Justice Committee on Jan. 31st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting 44 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Monday, January 31, 2011. Happy new year to all of you. It's good to be back.

Just by way of explanation, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, December 6, we're considering Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children).

Typically we have the minister to start off our review. Unfortunately, the minister wasn't available until Wednesday, so I took the liberty of scheduling in four witnesses today.

We have, first of all, from the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness, Ellen Campbell as well as Sanderson Layng. Welcome to you.

We have, from the Ontario Provincial Police, Detective Inspector Scott Naylor. Welcome.

We also have, representing the Canada Family Action Coalition, Brian Rushfeldt. Welcome.

And finally we have, from my hometown of Abbotsford, Catherine Dawson. I understand you're representing yourself, although you can certainly explain which organizations you're affiliated with.

We'll begin with the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness. Please start, Ms. Campbell.

[Ellen Campbell, President, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness]

First of all, thank you so much for inviting us here today. Secondly, I can't take my hat off: I have hat head.

I'm here first of all as a victim of sexual abuse. I'm the product of what happens to children who are sexually abused. It's always overwhelming that you are doing something finally about this.

I was sexually abused as a child. It destroyed my life. About 20 years ago, I was going to take my life. By the grace of God, I'm here today. Out of that, I founded an agency called the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness. I never expected it to grow, but I think the reason it has grown to what it is today is that it's so prevalent in our society. The statistics are so high, even the statistics that are quoted: one in three girls, one in six boys—those are the reported children.

I see the damage. So out of this, I started the agency. We now service 200,000 people a year and 130 agencies. We don't get any government funding. We do it just through donations and events.

Eight years ago we got a grant from the justice fund to do round table discussions for laws to protect children. Out of that, we developed “Martin's Hope” report. There are sixty recommendations in it. The number one recommendation for all the agencies, and we mean police, crown attorneys, children's aid societies—every one that was there—was minimum sentencing. It is absolutely critical that we give minimum sentences to pedophiles. Out of that report, as a matter of fact, the age of consent was one of our recommendations adopted by the present government. Word for word, it is the legislation that went through two years ago. So I thank you for that as well.

Minimum sentencing is something for which people don't understand the need. I understand, and I think most people do, that pedophilia is not curable—I don't believe—so we need to protect children. I think the word that has to get out is that we take it seriously. In Florida, for instance, if anyone perpetrates abuse on a child under 11 years of age, they get 25 years minimum sentencing and then electronic monitoring; we give them house arrest.

This is so critical. As I say, I see the damage. It costs our health care $4 billion a year just for women. I'm also an ordained minister; I go into the prisons, and I minister to the women. Eighty-five percent of the women in our prisons have been sexually abused. It's even higher for men. And It's cyclical. We have to start to really take it seriously. I see the damage. I have two messages today from people who are suicidal. I am very encouraged that finally you are doing something about.

It can't be a couple of months. In our report, the minimum sentencing recommendation for child pimping was five years. For child pornography, I believe it was minimum of two years. I encourage you to please not make it a couple of months or a couple of years.

They need, and I would encourage that they get, help when they're in there. We know that not every man or woman who has been sexually abused goes out and abuses, but every abuser has been sexually abused. It is something we need to take very seriously. The minimum sentencing is absolutely necessary—and again, for every crime.

I'm noticing too that it's not getting better. Ever since child pornography has become so rampant, it incites people to commit crime. A good example is the Holly Jones case. It was a crime of opportunity, but he was watching pornography and he acted out. It's inciting someone to go out and commit a crime against a child. Even for possession of child pornography, again there should be minimum sentencing.

I'm so encouraged by this government: that you are doing something about it. We offer our support. We have a national TV show, which I offer to you. With age of consent we did the same thing; we are very big about awareness. We will support you in any way we can: with our TV show; we have a magazine, an e-zine. We are already working on this. We have 12,000 names already in a campaign.

I know that the public are really anxious and are watching what you are going to do. I encourage you, please, on behalf of all the victims, to take this seriously. Make them tougher sentences: not just a month, not just a year, but a couple of years, please, as a minimum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Layng, did you have anything to add? No?

We'll move on to Detective Inspector Scott Naylor.

[Detective Inspector Scott Naylor, Child Sexual Exploitation Investigations, Ontario Provincial Police]

Thank you. Just by way of introduction, my name is Scott Naylor, and I'm the manager of the child sexual exploitation section with the Ontario Provincial Police.

I will be reading from some notes here. Mr. Chair, Madam Clerk, and justice sector colleagues, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-54, the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act.

