with my fellow members, look forward to watching this important bill progress in the other place. As a community, we all have a role to play in protecting children.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

moved that Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse material), be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House as a representative of the amazing people of North Okanagan—Shuswap to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

This may be the last time this bill is debated in the House, and I am compelled to thank the many Canadians who have helped progress this important legislation forward.

At the outset, I must thank the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who was central to the conception and drafting of this bill. The hon. member possesses a keen sense of how we can and should improve Canada's laws. I thank the member for his work on the bill.

I must also thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, who has worked with us to move Bill C-291 through the process. I know that she strongly supports increased protection of children and support for victims of crime, and I thank her for assisting in today's debate.

It was only 26 days ago that the House debated this bill at second reading, and I thank all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their timely and thoughtful examination and support of this bill. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada for proposing amendments to the bill to ensure that it captured exploitation and aligned with the definition in the Criminal Code. I also thank members of the justice committee and Department of Justice officials for their examinations of the bill at committee.

I would further like to thank the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Ratanak International and the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation for supporting this bill. I thank them for the difficult but essential work they do every day to fight abuse and exploitation of children.

I thank the hundreds of Canadians who signed e-petition 4154 calling on the House to pass this bill.

I believe we also owe thanks to the staff and officials who allow our work and debates to occur. I send my thanks to the office of the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, the Private Members' Business office, journals branch, Parliamentary interpretation and the interpretation bureau, and all of the House of Commons and parliamentary personnel who work with us every day.

I also extend my thanks to law enforcement and judicial personnel who deal with child sexual abuse exploitation in their daily roles and hope that this bill will help in their work of increasing safety for children. I thank them all.

As I stated in previous debates, child sexual abuse material is a growing problem in Canada, and Canadians look to us, their elected representatives, to take the steps, big and small, that are required to deal with problems like the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. This bill is a meaningful step that we are taking together, and I thank hon. members from all parties in supporting it. Together, we are serving Canadians.

There has been discussion between all parties and to my knowledge there was agreement to allow the debate to collapse today by keeping our speeches short so that Bill C-291 can be voted on tomorrow, moving it one step closer to calling child sexual abuse and exploitation material what it really is.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

moved that Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material), as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material), as reported from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report, in relation to Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts (child sexual abuse material). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

I actually echo that. I still recall being a young articling student when I had to review that for a defence firm, and it was quite traumatic. It's not easy to go through those. I can only imagine law enforcement...who have to deal with this on a daily basis and go through voluminous material that is very horrific, and the amount of stress and post-traumatic stress that might appear.

Thank you once again for your great round of questioning, though it be short.

In the interest of time, I'd like to provide the members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments before the committee proceeds with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-291.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once again, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During the debate of an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These amendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to the amendment, it is voted on first, then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the short title, the title and the bill itself, and if amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Just so you know, I'll be looking down at my phone, but it's not to do text messaging. I'm checking in case my clerk or the legislative clerks have given me any messages.

Now we'll begin the clause-by-clause consideration.

(On clause 1)

Amendment G-1 has been proposed.

Is there any debate?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

It's an honour to be speaking here for the first time [Technical difficulty—Editor] an act to amend the Criminal Code and make consequential amendments to other acts.

At the outset, I would like to express my thanks to the honourable member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Mr. Caputo, who is a full-time member on this committee and who was central in the conception and drafting of this bill. The honourable member's experience as a crown prosecutor has afforded him insight into how we, as parliamentarians, can strengthen our federal statutes to enhance the protection of Canadians, especially children, and I thank him for his work on this bill.

As I stated in the second reading debate, I believe it is essential that the Criminal Code of Canada contain terms that accurately describe prohibited activities. I also believe that the code's use of the term “child pornography” is a misnomer in that it fails to accurately describe prohibited activities.

What the Criminal Code currently calls child pornography is more severe than pornography, because it involves children, it is not consensual, it is exploitative and it's abusive, and the Criminal Code should clearly reflect these realities.

Mr. Chair, the Criminal Code of Canada contains many elements, including essential elements that define, prohibit, deter and penalize criminal activities. Bill C-291 does not propose any amendments to definitions, prohibitions or penalties. It clearly and succinctly proposes to change the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material”.

As Mr. Anandasangaree correctly noted in the second reading debate of this bill, the intent of the bill:

...is not to change the definition. Rather, it is to more accurately reflect the definition in the name. Courts should not change their interpretation of the law based on the change in title.

At second reading, Mr. Savard-Tremblay astutely noted that:

By calling it “child sexual abuse material”, we do two things: We name the abuse that the child suffered, and we also describe the accused as a sexual abuser of children.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay also noted that:

It puts things into perspective: There is a victim of abuse in a crime involving child pornography, and there is a person sexually abusing children.

I also acknowledge Mr. Garrison, and thank him for his comments at second reading, in which he highlighted the need for enforcement resources—especially for the specialized law enforcement units that “work so hard” to combat child abuse and exploitation—and “improvements to services and supports for survivors”.

I agree with all of these points and thank those who participated in the second reading debate and voted to move this bill forward quickly to today's examination here at committee.

Child sexual abuse material is a growing problem in Canada, and Canadians look to us, their elected representatives, to take the steps—big and small—that are required to deal with the problems like sexual abuse and the exploitation of children.

I would like to acknowledge today the response and support received from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc. and Ratanak International, which have supported the movement of this bill.

I'd like to thank the committee for taking time out of their busy schedule to examine the bill. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Pursuant to the order of reference of November 23, 2022, we will now proceed to the study of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts (child sexual abuse material).

