Justice Committee on Feb. 5th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'd like to call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order on Monday, February 5, 2007. With respect to the orders of the day, Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child), is a private member's bill. The member who is bringing it forward is Mr. Ed Fast.

Mr. Fast, you have the floor.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation on Bill C-277.

I believe this legislation is another significant step forward in protecting children across Canada against sexual predators. As the sponsor of this bill, I've been encouraged by the widespread support the bill has received. I am here today to explain the contents of the bill, why Canada needs this legislation, and why I believe this committee, subject to one proposed amendment, should approve this bill.

At second reading, I commended the previous Liberal government for introducing section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. That section makes it a crime for a person to communicate with a child by means of a computer for the purpose of facilitating a number of different criminal offences against that child. This was a significant step forward in protecting our children. It criminalized attempts to sexually abuse a child without actually requiring the child to first suffer harm or damage. Actions that demonstrate a clear intent to use the Internet to commit a sexual offence against a child can result in a conviction. This now allows the authorities to intervene before actual harm occurs to a child.

My private member's bill clearly transcends partisanship inasmuch as it represents a further effort to protect the most vulnerable in our society, namely our unsuspecting and innocent children. I especially want to thank those members of the opposition who have publicly lent their support to this bill.

Bill C-277 is quite simple in that it increases the maximum sentence for the offence of Internet luring from five to ten years in prison. Why increase the maximum sentence for this crime? Like most of you, I have children--four beautiful daughters. They, together with my wife, are the most important people in my life. Annette and I have done everything we can to protect them against those who would take away their innocence and cause them lifelong harm. Thankfully, they are all now moving into adulthood as caring and responsible human beings. But there was a time when they were much more vulnerable than they are now.

As technology continues to improve and change, the challenges that all parents of young children face become more and more daunting. It appears that the Internet is becoming the platform of choice for those who want to sexually abuse our children. Sexual predators are no longer hiding behind bushes in schoolyards and trolling for victims. They now lure children from the privacy of their homes and hide their identities and ages behind the anonymity of their computers.

In turn, Canadian children, as perhaps the most Internet-savvy children in the world, are exposed to predators as a result of inadequate supervision at home and as a result of the use of computers at unsupervised locations. As all of you know, the Internet is a powerful tool for both good and evil. Just as it has a vast potential to educate and improve our lives, the Internet is also a powerful force in perpetrating crime and harming people. Our laws have often not kept pace with these realities.

The current maximum sentence for Internet luring in Canada is five years in prison. In that respect, our country lags far behind others such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, which have all acted to impose criminal sanctions against Internet luring. In those jurisdictions the sentences are significantly higher. In the U.K., for example, federal legislation calls for a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. In Australia, it is 15 years. In the U.S., the federal government enacted legislation that calls for a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison with a maximum of 30 years. Individual states have also introduced their own laws against Internet luring, ranging anywhere from one to 30 years. Commonly the maximum sentence in those states is in the 10-year range. Clearly, if the maximum sentence is a reflection of the importance we place on protecting our children, we need to do more.

Just how prevalent is child luring over the Internet? Statistics are relatively hard to come by in Canada due to the short period during which the luring law has been in place. I can tell you that a November 2000 Ipsos-Reid study that surveyed 10,000 Internet users, aged 12 to 24, showed that 20% said they had actually met in person people who they had become acquainted with over the Internet.

An American study that same year revealed that 19% of youths were sexually solicited over the Internet. Some of you may be aware of Cybertip, a program of Child Find Manitoba. It investigates incidents of Internet-related sexual offences. In its first two years of operation, it was inundated with over 1,200 reports that fell under the category of child sexual exploitation. Ten per cent, or some 120 cases of those, involved Internet luring.

