Justice Committee on March 22nd, 2007

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

No.

[Carrie Kohan]

There was some kind of...he stated that if you were to get that then there would be something else. You said, “It is within our legal rights to do that.” That's when I realized that once again this is a bargaining tool. We saw it with the sex offender registry: “Give us the gun registry and you can have a sex offender registry.” It was always a bargaining tool with the Liberal Party when it came to children's rights .

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Mrs. Kohan.

I find your reading of the facts quite interesting.

I'd like to hear from Mr. Cannavino.

[Tony Cannavino]

I had no idea this morning that I would be sitting in on a debate as though I were an elected representative in the House of Commons. Thank God, I've tried to avoid that as much as possible. You never can tell what the future may hold, but let's just say that that is not the part I find most interesting in the work of Parliament, although sometimes, when I hear the debates I would like to get involved.

We have been doing this for years now. Perhaps you noticed that our presentation this morning was quite brief. It was intentional on our part, because we knew that there would be representatives from other associations which were going to point in every way possible to the necessity and the urgency of adopting this bill. You frequently hear from us and we get the impression that we are the ones driving all of the issues. Although I'm not surprised, I must say that I am pleased to have heard from representatives of various associations and police forces.

As to what may have happened in the past, I repeated on several occasions... Some may at times think that I am a prophet of doom, predicting bad things to come, pessimistically predicting the future. Look, there is an opportunity here to do something now. Regarding what happened in the past, I continue to hope that one day, it will end. We need strong legislation to protect our youth. Our youth are our future. Yet, they're being exploited. I cannot fathom the idea that Canada would be considered a haven for sexual predators. I would go even further than that. Every time I grant an interview, it drives me crazy: the Criminal Code refers to sexual offenders. Offenders! These are sexual predators. In the Code they are called offenders. This has got to stop. At some point we're going to have to stop saying that we don't want to imitate the Americans, the United States. I couldn't care less about that comparison. I'm talking about our youth, young Canadians whom we have a duty to protect. It is time to act. It seems to me that there is a consensus here. I do not want to get involved in your discussion as to how long, how many months, how many years this issue has been dragging on. I simply hope that there will be consensus within this committee to pass the bill swiftly.

We are also dealing with the age of consent and harsh minimum sentences. We must send a message to those who think that if they come here they can avoid the type of punishment they would get in other countries, that Canada may even be a country where they could serve their time in the community. Ms. Kohan was very explicit on this point: the Americans would be locked up for years. Yet, they come to shopping malls in Canada to recruit. There are limits!

I often hear comments about people going to the Dominican Republic for sex tourism. It is weird, but now, in other countries, people are talking about Canada in those terms. When people talk about sex tourism, Canada is now on the list of destinations. This has to got to stop.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Cannavino.

Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Cannavino, I will carry on with you, if I may. There are two aspects to your brief. First of all, you are raising a very important argument when, on page 2, you state that in the end there are a number of countries that have raised the age of consent. What I find interesting is that it is not a left-right issue. I might mention here countries like the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, which have progressive social policies. You have clearly told us this morning that the issue of the age of protection is not a political one, but one that involves the safety of children. I thank you for having made that argument, which is very significant from my perspective.

As you know, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill. What I want to understand, however, is what the shortcomings are of in existing provisions of the Criminal Code concerning luring a child. You will agree with me that these provisions are rather contemporary. What are the shortcomings and why are there not more charges laid?

I also want statistics. You must admit that even if we support the bill, when the minister appeared before us yesterday, for example, he did not have much information to give us. I do not object to the bill being passed as quickly as possible, but it is our job as legislators to support it on the basis of convincing and conclusive evidence. We do not want to keep to generalities.

What is happening that is making Canada such a welcoming haven for these people who, on the Internet... The common thread in all of your testimony is that the gateway in the area of sexual exploitation seems to be the Internet, the computer. How is it that we have had provisions on child luring since, to my knowledge 2002 or 2001, and that we find ourselves in a situation such as the one you described in your brief?