I'd like to welcome the sponsors of the bill, Mel Arnold, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, and Mr. Frank Caputo, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

For the first hour, I will allow five minutes of presentation by the sponsors, followed by questions from the members. The last 30 minutes will be devoted to the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

I'll begin with Mr. Arnold for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

We'll conclude our round of questions there. It's 11:40, and we'll try to get the votes in for the supplementary estimates. Then we'll be doing Bill C-291.

If we're okay, I will now call for vote 1b under the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Is there any discussion on the vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of November 17, 2022, this committee is meeting to begin its study of the supplementary estimates (B) 2022-23 of the Department of Justice. Pursuant to the order of reference of November 23, 2022, we will proceed later today to the study of Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts (child sexual abuse material).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to active your mike. Please mute it when you're not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best as we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

For the first hour of this meeting, we will now proceed to supplementary estimates (B) 2022-23 for the following items. We have vote 1b under the Canadian Human Rights Commission, vote 1b under the Courts Administration Service, votes 1b and 5b under the Department of Justice, vote 1b under the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and vote 1b under the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada.

To present those items, we have with us the honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Welcome, Minister.

I would also like to welcome François Daigle, deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada; Michael Sousa, senior assistant deputy minister of the policy sector; and Bill Kroll, chief financial officer and assistant deputy minister of the management sector.

I will now give the floor to Minister Lametti to give his statement, and then we will go to a round of questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I want to thank all the witnesses in this study for the time they've given us. It's very valuable testimony.

That concludes the testimony part of this meeting.

I have a few matters that I want to mention. Witnesses are free to leave if they want to, or they can sit around with us if they would like to see this.

Members, we will be proceeding to the study of the draft report on the government's obligation to the victims of crime. You should receive a confidential first draft tomorrow in order to prepare for Monday's meeting. Hopefully, that will give us enough time. That's what the analysts have told me.

We'll have to adopt a budget to reimburse our witnesses who appeared on Bill C-9 and adopt the revised budget for the trip in March 2023.

I also want to remind you that you have a deadline to submit amendments to Bill C-9: Monday, November 28 at 6 p.m.

Finally, yesterday we received Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts regarding child sexual abuse material. We will have to find time to proceed to this study. It is Mr. Mel Arnold of North Okanagan—Shuswap who has presented this bill in the past. At the latest, we have to report the bill 60 sitting days after the date of the order of reference. That is April 26, 2023, so we have some time for that.

Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.

Criminal Code

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has some good lawyers as well. There are good lawyers everywhere. We will just leave that aside for now.

The importance of fingerprinting is not actually that well known, but it is very important. This is something that must be modernized.

Moving to the substance of the act, judicial systems have massive backlogs. I believe a few years ago the maximum time to lay a summary conviction offence expanded from six months to one year. I was happy to see that, but we still have a massive backlog. Trials are just not getting on.

Members may have heard the saying, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” This is problematic. A right to a fair trial is embraced within the charter text, obviously. We have often thought about an accused person's right to a fair trial that has a speedy element required, constitutionally obviously, but what about a victim's right to a fair trial? With time, memory fades. It is a proven fact. I do not know anybody who says that their memory is better a year and a half later than it was two weeks after an incident or even six months after an incident. A backlog in the justice system actually contributes to a less efficient system.

At the end of the day the court should exist to get to the truth in a just manner. If getting to the truth is not necessarily a memory contest, then we have a problem when there is a massive backlog. I remember a victim saying that to me one time early on in my career. I said the trial had been adjourned, and he asked about his right. I had to tell him that, as a victim, he did not have a right.

A lot of victims often come to the courts and say they just figured it would be adjourned. I have actually seen instances when courts generally sit for about five hours a day, if we were to compress all of the time together, and up to 12 to 15 hours of court time is crunched into that five hours. That is how much of a backlog there is. This could result in people being released back into the community who should not be released into the community.

One thing we do not generally talk about here is delay, and that delay has been discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called Jordan. The Jordan decision talked about the right to trial within a reasonable time, the constitutional right to be tried, which is within 18 months, or a year and a half, if the matter is preceded by summarily, which is considered a less serious type of offence, or 30 months, or two and a half years, by indictment.

The greater the strain on resources, the longer it takes for a trial to occur. More cases mean a greater backlog and a greater backlog means even longer, and this affects bail. The problem we have is the following. With the Jordan principle, the clock, and what I mean by clock is the time, the two and a half years, starts ticking the moment a charge is laid.

There have been expansive requirements for disclosure since the Stinchcombe decision in, I think, 1988. There have been massive changes in disclosure, to the point where disclosure is probably one of the single biggest reasons we have delays. It is one of them. We, as Parliament, have not addressed that issue. One might be asking why disclosure matters. It matters because it takes months, sometimes years, to get disclosure together on major cases. If someone, a police officer or a prosecutor, has a case, that case may have literally 30,000 pages of documents.

Because of the Jordan decision, there is a hesitation to lay a charge, because it may take a year to a year and a half, maybe two years, to get those documents together. This might include people who are dangerous, a person who, at this point in time, should not be roaming freely and should at least have conditions on bail or be detained pending their trial.

However, because of the Jordan decision, those people will often be free for the duration, so a year and a half to two years, without any conditions and without any detention. Frequently, these are the most serious cases, because the most serious cases generate the most paperwork, and the most paperwork generates the most disclosure. These are frequently homicides, so we are not talking about cases that are not serious. In fact we are talking about cases that are the most serious in nature.

I will give another example. Members have heard me talk frequently in the House about sexual offences. This is how the Jordan issue affects these offences and why we need to address the streamlining of these cases, especially for sexual offences.