From the perspective of the Ontario Provincial Police and members of the provincial strategy to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation on the Internet, this bill has the potential to add to the legislative tools we've been provided to keep our communities and our citizens safe, particularly the most vulnerable section of our population, our children. I'll say more about the provincial strategy in a moment.

Investigating child sexual abuse is what I consider to be one of the toughest and most heartbreaking, yet one of the most rewarding assignments a police officer can ever experience. The members of the OPP Child Sexual Exploitation section and our municipal and provincial government partners who investigate child luring, sexual abuse, and exploitation on the Internet work exceedingly hard to protect children and to identify victims from the most heinous activities imaginable. There is no greater satisfaction than to be able to secure the safety of our children and remove them from the harm, abuse, and exploitation they face through Internet predators.

Child luring, sexual exploitation, and sexual abuse on the Internet is organized crime, plain and simple. The provincial strategy to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation on the Internet was created in response to the Government of Ontario's request that police develop a coordinated, province-wide approach to combat Internet crimes against children. The goal of the provincial strategy was for the province to respond to this growing issue as a cohesive, united team, rather than having municipal police services develop different approaches to deal with child pornography, luring, and sexual abuse on the Internet.

Police services in Ontario, through the OACP—the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police—and the OPP, subsequently developed a systematic, victim-driven, all-encompassing approach to the prevention of child sexual abuse and exploitation on the Internet. The provincial strategy aims to effectively address the complete picture of child sexual abuse and exploitation, from the onset of the investigation to offender apprehension and management, effective prosecution and sentencing, victim identification support, and prevention and awareness.

Prior to the provincial strategy, there was no mechanism in place for the vital coordination of intelligence and for investigative support and information sharing. The OPP child sexual exploitation section administers the provincial strategy. The strategy consists of 54 officers from the OPP and 18 municipal police services, with representatives from the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Ministry of the Attorney General, including two designated crown attorneys and a victim services coordinator. Other municipal police services in Ontario have also been involved in assisting with investigations and in making arrests in their respective communities as well.

I can state without question that the investigators assigned to this duty are among the most committed and professional police officers you will find anywhere. They are united by a single purpose: to protect children from being lured into dangerous situations by Internet predators.

Our investigations have also required recent interaction and participation from law enforcement agencies in Canada, and abroad from such agencies as Interpol and including jurisdictions in Europe, Asia, and South America. This global activity matches the way legitimate commercial business is done today in Ontario and in Canada. The exception is that the commodity being traded among these borderless criminals is living, breathing human beings— children in Ontario, Canada, and around the world, children of our communities.

The Internet-based dangers of child luring, sexual exploitation, and abuse are so pervasive that it takes excellence in police work and multi-jurisdictional partnerships to ensure successful investigations. It also takes collaboration with our broader justice-sector partners to bring these criminals to justice. It also takes strong partners who are united by a single goal, to ensure that the victims are brought to safer environments and get the help and services they need and deserve.

Our relationships with our partner agencies are stronger than ever. I want to note our appreciation for the support of senior levels of government in providing us with the legislative tools and resources that we need. We could always use more, but your support is vital to our success. But we are not there yet.

Our caseloads from the past year are testament to that fact. From August 2006 to December 2010, members of the provincial strategy completed 11,537 investigations and laid 3,897 charges against 1,303 individuals. The age of those accused of these vile acts, predominantly male, range from mid-teens to those well past 60 years of age. As staggering as those numbers are, I am also able to report that through our investigations in 2010 and early this year, 121 victims have been identified and rescued. That means more children have been saved and are removed from dangerous situations.

Given the background from an investigative perspective, I'm here to support Bill C-54. The bill provides additional offences that can be laid by police officers that relate to the provision of sexually explicit material to children and the use of telecommunications like the Internet to facilitate the commission of sexual offences against children. These two offences are generally already known to investigators as contributing factors in most of the sexual abuse cases involving children that are already being investigated. However, these have only been considered as aggravating factors in a prosecution until now. While the new offences may have some implications in terms of increasing investigative time or processing charges, this legislation is very much needed and the OPP believes it will serve to better protect those who are most vulnerable, our children. The new offence with respect to providing sexually explicit material transforms what has been considered an aggravating factor in sentencing into an offence, which is also associated with mandatory minimum sentencing. The OPP supports the creation of this offence, given that pornographic materials are often one of the most commonly used methods in grooming children.