NBC's To Catch A Predator program has illustrated just how immense this problem has become in the United States. The program, which stages sting operations throughout the U.S., found no shortage of material to use. I can certainly provide members of this committee with a website that details, unfortunately in very graphic detail, the particulars of over 130 of these cases that resulted in convictions. A Leger Marketing survey reports that 14% of children admit to chatting with strangers while on the Internet. I also want to refer members of this committee to a June 2001 report from the American Medical Association reporting that 19% of youth interviewed experienced at least one sexual solicitation over the Internet; of these, 3% said the sexual overture was aggressive in nature.

If time permitted, I could regale you with lurid details of the convictions and sentences for Internet luring since section 172.1 of the Criminal Code became the law in Canada. In the interest of time, I'll simply say that the sentences in Canada for a first-time offender typically range from six months to two years in prison, with some involving conditional sentences, usually for reasons of sex offender treatment programs. It's only a matter of time before the courts will be called upon to sentence repeat offenders under the luring law. What should be of great concern to all of us is the likelihood that the relatively short maximum sentence of five years will handcuff the court's ability to sentence reoffenders.

Let me offer a tragic yet current example. The case of Peter Whitmore, although not a case of luring, mesmerized the nation for several months last year as police hunted down this predator, who had abducted two young boys. Mercifully Mr. Whitmore was caught, but only after allegedly committing numerous sexual offences against those boys. I'd like to refer very briefly to his history.

If you go back in time to 1993, Mr. Whitmore was convicted of abduction and five sexual offences involving four young boys in Toronto. He got a year and four months in custody.

In 1995, he struck again. This time it was an eight-year-old girl and a nine-year-old boy from outside of Toronto. He received five years in jail for those sexual offences.

Less than a month after his release from that imprisonment, Whitmore was found in a downtown Toronto motel with a 13-year-old boy. He was again sentenced to one year in jail for breaching a court order.

In 2002, a Toronto judge sentenced Whitmore to three more years in jail for probation violations, because he had fled British Columbia after being found in the company of a five-year-old boy.

In March 2004 a National Parole Board report notes that clinicians believe Whitmore has 100% probability of recidivism. Fast forward to July 22: Mr. Whitmore resurfaces in Winnipeg, where he is alleged to have offended against a 14-year-old boy. In July 30 of that year, RCMP issue an amber alert for a 10-year-old Saskatchewan boy who they believe has been abducted by Whitmore.

You know the story. The police were finally able to track down Mr. Whitmore. He's been charged with 15 sexual offences against children. That's the background in which we have to consider this offence and this bill.

My real fear is this, members of the committee. Here's a man who's already been sentenced repeatedly for terms of up to five years in prison for previous sexual offences. Even then, a five-year prison sentence did not deter this predator from seeking out young children again. He spent further time in jail for repeated parole violations.

Let's assume that Mr. Whitmore is again released from prison. If he then resorts to Internet luring to satisfy his urges and is charged under the luring law, the maximum sentence he could receive is the current maximum of, yes, five years, a term that has previously failed to deter him from molesting children.

For all of us, this issue is not only repeat offences under section 172.1, but also the ability to properly sentence the Peter Whitmores of this world, where luring is only a culmination of a long history of serious sexual crimes against children and others. I would also suggest to you that increasing the maximum sentence for luring to 10 years more aptly reflects the seriousness of this offence when compared to other arguably lesser offences under the Criminal Code. If we believe that violent offences against the most vulnerable in our society, especially our children, warrant stronger denunciation, that denunciation must be reflected in the sentences we impose. However, comparison of a number of other Criminal Code offences indicates that the five-year maximum sentence for luring does not represent the degree of denunciation that Canadians would expect.

A quick comparison of some offences that carry a maximum sentence of 10 or more years in prison is instructive.

I refer you to sections 151 and 152 of the Criminal Code, interference and touching for a sexual purpose. Exposing a child to bestiality also has a maximum sentence of 10 years or more. For incest, it's similar. For sexual assault, it's similar. Then we move to some offences that may not involve harm to a child or may not even involve harm to any person. Parental abduction, under section 283, means that a parent who takes a child from another parent--in other words, a spouse or former spouse--is subject to a maximum sentence of 10 years for abduction. Yet in that case one could argue that it may not be even harmful to the child for that abduction to have taken place--at least, not physically harmful to that child.