I am being hypothetical here. A person has child sexual abuse material, which is what we voted on today in Bill C-291, and has that material found on their computer. In order to prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt, a prosecutor needs to prove who owns that computer, who possessed that computer and who accessed those materials. That is typically done by an expert. Right now there are not a lot of experts out there, and it takes time to go into a hard drive. These are the same people who go into hard drives often for terrorism-related offences or for homicides, or who are looking at text messages or messages that were sent digitally.

There is a strain on resources when it comes to these sorts of things. Therefore, a person who is alleged to have committed a sexual offence against a child, like possession, production or distribution of child sexual abuse material or Internet luring, some of the most serious cases against children, will have their computer seized, and it will be 12 months or more before that computer can be analyzed. For 12 months that person is roaming the community without conditions. We are not even talking out on bail. They have no conditions at all because of the Jordan decision.

The question is this. How should Parliament respond? This is not a question of admonishing the rule of law; it is a question of how we should respond to these obviously prominent issues that are before the House in Bill S-4. How do we respond? While Bill S-4 would make some changes, we have so much further to go.

I had 14 pages of notes and I am on page 3. I may have to cut out a bit.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am mindful of the fact that I cannot point out people in the gallery, even if three of them 11 and under bear a striking resemblance to me.

Today we are discussing Bill S-4. Bill S-4 is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts, COVID-19 response and other measures.

Before I begin, and this is somewhat related to what we discussed, I want to note the pleasure I have here that I just voted for Bill C-291, and the House unanimously, as I understand it, voted to bring Bill C-291 to committee. That bill will hopefully change the name of child pornography to “child sexual abuse material” to reflect the fact that sexual abuse of children is not pornographic but is abuse, and we should call it what it is. Words do matter. When I stood on doorsteps prior to my election, this is something I said I wanted to come to Parliament to do.

I am very happy and pleased to have partnered with my colleague and friend from North Okanagan—Shuswap to have addressed this problem at second reading. I look forward to our having a strong bipartisan effort at committee in hopes of having this bill passed by Christmas.

Bill S-4 relates to the efficiency of the criminal justice system. When we talk about efficiency in the justice system, we are often talking about inefficiency in the justice system. In fact, prior to my being elected, I contemplated doing some academic writing in law that talked about inefficiencies in the justice system and how we might address them. I am going to talk about some of those here today, some of those things that are, in fact, missing.

We cannot forget that there are people within the justice system who make it go around who really do not get the recognition they deserve. Sheriffs in British Columbia, for instance, are tasked with courtroom security. Frankly, they are underpaid for what they do. They escort people into custody. They are dealing with people on the front line, often who have just been arrested, who are coming down off of drugs, and they put their personal health, well-being and safety on the line in order to protect other criminal justice system practitioners. I thank them for it.

I thank our clerks, our judicial case managers, who keep our courtrooms running. I thank our judges, who often leave lucrative careers behind to serve the public good for the benefit of the rule of law.

When we talk about the justice system, we have to remember something, which is that times change and the law should change as well. This is most notable when we look at a section that is not contemplated here. That is section 525 of the Criminal Code. Section 525 of the Criminal Code deals with bail reviews.

I am not sure exactly when section 525 of the code was passed, but if we were to look I am sure we would see it was passed at a time when people went to trial much more quickly than they do today. Section 525 says, and I am simplifying this, that if somebody is detained on bail, they are entitled to a bail review at 90 days. How often has a trial date even been set in that time? That in itself is a bit of an issue, but sometimes it has not even been set within that time.

That was a different time. I remember looking at a homicide file from 1984 when I was practising law as a prosecutor. Around that time, a trial date would be set within two months, or three months perhaps, and somebody would go to trial often within six, seven or eight months. Times have changed. The system is backlogged. The evidence is different.

I looked at that file, which I believe was from 1984, and it looks like a file that would now be reflected with a “theft under” file, as in a shoplifting file. That was the thickness. There were a few photos of the alleged homicide and a few statements maybe a couple of pages long, and that was it.

Times have changed. Now the system is dealing with section 525, which says that somebody should not languish in custody. The reality is that a person now does not go to trial so quickly. That is the type of thing I would have liked to see addressed in Bill S-4.

I note, as has been noted by others, that Bill S-4 is essentially the same as Bill C-23. What changes is when the bill will come into force. I believe there is a 30-day lag period in order to allow courts to prepare. This legislation also identifies the Identification of Criminals Act.

As a bit of a sidebar, a local lawyer in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Jay Michi, has frequently told me, or at least he has told me once or maybe twice about the Identification of Criminals Act. His point has always been that it should not be called the Identification of Criminals Act, because a person is not yet convicted. Mr. Michi is now in Hansard, and his point has been made in the House of Commons.

Believe it or not, the Identification of Criminals Act could actually, as I recall, be the basis for a failure to appear in court, which could relate to detention on a primary ground of bail. It could also cause a number of issues.

When it comes to the importance of fingerprinting, a lot of people do not know this, but that is how criminal records are generally kept across Canada, through fingerprints. An FPS number is a fingerprint serial number. Somebody has their fingerprint taken, and that is how, on a CPIC record, it is called, a criminal record can be identified for somebody who has a conviction in Nova Scotia, where most good Speakers come from, or from British Columbia, where most good lawyers come from. I guess a few good lawyers have attended the University of Alberta, but we will put that aside for the time being.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:18 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑291 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from November 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse material), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Today, we are here debating Bill C-20, an act that would establish the public complaints and review commission and amend certain acts and statutory instruments.