On the second new offence, with the evolution of technology the Internet is becoming one of the most commonly used means of luring children for the sole purpose of sexually abusing them. These factors are already part of many sexual abuse investigations, so only a minimal increase in terms of investigative time is likely to be required. While this offence may lead to new investigations where allegations of sexual abuse have not yet been made, this is not anticipated to be significant, and the offence offers increased protection to our children and our youth. The OPP supports increased minimum sentencing for child-specific offences, which eliminates conditional sentencing.

Strong deterrents are necessary as a first step to deter perpetrators from preying on our children, particularly those who are in a parental role or are responsible for children through kinship. The OPP welcomes the proposed new measures, which would require judges to consider conditions that would prohibit suspected, charged, or convicted child sexual offenders from having unsupervised contact with children, as well as unsupervised use of the Internet, when issuing a recognizance to such persons. This legislative change allows charges to be laid if there was an identified breach of this condition. It also puts the onus on the court to impose conditions that restrict Internet use or unsupervised contact with children upon receiving information. Not that long ago, a somewhat similar directive was made that required family court judges to consider past domestic violence prior to making any determination regarding custody and access.

Laws alone won't solve this problem, and we acknowledge that. In Ontario, the Ontario Provincial Police, our police community, and media partners have also taken advantage of many opportunities to continue with the other sometimes forgotten prong of this initiative: education and raising awareness of our kids, their parents, guardians, and caregivers. We unashamedly use the media's help to reach them, and we've had great success in doing this over the last four years. Our private sector partners to keep children safe from harm include traditional media: YTV for one on the educational side with their interactive Internet safety games and promotional announcements. YTV's animated educational and Internet safety public service announcements have been viewed by over 8.75 million people. An initial Internet safety game was played by over 54,000 players, all young people. A second Internet safety game will be launched through YTV's website next week as we observe Safer Internet Day on February 8.

Our partners also include avenues of social media. Facebook Canada helped us with a recent enhancement of the Ontario amber alert so that it would reach even more people when a child is abducted.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're all committed to preventing abuse against children, from our skilled investigators to our technical support staff to front-line officers who execute warrants to the investigators who are called upon to view literally thousands and thousands of horrific images. We also count on our investigators and community service officers to be there to offer hope through greater education and greater awareness.

Members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity to express our thoughts and suggestions from the front lines in the battle against Internet predators and for providing the opportunity to comment on potential new tools to make our children and our communities safer. I wish you every success in your deliberations on Bill C-54.

I'll leave you with this one quote: “Every child matters, everywhere.”

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Rushfeldt. You have ten minutes.

[Brian Rushfeldt, President, Canada Family Action Coalition]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to share some information today that I hope is going to be helpful in your study of Bill C-54.

Over the past ten years, Canada Family Action has been working hard to ask for better protection of children from pedophiles. And we were highly involved in the age-of-consent lobby.

I'd like to commend the government, and that means all parties, for the work they're doing and for the recognition that the child pornography law in Canada, as it's called in the Criminal Code, must be updated and changed. However, I do have to say that we're disappointed with some of the things in Bill C-54. The first one, and my focus, is basically section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

The first major issue is a concern about a total lack of the mention of or the dealing with the term “child pornography”. That term frames for us, for you as lawmakers, for courts, for judges, and for everybody else how we view the horrific crimes of child sex abuse against defenceless children.

Child pornography is an extremely meaningless and in fact misleading term in reference to this kind of crime. As one law enforcement officer said to me, these are not pornographic images we view; these are rape and abuse images that we view. They are images of sexual exploitation and sex abuse.

Research indicates that of those arrested with these materials in their possession, 39% had images of children from ages three to five. Eighty-three percent of these people had images of children age six to twelve. And perhaps the most horrific crime of all, 80% of the images possessed by the people charged, arrested, and convicted were of actual penetration of either a boy or a girl.

Let me quote from an article published by CIRCAMP, which is a European Commission funded network of law enforcement agencies across Europe, including Europol.

A sexual image of a child is “abuse” or “exploitation” and should never be described as “pornography”. Pornography is a term used for adults engaging in consensual sexual acts distributed legally to the general public for their sexual pleasure. Child abuse images are not. They involve children who cannot and would not consent and who are victims of a crime.

I've given the clerk a couple of documents--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Rushfeldt, could I just ask you to slow down a little bit so that our interpreters can keep up with you?

[Brian Rushfeldt]

All right.

I've given the clerk for translation two documents supporting the idea, including the CIRCAMP paper. I also included for your study, which you will receive at some point if you choose, a paper written by INHOPE, which is a European body similar to Cybertip in Canada. I encourage you to look at the first three pages of that report, which deal with the naming, description, and definition of child sex abuse materials.