Simply distributing child pornography, under section 163, again carries a maximum term of 10 years. That again is a non-personal injury offence.

Now I'll refer you to two offences that put it into even more stark contrast. Fraud over $5,000 draws a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Did you know that the theft of cattle, under subsection 338(2), which is another non-personal injury offence, draws a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison? Clearly, when viewed in the context of these comparative offences, the luring of our children for sexual purposes cries out for at least similar, if not harsher, treatment. My heart tells me that the protection of our children is worth much more than the theft of cattle or simple fraud involving $5,000 or more.

I suggest to you a further argument in favour of increasing the maximum sentence for luring. By increasing the maximum sentence to 10 years, we provide the courts with the tools to remove from society for longer periods of time the most serious of habitual sexual offenders--the Peter Whitmores of our country, if you will. Common sense dictates that someone who repeatedly shows a clear intention to commit crimes against our children will not commit those crimes as long as he is incarcerated.

I would also suggest that an increased sentence for luring is justified by the unique nature of sexual offences against children. Many of those who prey on children are habitual offenders and often cannot or refuse to be treated. In other words, some of these offenders will remain a risk to their communities for the rest of their lives. A maximum sentence that delivers an enhanced opportunity for the courts to remove these habitual offenders from our communities clearly serves the interests of our children.

Members of the committee, I took great interest in the comments made by a number of opposition members during the debate at second reading. One criticism of the bill that I found to be most helpful was the implied suggestion from the Liberal member from Mississauga that the maximum sentence for the summary conviction offence of luring was too low and should be increased. In the spirit of those comments, I am prepared to submit for your consideration an amendment to the bill that does exactly that—namely, increases the maximum sentence upon summary conviction from six to 18 months in prison.

I believe that has been circulated, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I don't have a copy of it in front of me, but I understand it's out and about.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary has that. Mr. Moore, do you have that amendment?

Perhaps I can just read it into the written record. It's an amendment to section 172.1—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Excuse me, Mr. Fast. We're going to need a copy of that amendment in both languages. I know it's quite short, but we should have a copy for the committee members.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I don't have a copy of it, just the wording of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The wording is fine, if we can make some copies of that.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

It's my private piece of paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Pritchard, my assistant, will take it and make sure it's done right.

Mr. Fast, go ahead, please.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

In any event, Mr. Chair, thank you.

Just to read into the record what I believe the amendment will entail, it's an amendment to paragraph 172(2)(b), which would read as follows:

an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

The net effect of that amendment is simply to increase the maximum sentence under the summary conviction offence from six to 18 months.

Members will also note that as a result of Bill C-9 being previously amended by this committee, judges will still have available to them the use of conditional sentences in appropriate cases of luring convictions. Presumably this will simplify your consideration of the luring bill.

Colleagues, my private member's bill does not pretend to be a sweeping criminal justice reform. It simply addresses an apparent anomaly in the sentencing provisions of section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. I fully expect, however, that it represents a significant and tangible improvement in the sanctions available against those who repeatedly violate or attempt to violate the innocence of our precious children.

It's our job as members of this House to ensure that we do everything within our lawful power to provide our justice system with the legal tools to keep sexual predators away from our children. It's very simple: we have a job to do; let's do it well.

Parents also have a job to do. Government can only do so much. We must continue to encourage parents to listen to and understand their children, inform themselves about parental controls on their child's computer, keep their child's computer in a public place, stay involved, remain vigilant, and understand that the Internet is not as safe as many may have assumed.