First, I want to recognize a first-year law student at Thompson Rivers University where I used to teach. I want to thank Najib Rahall, who is about to start contracts class, which I appreciate. He is now in Hansard. I thank him for turning in my wallet this weekend. He is taught by my friends Professor Craig Jones, K.C. and Professor Dr. Ryan Gauthier. I am sure he is also getting a first-class education.

I also want to recognize somebody else who is a constituent. He was also a colleague at the bar and at my work, maybe even taking my position as a Crown prosecutor. I want to recognize my friend, Anthony Varesi, on his new book on Bob Dylan. It is his second book. He wrote the first one in law school. I am not sure how he did that.

On the matter at hand, it seems the Liberals have been discussing this issue well before I arrived at Parliament. From what I can see, this matter has been discussed for about seven years. The bill was first tabled in the 42nd Parliament and died in the Senate. It was then tabled again during the 43rd Parliament. We all know what happened at that point. Despite Canadians clearly signalling they did not want to go to the polls and despite the fact there was a lot of work to be done, the Prime Minister coveted majority government and, with all candour, let that get in the way of the work of the House.

Having been here for a year, I am still learning, but what I can see is that there is a lot of work to be done. The work on this bill in the 43rd Parliament was interrupted by what amounted to a small seat change in hopes that the Prime Minister would get what he wanted. He was ultimately denied that, but there was a seat shuffle, and I am proud to stand here on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as part of that seat shuffle.

Now we have this bill tabled a year into the government's mandate. As I was preparing for this speech, I reflected on why it took the government a year to do this. The election was about 14 months ago. I am wondering whether this was a priority. In fact, I asked my Bloc colleague a question about this. This is an important matter to discuss.

Canada has what amounts to the longest undefended border in the world. I have had countless interactions with the RCMP and with CBSA officials, some of them in my personal capacity and others in my professional capacity. These interactions likely number into the hundreds, and all but one have generally been cordial or favourable professional interactions. That is why we are here, because not all interactions and not all things go as they should both personally and professionally.

I will take a moment to recognize the work of peace officers, civilian members and staff with the CBSA and with the RCMP. In my riding, there are detachments with the RCMP, like Clinton, 100 Mile House, Clearwater and Barriere. There are three detachments also in Kamloops, being Kamloops City, Tk'emlups rural, which is situated on the traditional land of the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc, and Kamloops traffic. All of these detachments cover 38,000 square kilometres of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am grateful for the sacrifices of those who put on the uniform to keep us safe, with their backup officers often being an hour away through staffing or resource difficulties. They are there to keep people safe whenever they are in that area. These members see terrible things.

I was speaking to a bill I authored, Bill C-291, last week. I authored the bill and it was sponsored by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, and I thank him again for doing so. The bill proposes to change the definition of “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material”, because what is occurring is not pornography, it is sexual abuse, and we should be calling it what it is.

One of the things I pointed out was that police doing this job were often at a constable level and they were reviewing horrendous images, images of unspeakable horrors. Usually, in my prior work, I did not have to view this sort of evidence, but police officers did, and they are not paid enough to do so, frankly, given the work they do. I thank them for that.

Let us face it, most peace officers, people and frontline workers doing the job just want to make it home. They do not want to hurt anybody. A lot of police officers I know would love to go through a shift without having to arrest anybody. That is often not something most police officers do. At the end of the day, people in the RCMP and CBSA have a mandate to keep us safe. They are expected to do more with less resources. While this is not always fair, it is the reality of our situation.

When it comes to our frontline officers and workers, we expect leadership. We expect them to engage professionally, to do their jobs, to be equipped and to be professional in all that they do. I wish I could see the same from the RCMP commissioner at this time. It seems to me that the commissioner is not always modelling that professionalism, being vulnerable to inappropriate influence from the former Minister of Public Safety. It is ironic that Bill C-20 talks about the overseeing of frontline officers, mainly constables, but I question whether senior Mounties or, in this case, the senior Mountie is herself immune from the oversight that is required.

I point to what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said in committee in questioning the minister. I will do my best to paraphrase her, because I cannot be nearly as eloquent as the member. She noted that the commissioner was either influenced by the government or completely bungled the investigation into the mass shootings in Nova Scotia, a terrible incident, She asked why she had not been fired. This is the professionalism, oversight and leadership that Canadians want.

At the end of the day, we are here to talk about who oversees the overseers. This came up when we were debating Bill C-9 at committee in the past week or two. That bill proposes changes to the Judges Act that are long overdue.

Before I came to Parliament, I was unaware that there was no independent oversight for CBSA. Let us not forget that these are frontline peace officers. Oftentimes and typically, they will be people's first human point of contact once they get off the plane or at a land or sea border crossing. The provisions would require the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president to respond to interim reports, reviews and recommendations within legislative timelines. This is quite important because we require, in my view, a consideration of some measure of independent oversight.

Most people here know that I come from a legal background. In my world view, the rule of law is obviously sacrosanct. Sometimes, we can have heated debates in this place, as we should, about how that should manifest itself. We may agree to disagree, but at the end of the day I think we can all agree that the rule of law is important. In fact, it is written into the preamble of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the courts, the rule of law is maintained in two ways, typically through an appellate function but also through ethical guidelines, for instance, the ethical guidelines that are being revised in Bill C-9. The overseers are overseen on legal matters by these two mechanisms.

The one question I do have when it comes to Bill C-20, and this came up in Bill C-9, is the question of consultations. I believe my colleague for the NDP raised this. I am not sure what, if any, consultations were done, but this obviously needs be explored at committee, if the legislation successfully passes on second reading. Let us face it that governments of all stripes often fail on these issues. We have seen it on the extreme intoxication bill. I call on the government to make this a priority.