In Canada, the federal ombudsman just a year ago released a report called Every Image, Every Child, which I hope you will take advantage of, because it is Canadian and it's current. In that 50-page report, the number one recommendation was to change the terminology in the Criminal Code from “child pornography”. Unfortunately, Bill C-54 neglects the issue. And there's no doubt in my mind that this bill actually is probably a bill that really should deal with that particular one, because it does deal with some of the other things from section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

I now want to address what we consider another problem with Bill C-54, in that it fails to address at all the most grievous of crimes under section 163.1, and that is the making of child pornography. The minimum sentence now in section 163.1 and the subsections for making child pornography, which are in force, are a mere one year on an indictable offence and an appalling 90 days for raping, abusing a child, making pornography, or making sex abuse images if it's a summary conviction.

Recently this committee, the House, and the Senate recognized the need to act with respect to the trafficking problem of under-age persons. As you know, Bill C-268 has passed, with a five-year mandatory sentence for those who traffic minors. I think if we can agree that trafficking of a minor is an outrageous crime that requires five years, then it's disturbing to me that we would think or allow the potential of a 90-day sentence for someone who sexually assaults, rapes, or abuses a child to produce these vile materials.

Failing to address the “making” section of 163.1 is a major injustice, I believe, to Canadians and certainly to the victims. It's known that when perpetrators are brought to justice, if justice is applied, it can often bring healing to the victims. Unfortunately, with the kind of sentence we currently have, and in fact I think even the ones suggested in Bill C-54, I don't think justice is being served well in Canada under those terms.

If we compare Canadian sentences to some other countries', it's not much wonder that the RCMP say that Canada has become a destination for pedophiles. In the United States those convicted of producing—producing—child pornography are given a mandatory sentence of 15 years, with a maximum of 30. For possession of child pornography, the minimum is five years, with a maximum of 20. Compare that to the 14-day minimum sentence in Canada for possession. I hope in your study of this bill you'll look at whether in fact judges in our country have ever imposed maximum sentences for child sex crimes under section 163.

My third point relates to the mandatory sentencing that is dealt with in Bill C-54 regarding the two subsections of 163.1 on possession and distribution. There are many examples that I could quote to you of unjust sentences in Canada, particularly when it comes to possession and distribution, where criminals have received as little as 14 days, sometimes slightly longer sentences, often to be served on weekends, or other meaningless conditions.

Some statistical research reports say that as much as 85% of people who possess and view pornography will at some point sexually assault a minor. Another report suggests it is 40%. If we use that lower figure of 40%, we still place an unacceptably large number of children at risk. While our current maximums are comparable to places like Australia and the U.K., our minimums remain shamefully weak.

While we appreciate the strengthening of the sentences in Bill C-54 and the addition of some of the new clauses, our major concern is that the mandatory minimum portions are still fairly weak. We don't believe that is going to provide appropriate safety for children.

Bill C-54 also doesn't really increase the minimum sentence for distribution. The current minimum is one year, and it will continue to be one year on the distribution issue.

Clearly, there must be changes made to Bill C-54 to accomplish meaningful protection and true justice for these defenceless children. We do, however, recognize that this is a great start, and I want to commend the government for bringing this forward. I believe this is the first amendment in a number of years to this section of the Criminal Code. I believe the Criminal Code is far behind the technology.

I'd like to close by saying that our first recommendation is to consider better terminology in the Criminal Code--something rather than “child pornography”. We might suggest “child sex abuse materials”, as has been made and suggested in some other districts around the world.

The second recommendation is to legislate mandatory sentences. We would like to see a three-year mandatory sentence for accessing or possession, a five-year sentence for distribution, and seven to ten years for those criminals who make child sex materials. The making of this stuff is similar and analogous to the concept we use in first-degree murder. These are deliberate, planned, and executed acts against children. They don't happen by chance. What these people are doing is very deliberate.

We believe that incarceration is critical. I know there are people--possibly in this room--who don't agree with mandatory sentences. But in all the discussions I've had with people across Canada, no one has suggested any better method than incarceration for people who commit these crimes. We simply cannot protect children as long as these people are out wandering the streets in our communities.

It has become clear in our assessment of a whole number of Canadian cases that sentences are failing to protect children from sex criminals. So I appeal to you as the lawmakers to take the actions necessary to ensure that the removal of predators from society is for a period appropriate to the crime committed.

