Justice Committee on Feb. 5th, 2007

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

For anything beyond communicating, there's a whole truckload of offences society is ready to bring down. That's fine, I think you've made a clear presentation here. If I could just say, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any problem at all with adjusting the maximum penalty on a summary conviction upward, as has been suggested here. It may be a minor tweak. It may signal an increased sensitivity in Parliament to the risks inherent in the new Internet world. I signal my support of that and I'll wait to hear other colleagues comments in this round here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by congratulating our colleague for his initiative. I know that when a member tables a bill in the House of Commons, no matter what one thinks of it, that person always does so with conviction. It is important that time be set aside in the House for members who are not government ministers. I have always told my party that there should be two hours a day set aside for private members' business. I think that there is an imbalance between the time given to the government and the time given to members. I am convinced that you have acted based on your convictions and I would like to congratulate you for that.

However, I must admit that we have some reservations. Of course, not as far as your objectives are concerned. Indeed, if your premise is that Parliament should always try to implement the most effective deterrent measures to protect children, I believe that all parties, including the government and opposition parties, would support that objective.

My question is as follows. You would like to increase the maximum sentence to 10 years. I exclude from this issue the debate surrounding the study of Bill C-9, because that bill, as you know, was amended significantly. You drafted a bill which targets people who lure children. In your opinion, what is the scope of this offence? Judges will have to consider what luring children is exactly. How would you define that? What exactly does "luring children" mean to you?

I will come back later on to the other offences which follow, because that is basically what you're asking us to vote on: luring children over the Internet. You then referred to other offences of a sexual nature, but these do not necessarily fall under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. You want to increase the offence to 10 years' imprisonment. So, in your view, what exactly does "luring children" mean?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I think Mr. Lee used an appropriate synonym. It involves the communication for the purpose of committing a number of sexual offences, and actually there's an abduction offence included there as well, if you look at the Criminal Code.

Luring is an attempt to communicate with children by means of a computer, typically the Internet, in order to establish a relationship with that child, usually a relationship of trust. These children typically find themselves in situations where they may be looking for friendship. They may be looking for someone to trust. They may be in home situations that are not necessarily as supportive as they should be. So the predators use this technology to gain the trust of that child to start communicating through sexual banter, and typically photographs may be sent over the Internet. Then eventually an attempt is made to lure that child out of the home for a rendezvous where the predator would obviously sexually abuse or exploit that child.

That's my understanding of what would typically happen in a luring offence.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

The three of us understand—that is, those who have asked questions until now—that luring a child means deliberately trying to gain the trust of a child on false pretences to ultimately commit a second offence. Consider section 172.1. It is clear that the second offence, the one which we expect will follow and which we are concerned about—of course we wish to be very vigilant—will not have happened yet. We agree on what luring a child means under the Criminal Code.

Have you researched how various courts have applied section 172.1? Could you point to various studies which have been done on the subject? If not, I can ask this question of the officials who will appear before the committee later on and who most certainly have studied this matter.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I'm wondering about something else. I find 10 years too long. I don't know how a sentence this long would help you reach your objectives. But now I am ready to hear what you have to tell us.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Well, I could certainly regale you with numerous cases that have now been dealt with in the courts. Almost all of them, except for a very few, are first-time offences, which makes sense since this is a very recent legislative initiative.

In terms of whether those cases or those sentences are having an impact, it's very difficult to say, because we don't have a long history on this offence. It's been in place only since 2002.

I do know that the sentences typically range from six months to two years, and I would say that there's a significant degree of consistency in the sentencing. At times, for example, if there's a two-year sentence.... We have at least one instance where that was a conditional sentence because the offender was already in the middle of a treatment program in the community rather than within the prison system.

What we want to do is provide the judges with the tools to be able to express society's denunciation more effectively. We also want to provide them with the tools to remove these individuals from society.

I went back and reviewed the comments that members of the opposition as well as government members made at second reading. I noted, at least from your party, Mr. Ménard, that the chief objection to this bill was the fact that Bill C-9 would have been triggered. And as you know, Bill C-9 is no longer in play.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You're trying to gain my support, you rascal. I understand that you have taken a strategic approach, which is understandable, but I know that Bill C-9 was defeated. I'm just wondering how effective the measure would be, but I understand your point. Go ahead.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

If I were you, I would do the same thing.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I make that point because I believe one of the strong arguments that have been made in favour of leaving discretion to impose conditional sentences with the judges was that we need to leave enough room at the bottom end of the sentencing structure to be able to take into account all of the different circumstances that present themselves in court. I would argue that the same reasoning should apply to the maximum sentence at the upper end of sentencing. There needs to be--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Monsieur Ménard, thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

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

I still have concerns--I expressed them last week for the committee--that Bill C-277 in fact could potentially invoke the provisions of Bill C-9, which now, of course, have been radically altered.

Are you a lawyer by background?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes, I am.

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

My concern is that we'd have a judge view Internet luring as a serious personal injury, which would invoke the section--if he or she made that determination--and then it would prevent the use of conditional sentences. I'm a believer that in the proper set of circumstances, conditional sentences, and the treatment that oftentimes goes with those sentences, is one of the significant ways we can deal with the first-time offender in particular.

I wonder if you've looked at this section from that vantage point. I haven't had an opportunity to review cases to see. But knowing the creativity of both our crown and defence lawyers in the country, I can see a crown at some point asking the court to make a determination that luring is a serious personal injury offence, in the sense of the psychological impact it has on a young person, and prevent the judge from using the conditional sentence.

I just wondered if you'd done any research on that aspect of it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I was aware of your concerns, Mr. Comartin. I've had discussions with the parliamentary secretary, and I understand he's consulted with Justice staff, and they have advised him that they believe it's a very remote possibility. Yes, the likelihood is remote that that interpretation would be imposed on this particular amendment, or on section 172.1, if the maximum sentence was increased.

I'm not concerned that it's a serious issue. I understand your concern about allowing for conditional sentences, especially for cases where individuals are in treatment and that treatment is in the community rather than within the prison system.

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

I'll hold my other questions, Mr. Chair, until the staff comes forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fast. I really appreciate your efforts in bringing forward a much-needed bill. I support your efforts fully, and once every member gets a copy of the proposed amendment from your suggestion, I will be moving that some time later in the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Do you want to do it while you have the floor?

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I want to ask a couple of questions, and then I'll do it before my seven minutes is up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

All right. Go ahead with your questions.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I see it's being distributed now. It's very short and it shouldn't take too long to look at.

I get a little nervous when I'm in a house full of lawyers--

[An hon. member]

For good reason.