CBSA has extraordinary powers, detention, arrest and search. These are sweeping powers where charter rights are often diminished. This bill would replace the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP with the complaints and review commission.

Let us examine the backdrop in which peace officers within the RCMP and CBSA are expected to do their job. It is important to evaluate that backdrop as we consider the independent oversight for peace officers doing their job.

My constituents frequently complain to me about what they have termed, and others have termed, catch and release. I hear about this from police officers from across the country. This is why I put forward Bill C-274, because our bail system must be reformed.

I have compassion for police officers doing their job and arresting the same person again and again, only to know that this person will be released shortly.

The government, though it is dealing with the oversight issue in Bill C-20, has not addressed key bail decisions in the last few years, which has led to a catch-and-release system. It is in the interest of all Canadians that the government do so.

There has been a 32% increase in violent crime since 2015. This is not lost on this side of the House. We have Bill C-5 and Bill C-21. The word “victim” is not in either piece of legislation.

It saddens me to say, and I am surprised to be saying this, that drive-by shootings can now result in a community-based sentence. That does not feel right in my heart, but, more important, from a legal perspective, it is not logical.

The Regina v. Nur decision struck down mandatory minimums for section 95 of the Criminal Code, possessing a restricted firearm with readily available ammunition, in this case a handgun. In that instance, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the appropriate sentence, as I recall, would be 40 months in jail.

That is what it said the appropriate sentence would be for a relatively young man. I believe the accused in that case was 19 or 20 years old. We are here debating, not long after Nur was struck down, whether that should actually result in a jail sentence when our highest court, which has frequently struck down these cases, said that this should have been 40 months in jail.

On the one hand, we have Conservatives who have often advocated for mandatory minimums. It was the Harper government that passed many of the mandatory minimums. On the other hand, we have, across the aisle, people who say that there should be no mandatory minimums.

I would advocate for a middle-ground approach, one that has mandatory minimums that operate in a constitutionally compliant manner. I have stated this to the Minister of Justice, that this is the appropriate middle ground. Unfortunately, he did not heed my exhortation to do so.

Police and CBSA officials are operating within an environment that has 124,000 more violent crimes than last year. This would make up almost my whole riding. Canadians are tired of this. Also, there were 789 homicides in Canada last year and 611 in 2015, which is a 29% increase.

Police and CBSA are in situations in which gun crime is a concern. I recall reading in the news a couple of years ago about a shooting of a teenager who was innocently driving with his parents. There was a person in my riding, a case of mistaken identity, who was shot down at a hotel. This is the situation our police are operating within. These were sons, brothers and friends.

There has been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015, yet when we come to the House to debate legislation on public safety, the debate is whether or not to relax these types of penalties rather than make them more stringent so that gang-related homicides would ultimately go down rather than up.

If members ask anyone in the system, I anticipate they will tell them that organized crime is so difficult to investigate. That is why they call it “organized”. There is intimidation, often a layer of distancing, money and organization.

If I were a police officer or a CBSA officer, I would be concerned with the proliferation of firearms. I remember one of the first cases I dealt with which involved now staff sergeant Kelly Butler, one of the best police officers I have encountered. She pulled a vehicle over and what was revealed inside the driver's jacket was a loaded sawed-off shotgun. I remember holding that firearm when it was in evidence. The firearm was illegal. The stock and the barrel had been cut off, so it was probably about 10 to 12 inches long. That is the environment our peace officers and CBSA officers are operating within.

Our border is porous, and there is a concern of what to do about it. The public safety minister has earmarked, as I recall, $5 billion to target law-abiding gun owners who are not accounting for crimes. Bill C-5 and Bill C-21 will be targeting that. Where could $5 billion be spent when it comes to our border and enforcement of illegal guns? I ask that question rhetorically because I have some pretty good ideas.

There has been a 61% increase in reporting sexual assaults since 2015. I have two bills on sexual offences. We obviously had the #MeToo movement in that time, which is always important. My wife was telling me that she saw a sign recently that said, “No means no”, but we have to go one step further and say, “Only yes means yes”. Only consent itself is consent.

To conclude, this proposed act would create an obligation for the RCMP commissioner and CBSA president to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety. The report would inform the minister of actions that the RCMP and CBSA have taken within the year to respond to recommendations from the chairperson.

This is great, but one thing I learned in my first year in Parliament, while sitting on the veterans affairs committee is that, just because a recommendation is made, does not mean it will be acted upon. My hope is that, when these recommendations are made, they will actually be acted upon, otherwise they are worth nothing more than the piece of paper they are written upon. It is easy to use words, and we have frequently said that, but I call on the government to act.

Criminal Code

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, pedophilia is standard practice among far too many people in positions of power or even with a drive to feel powerful. In some of his works, the Marquis de Sade described the domination of children as the logical sequel to the domination of women and pleasure as a type of aspiration to despotism.

In the 20th century, Sigmund Freud showed that civilization is built on restrictions. According to Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex, fathers and mothers could not be the sexual partners of children and the love that children have for their parents would ultimately turn into desire in adulthood.

The bill before us today amends the Criminal Code to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse material” and makes consequential amendments to other acts. The bill does not have any direct or immediate legal effect to speak of, other than changing a term. However, that change is an important one.

In Canada, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16. Young people between the ages of 12 and 16 who are in the same age group have the right to engage in sexual activity with each other, but adults are prohibited from engaging in such activity with anyone in that age group. Under the age of 12, consent is not legally possible under any circumstances.