[Tony Cannavino]

There are various and rather complex reasons for that. That is indeed the reason why we say that it is not enough to simply increase the age. It is very important to increase the age of consent from 14 to 16, because 14 is really a very young age, at which people are vulnerable. Furthermore, our witness from the RCMP stated earlier that people are still children at that age and they have not yet reached a level of emotional maturity. At the age of 16, there is a chance that the person has moved on to another stage of their adolescent life where they are more prepared to assert themselves and are more aware of the dangers that lie in wait. There is that aspect.

We must also have stiffer sentences. Obviously, we must ensure that the people who will still try to lure these youths will not find themselves in a system that sentences them to two years in prison.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Under the Criminal Code, at this point in time, what is the sentence for child luring as far as you know?

[Tony Cannavino]

It is a maximum, but there is no minimum. The other problem we are targeting and that we were explaining is that in our system, time spent in detention before sentencing counts double and even, in certain places, triple. Therefore, we find ourselves with people who have been sentenced to 2 years, to 18 months, to 3 years, and because they have had to wait a year or a year and a half before getting to court, they are free the day after their sentencing.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I agree with you that that makes no sense.

[Tony Cannavino]

We must also determine what the allowable age difference would be. We do not want to criminalize or judicialize relations between young people. On the other hand, we must ensure that the age difference is not too big. Let us say that the age difference was five years: a 16-year old going out with someone who was 20 or 21, at the most, would be in the normal range. Beyond that, we run the risk of there being exploitation, given the different levels of maturity between the two people. That is why we said in our presentation—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Therefore, the luring of children on the Internet component was not very useful in the face of the phenomenon that you described. I agree that we should add new provisions to the Criminal Code, to change it, but I am surprised that this phenomenon is so rampant on the Internet when child luring charges can be brought.

[Tony Cannavino]

That is the easiest thing. In fact, this gentleman gave the explanation why. Go to the chat rooms and simply pretend that you are a young person; you should do the experiment. What he said is true, it is astounding. A few seconds after having hit “enter”, you'll get a response, a hit. It is unimaginable. Therefore, there are some who feel they are protected.

First of all, they do not feel exposed because they do not identify themselves, there's no camera, and the first steps are anonymous. The luring must be done by the police; they must try and trap the person. And so, it is a backwards process. These people feel free to exploit because there is no coercion, the punishment is not severe, and they are targeting children who are 14 years old. The first thing they will say is that they did not know the person was only 13, but the difference between 13 and 14-year-olds is not great; they are children.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I believe the person beside you wants to say something.

Did you want to speak to the issue, or should we give the floor to the RCMP?

[Carrie Kohan]

I just want to add something about conditional sentences. That is an issue with pedophilia. We have so many pedophiles who are convicted and literally get house arrest. So what do they get to do? They get to stay in their houses with their computers and have access to the Internet yet again.

We would really like to see a minimum sentence brought in along with the raising of the age of consent, because those two together are the only way we're going to be able to combat the issue that we are now a pedophile haven.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

If someone like that is in the community, a judge should ban the recognized pedophile from having access to a computer.

[Carrie Kohan]

Yes, but then you're putting a pedophile back into the community and he has access to children. Then you have another issue where you need to have parole officers and more staff to monitor. We are now a pedophile haven, and in order to combat that we will have to get hard on this crime, because everyone else around us already is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Just very quickly, Mr. Cannavino.

[Tony Cannavino]

If we do not set any conditions, such as minimum sentences, for example, I'll give you an example of what will happen before the courts. It will not be a mandated reaction, it will depend on the goodwill of the presiding judge. And we see all kinds! The best example would be that of the murderer of Valérie Gignac. A judge had banned him from being in possession of a weapon for a period of ten years, except during the hunting season. So when we talk about the Internet or a computer, I would say to you that not everyone... Not everyone sees things the same way. Some people's logic is very skewed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Cannavino.

Mr. Comartin.

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

Could I ask each one of you if you were consulted by the minister's office or the Department of Justice before this legislation was tabled in the House?

Mr. Cryer, were you consulted?

[Doug Cryer]

No, we weren't consulted. Raising the age of consent has been a longstanding policy of the EFC for a number of years.

[Det Sgt Kim Scanlan]

I believe the Toronto police have worked with former justice minister Toews on this, but not me, not recently.

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

Ms. Kohan, I know you were, because you here with the minister yesterday.

Mr. Cannavino, I assume you were as well.

[Tony Cannavino]

It was the other way around. We were for years advocating for this--