Let me summarize. Bill C-277 achieves the following. First, it condemns in the strongest terms the sexual exploitation of our children. Second, it brings the maximum sentence for luring into line with other sexual offences in the Criminal Code, which commonly provide for 10-year maximum sentences or more. Third, it elevates the seriousness of the luring offence to a level at least equal to that which involves no physical harm to persons—for example, fraud over $5,000, theft of cattle, and in some cases, of course, parental abduction. Fourth, it improves the tools that judges have available to remove from society habitual offenders who represent an ongoing and sometimes permanent danger to our children. Fifth, the bill provides a more flexible tool to sentence offenders for whom luring is just the culmination of a long history of sex-related crimes.

The message of Bill C-277 is very clear. Children are precious, they're vulnerable, and they're worthy of the highest protection. They deserve nothing less.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Fast.

I do have one question regarding some clarification on the change for the summary conviction side. You're seeking to increase the summary conviction punishment to 18 months from the usual six months, and under summary conviction it's a fine plus six months or both. It is a fine and/or six months. Is the fine still remaining, or are you seeking only a penalty of incarceration?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would defer to the parliamentary secretary or perhaps justice department officials. I would assume we are also including the usual fine as part of that, but I certainly would welcome any suggestions in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Mr. Lee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Congratulations to the member on moving his bill forward, stickhandling it through the House and to committee. As the member knows, I didn't immediately buy into support for this bill when I spoke in the House some weeks ago. It doesn't mean I don't support firm provisions in the Criminal Code for dealing with children.

Perhaps there are a lot of Criminal Code offences for which one might rhetorically engage in a discussion and actually get people feeling that we might as well just make every sentence a maximum of life imprisonment and let the judges decide what the real penalty should be, because we're just dealing with maximum penalties in this case.

In his remarks, he has made ample reference to some real-life scenarios, other Criminal Code sections. Would the member concede that the luring offence in the code is simply a communicating offence in the sense that—not that any offence is simple—it doesn't involve any of the other criminal actions that the code already criminalizes, such as kidnapping, abduction, sexual touching, sexual assault in all its forms, and all other assaults and any other number of criminal actions that might follow a communicating offence? Does he concede that what this particular section of the Criminal Code that he's trying to amend does is criminalize the communication for the purposes of what I would call a sexual seduction?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes.

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

Does he concede that there are other criminal acts that could follow the communicating?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes, I would.

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

Okay, if that's the case, he then concedes that for a communicating offence he would like to have a maximum sentence available of 10 years. That's essentially it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes, because as you will admit as well, Mr. Lee, the communication offence is actually related to a number of offences set out in the Criminal Code. There are different subsections to section 172.1 referencing different age groups--14, 16, and I believe 18 years. For the most part, those offences relate to communicating for the purpose of committing an offence, in most cases a sexual offence.

I suppose my response to you would be this. We have to treat offences against children somewhat differently since, unlike adults, children don't have the same level of maturity as we have to be able to identify risk, to be able to remove themselves from or protect themselves against risk. They will often not have the ability to discern between what is safe and what isn't. When you couple that with the fact that, more and more, we have children who are in home environments that don't provide the necessary supervision or monitoring that would protect these children, I would suggest to you that the maximum sentence we make available to judges in sentencing predators needs to reflect that.

I would hope our argument would not be that we will only impose a maximum sentence of 10 years or more when a child is actually harmed. If indeed the communicating with a child clearly indicates an intent to harm a child, I believe that a maximum sentence of 10 years is appropriate in those circumstances.

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

I'm not making a case to defend an individual who's out there on the Internet, but if the individual is communicating with an 18-year-old there's nothing illegal about it. If a person is communicating with a 17-year-old on the Internet there is something illegal about it. You're saying it is appropriate and a good thing to do to change the sentence from a five-year maximum to a ten-year maximum because that would make a difference. You wouldn't be doing this if it didn't make a difference, I'm sure.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That's correct.

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

You wouldn't be doing it just for a political reason; you'd be doing it because you felt it would make a difference presumably in deterrence. Is there any other purpose you seek here?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I think I enunciated a number of them, and deterrence is one of those. But another one is providing our courts with the ability, with the tools, to remove from society those who represent a clear danger to the most vulnerable, namely our children.

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

This is just the communicating.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I understand that.