Using children to produce pornographic material is abuse. Child pornography is most definitely child sexual abuse. We support the bill.

Unfortunately, the term “pornography” is not clear. Everyone has their own definition. There is no consensus about the degree of consent in pornography. It was not uncommon for certain libertarian authors in centuries past to explicitly promote pedophilia.

Not everyone agrees that pornography is fundamentally violent. It is not criminal in the legal sense of the term, but there are certain exceptions such as child pornography. The fact that it is impossible to ascertain, understand and conclusively assess the participants' consent makes it difficult to distinguish between material that is erotic and material that is violent and obscene.

In the case of children, the acts are clearly defined by the Criminal Code. It is obvious that to fully heal, the victim must shed the guilt associated with the events. The burden must be borne by the abuser. We must use the term “child sexual abuse” rather than “child pornography” to make the gravity of the offence clear, so the victim can fully come to terms with it.

A person charged with possession of child pornography will not be charged with sexual assault even though they are indirectly participating in it by not reporting it and by taking advantage of the situation to satisfy their own urges. Most of the time, we do not talk about the victim in cases of child pornography, except to say that the child was indeed a child.

By calling it “child sexual abuse material”, we do two things: We name the abuse that the child suffered, and we also describe the accused as a sexual abuser of children. This term is much weightier, even though it means the same thing. It puts things into perspective: There is a victim of abuse in a crime involving child pornography, and there is a person sexually abusing children.

In many types of crime, there are often grey areas, extenuating circumstances, possible questions about the victim's level of culpability, participation and consent. In the case of child abuse, it is very clear. In the case of child abuse, we have to call a spade a spade and denounce this act without any nuance. There is no possible justification.

The term “child sexual abuse” is already being used by certain victim services organizations, including the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and Canada's national tip line for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children.

In Quebec, the majority of victims of sexual assault are adults, but the number of victims under the age of 18 continues to rise. It is rising more than the number of adult victims. The victims of other sexual offences are almost exclusively minors, specifically 90%.

Sexual assault is not the only such offence. Other sexual offences include sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, luring and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

The change in terminology proposed in the bill, which, once again, I welcome, would undoubtedly bolster judges' awareness because, let us face it, not all judges have all the knowledge required to deal with this type of case.

Let us not forget that in 2019, only three years ago, a judge said out loud during a trial that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the assault, had a pretty face and should therefore feel flattered to have attracted the attention of a mature man.

Furthermore, a judge in Alberta was removed after making comments deemed sexist and racist about indigenous people, abused women and victims of sexual assault.

Lastly, an acquittal was overturned because the judge, who found a man charged with sexual abuse of children not guilty, had made comments suggesting a stereotypical attitude. The judge said that, because nobody saw anything, the girl, who was between six and 12 years of age when the assaults happened, was not credible. According to the judge, the child's testimony was, and I quote, “not transparent, not reliable, not sincere and not credible”.

These examples speak volumes. They remind us of the importance of forcing judges to get training on sexual assault and the social context surrounding it. Bill C‑291 does not go that far, but a terminology change like the one proposed here is sure to be beneficial.

Masquerading as a libertarian utopia, child pornography is actually a system in which humans exploit other humans. We need to tackle it head-on.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join the second reading debate on Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, child sexual abuse material, introduced by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap on June 17, 2022.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.

I want to thank my colleague for introducing this bill. It has a very important objective, which is to ensure that the terminology used to refer to child pornography names what this abhorrent material actually is. It is the abuse of children.

The Government of Canada is committed to preventing and protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind, in Canada and abroad. Canada works closely with international partners to combat online child sexual exploitation. This includes international co-operation regarding new and emerging threats, as well as sharing of best practices and lessons learned in combatting this crime.

Here at home, our government continues to fight child sexual exploitation through our national strategy for the protection of children from sexual exploitation. Four pillars underpin this important initiative: raising awareness, reducing the stigma associated with reporting, increasing Canada's ability to pursue and prosecute offenders, and working with tech leaders to find new ways to combat online sexual exploitation of children.

Under this strategy, we are working to build a safer Canada. We are protecting Canadian children by intensifying our engagement with digital industry leaders to encourage new online tools to prevent online abuse; increasing prevention activities, such as research and public engagement; and enhancing the capacity of Internet child exploitation units in provincial and municipal police forces, to name a few projects.

We are grateful to the many organizations that work tirelessly to halt the sexual exploitation of children, as well as Canadian parents, educators and civilians who remain vigilant for signs of potential abuse and work to educate others on how to recognize and report this despicable behaviour. However, there is still more work to be done. The incidences of making or distributing child sexual abuse and exploitation material increased by 26% from 2019 to 2021, contributing to a 58% increase over a five-year period from 2017 to 2021.

I welcome the opportunity that this bill provides to address a problem that has emerged in recent years, both domestically and internationally.

More specifically, there has been a shift away from the term “child pornography” to terms that are more descriptive of the harm caused by the production of such material. Some people feel that the term “child pornography” is too close to ordinary pornography, which is of course generally legal when produced by consenting adults and does not contain obscene material.

This bill, on its face, appears simple. It proposes to replace the term “child pornography” with the term “child sexual abuse material” in the Criminal Code and in four other federal statutes that use that term: An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; the Criminal Records Act; and the National Defence Act.

It is important to acknowledge that the definition of the term “child pornography” in Canadian criminal law has been part of the Criminal Code for almost 30 years, having been enacted in 1993, and expanded in 2002 and 2005. Our existing definition is very broad and includes a wide range of material involving the depiction of abuse of a child, both real and fictional, as well as materials that advocate engaging in sexual activity with a child.

This definition has been interpreted and applied by the courts for almost 30 years, including by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001 in R. v. Sharpe. In this case, the Supreme Court made clear that the prohibitions against child pornography, including the broad scope of the definition, seeks to prevent the exploitation of children, both actual or real and imaginary or fictional, through material that sexualizes them and fuels the demand for such material. This decision also ruled that a person includes both actual and imaginary children.

I think it is important to be clear that the intent is not to change the definition. Rather, it is to more accurately reflect the definition in the name. Courts should not change their interpretation of the law based on the change in title.

I also want to be satisfied that the proposed new term of “child sexual abuse material” accurately reflects the full scope of material that is captured by the existing definition. For example, I think it is important to ensure that the new term cannot be interpreted more narrowly than the current definition. While I do not think this is intended by the bill, I think it would be important to consider it more fully and consider whether the proposed term should be clarified.

While there is no one term that has been universally adopted, terms like “child sexual abuse material”, which is the one proposed in this bill, or “child sexual exploitation and abuse material”, and other variations, are gaining favour on the international stage. The Luxembourg Guidelines, otherwise known as the Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, suggest using “child sexual exploitation material” as a more general term to encompass material that “sexualises and is exploitative to the child although it is not explicitly depicting the sexual abuse of a child.” As such, I have had discussions with my colleague about potentially expanding his bill to include the term “exploitation”, and I look forward to continuing those discussions at committee.

Lastly, I think it would be important to consider whether there are other implications of changing the term. For example, although Bill C-291 proposes consequential amendments to four other federal statutes, which are the ones I mentioned at the outset, it would not amend the federal regulations made pursuant to An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, also known as the Internet child pornography reporting regulations. Of course, the making of regulations falls generally to the executive branch of government and is not normally done by Parliament. When this legislation passes, the government will likely have to also update the regulations to match.

Most provinces have legislation that refers to the Criminal Code's child pornography prohibitions and definition. It is estimated that there are at least 50 such provincial and territorial statutes and regulations that refer to it. In some cases, the reference is made to the term “child pornography” as well as to section 163.1 of the Criminal Code. However, there are some instances where a reference is made only to the term “child pornography, as defined by the Criminal Code”. Should this bill pass, we will work with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure the legislation is updated accordingly.

I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap and his colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for providing us with an opportunity to review the Criminal Code's definition of “child pornography” and the way that provision is incorporated into not only federal but provincial and territorial legislation.

The government will be supporting the bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues opposite at committee to ensure that this legislation is as strong as it can be.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from North Okanagan—Shuswap for introducing Bill C-291.

I want to ask him about what kinds of consultations he has had with victims and survivors, as well as those in the policing and justice communities. Could he maybe comment on who he has consulted and how that has informed the bill presented today?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

moved that Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse material), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the House of Commons to speak to my private member’s bill, Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

At the outset, I would like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who was central to the conception and drafting of this bill. The hon. member's years of experience as a Crown prosecutor have afforded him insights into how Canada’s laws and legislation in some instances are not necessarily as succinct as they should be and where changes could be made to improve them. Not all MPs have a chance to introduce and debate their private member's bill, so I was certainly happy to work with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo to achieve this. The hon member's experience also afforded him insight into how the House and our colleagues in the upper chamber can strengthen our federal statutes. I thank the member for his work on this bill and other proposals that seek to enhance the protection of Canadians, especially children.

The Criminal Code of Canada contains many elements, including essential elements that define, prohibit, deter and penalize criminal activities. Bill C-291 does not propose amendments to definitions, prohibitions or penalties. It clearly and succinctly proposes to change the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material”.

Some members in the House or Canadians watching this debate may wonder what the motive or value of Bill C-291’s proposals are. This is a question that I believe all legislative proposals should be subject to, and I will endeavour to answer this question.

Let us start with my motive in presenting this bill. I believe it is essential that the Criminal Code of Canada contain terms that accurately describe prohibited activities. I also believe that the code’s use of the term “child pornography” is a misnomer that fails to accurately describe the gravity and reality of such material. “Pornography” is a term typically used to describe material involving consenting adults, but there is no legal basis for children to consent to participating in such material. This factor of consent is central to the motivation behind this bill, and if hon. members agree that pornography describes material involving consenting adults, I hope they will also recognize that children cannot legally consent to being depicted in pornography.

What the Criminal Code currently calls “child pornography” is more severe than mere pornography because it involves children and cannot be consensual. It is exploitive and abusive, and the Criminal Code should clearly reflect these realities. So-called child pornographers are producers of child sexual abuse material. Those who distribute it are distributors of child sexual abuse material. Those who possess it are owners of child sexual abuse material. Those who view it are consumers of child sexual abuse material. These are the realities that compelled me to table this bill.

I hope all hon. members understand and support my motivation in proposing this bill. Together, we can collectively make a difference by ensuring that Canada’s Criminal Code contains clear terms for what is prohibited by the code. Words matter, especially the words and terms Parliament chooses to apply to federal statutes and especially the Criminal Code. The term “child pornography” is a misnomer, and I hope all members can recognize the necessity for our statutes to do away with this term. We cannot miss this opportunity to update and strengthen the Criminal Code so that it reflects reality. We must call child sexual abuse material exactly what it is: child sexual abuse material.

As I mentioned earlier, it is important for us to understand the motive and the value of all legislative proposals and I hope that I have provided the House a clear account of my motive in pursuing the proposals of this bill.

As for the value of the bill's proposals, I believe that changing the term “child pornography” to ”child sexual abuse material” will not only provide our statutes with a greater degree of accuracy, but will also provide a more accurate and true recognition of those victimized by such material. The terms “abuse”, “sexual abuse” and “exploitation” currently exist in the Criminal Code. I believe that the House must acknowledge that these terms afford a truer recognition of the victimization of children and potential future victimization of children caused by child sexual abuse material.

We must support those who, as children, have been victims of sexual abuse and exploitation. I believe this bill is a valuable opportunity for the House to acknowledge the true and severe nature of the crimes inflicted on victims of child sexual abuse material.

It is time that Parliament addresses the seriousness of what is occurring by providing clear terms to ensure that the words used in our laws reflect the severity of offences and the gravity of what is inflicted on victims.

I also see the value of the necessity of this bill's proposals, considering the latest crime data from Statistics Canada, which clearly states that child exploitation and abuse are on the increase here in Canada.

In a report released in August 2022, Statistics Canada reported that from 2019 to 2021, the rate of police-reported child sexual abuse material increased by a staggering 31% to a rate of 31 incidents per 100,000 of population. For a Canadian city of one million people, less than half the size of Vancouver, that translates to 310 cases per year. Those are just the cases reported to police. We all must understand that many more cases go unreported to police, but they do exist.

This increase from 2019 to 2021 follows a 47% increase in 2019. These increases have likely been contributed to by criminals using the Internet to abuse and exploit children.

The Statistics Canada report from this August states:

For many child sexual exploitation and abuse violations, the incidents that occur are committed online as cybercrimes. For instance, 61% of incidents of child pornography and 20% of sexual violations against children were recorded as cybercrimes. The pandemic has potentially exacerbated issues related to cybercrimes for these offences as children have been more likely to be staying at home and individuals are more likely to use the internet to engage with others.

It is also shocking to see that in 2021, there was a 14% increase in sexual violations against children. A Statistics Canada 2021 report on the 2020 data detailed how child sexual abuse material is a growing problem across our nation, especially in my home province of British Columbia. The 2021 report showed that among Canada's census metropolitan areas, or CMAs, Vancouver, Montreal, Winnipeg and Victoria reported the largest increases in the number of child pornography violations. Together, these four CMAs represented 75% of the increase in incidents of child pornography among CMAs from 2019 to 2020.

The same 2021 report further demonstrated how from 2019 to 2020, incidents of child sexual abuse material significantly increased across Canada. The majority of the national increase was due to more incidents in British Columbia and Quebec, but the data showed troubling increases in other provinces as well. This includes 81% more incidents in New Brunswick and 55% more incidents in Nova Scotia.

The data is truly shocking, but it is not enough for us as parliamentarians to be just shocked. These realities demand a response, especially our response as parliamentarians. By passing this bill, we can strengthen our Criminal Code. We can acknowledge the true severity and often long-lasting effects of child sexual abuse material inflicted on victims. We can also demonstrate the responsiveness that Canadians expect and deserve from us as parliamentarians.

At this juncture, the first hour of second reading debate, I will welcome input from all parties represented here in this chamber for this important debate. Child sexual abuse material is a growing problem across our nation, as I pointed out in the report from Statistics Canada, and Canadians look to us, their elected representatives, to take the steps, big and small, that are required to deal with problems like child sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

I believe this bill is a step in the right direction. It is a small but important part of the response that must be issued by Parliament, and I hope that this debate will lead us to an outcome that benefits Canadians, especially Canada's children and the communities that look to us to deliver results.

In closing, I would again like to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for his work in drafting Bill C-291 and his passion for improving our federal statutes of law.

I commit to answering members’ questions today on this bill to the best of my ability. I commit to listening to members’ input, their suggestions and the interventions of other members as we participate in debate today and in the future. I commit to the dialogue we need for moving this bill diligently and expeditiously through the debate and committee stages so that it can continue through the legislative process to receive royal assent. I feel it is so important for Canadians, especially our children.

I commit to working with all to deliver results for Canada.

Bill C-291

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hearken back to my maiden speech today to discuss something I am passionate about. It is time we stop using the phrase “child pornography”. Words matter, and the term child pornography sanitizes the extreme harm caused to children. Pornography describes media between consenting adults. Children can never consent to sexual activity with adults.

This is why any sexual depiction of a child must be called what it is: sexual abuse. Last week, my hon. colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap tabled Bill C-291 to change all references of “child pornography” in the criminal code to “child sexual abuse material”.

I am deeply grateful to him for tabling this bill, which I authored, and using his slot in the order of precedence so the bill can be passed without delay. This is a change that victims and advocates have been seeking for far too long. The time to make this simple yet meaningful change is now, and I exhort the House to do so as quickly as possible.

Criminal Code

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse material).

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

First, I want to thank the bill's author and seconder, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. The private members' draw resulted in my name being drawn much earlier than that of the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, so we agreed to use my earlier draw to get this bill tabled, and hopefully passed, in Parliament.

My hon. colleague's experience as a prosecutor brought to light the issue of how the Criminal Code uses the term “child pornography”. The term “child pornography” sanitizes what children go through, having never given consent. Child victims will have their victimization live on in perpetuity, and the words used in the Criminal Code must reflect the seriousness of this so that it is correctly understood within and throughout the judicial system.

This is a simple but necessary bill. It would simply change the name of “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material”. That is all.

Words matter. “Pornography” is used to describe media depicting or describing consenting adults. Children can never consent to sexual activity with adults. That is why any sexualized depiction of children must be called what it is: abuse.

I call on all members of the House to support the prompt passage of this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)