I would add, as a former social worker who did some work in some areas of addictions, etc., that a 90-day sentence is not long enough to do remedial training and help a child sex offender. You cannot treat that individual properly in 90 days.

I speak on behalf of the 84,500 Canadians who in the last four months have signed a petition that the House will be receiving within the next couple of weeks. All of those people are pleading with you as lawmakers to act decisively and expeditiously to correct the part of the Criminal Code that's outdated and inadequate, due to Internet technology and the crisis of escalating sex crimes against children in Canada and around the world.

We ask that you do this expeditiously, as I just heard in the House in question period some rumblings again about an election. I hope this bill can get back to the House and put through before an election, because I think our children are clearly more important--and important enough. I know you passed the pardon bill for the Homolka case within two days, so surely within two to five weeks something like this is capable of getting through the House. I ask that all parties work together on that.

Thank you for receiving our comments, the brief we presented, and the reference documents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move to Catherine Dawson for ten minutes.

[Catherine Dawson, As an Individual]

Thank you.

By way of introduction, my name is Catherine Dawson, and I've been engaged in the training of police officers and have worked in the field of criminology for over a decade. My research field is offences committed over the Internet, particularly those involving children. I am a member of the Canadian Police Sector Council and the Society for the Policing of Cyberspace, and I am a research associate with the University of the Fraser Valley. I also sit on the advocacy committee of the Canadian Federation of University Women, and I volunteer at the Abbotsford Police Department as a victims service worker. So I thank you very much for inviting me here today.

I would like to start with some facts. In 2010 I completed a pan-Canadian research project that examined the exponential increase of crimes of exploitation committed on or facilitated by the Internet against children in Canada and globally. Accessing images of child abuse--somewhat understated by the use of the term “child pornography”--child luring, trafficking, and travelling for the purpose of sexual offending are crimes increasingly facilitated by modern, ubiquitous technologies, especially the Internet, around the globe. In part, my research concluded that Canadian criminal law and the sentencing guidelines that follow have not advanced sufficiently to address the investigation, the prevention, and the impact of these crimes or to deal with the offenders who commit them. At the conclusion of that study, I made a number of recommendations related to changing both policy and practice, and I shall do so again today.

The crime: It has been found that approximately five million images of child abuse are in circulation on the Internet, featuring some 400,000 children. Cybertip Canada research indicates that nearly sixty percent of those images that they examine are of children under the age of eight and nearly ten percent are babies and toddlers. Many of these images, which I have seen, reflect torture and bondage. As just one recent example of the scope of the problem, a man arrested in British Columbia last month was found to have upwards of one million sexually explicit images of children on a broad variety of communications devices, including his computer.

How do offenders use the Internet? My research indicates that there are four main ways in which offenders use the Internet to exploit and abuse children. First, they traffic--distribute--images and videos of sexual abuse also known as child pornography. Second, they locate children for the purpose of sexual abuse, to plan their foreign travel, to sexually offend. This is known collectively as “sex tourism”. Or they lure children to real meetings closer to home. Third, they engage in inappropriate sexual communication with children, including what occurs on social networking sites. And fourth, they communicate with like-minded individuals.

Evidence shows that offenders join like-minded individuals in their online communities in an attempt to normalize their behaviour and of course to gain access to the collections of others. They also learn new methods, such as encryption, to avoid detection.

Controversial but thought-provoking research conducted by Rodriguez indicated that a high percentage of viewers of child pornography are or will become contact offenders. Other researchers argue that at least 80% of those who purchase child pornography are contact offenders and child molesters. And much research claims that viewing any pornography can become addictive.

I believe offenders acting in cyber communities of pedophiles must be removed from the immediate and somewhat anonymous gratification that high-speed access and peer-to-peer transfer of files provides. To prevent the ever-increasing numbers of crime, offenders must be disconnected from social networking sites through which they lurk and stalk.

Canadian research finds that three-quarters of a million pedophiles are online at any given time, and evidence shows that sexual offenders often have multiple victims. Those offenders who view images of child abuse often have thousands of images in their collections that date back years and originate from many sources.

In addition to the initial sexual assault, whenever a violent crime is recorded or shown through webcam or video streaming, each time that image is downloaded or viewed, another crime is committed and the victim is exploited again and is re-victimized.

These are my comments on sentencing. Sentences should reflect a reasoned, informed approach that includes respect for the victim, appreciation for the gravity of the impact of the crime, and a recognition of our ever-changing technological and social landscape. Minimum sentencing, as it stands today in Canada, does not achieve this goal. I would argue it does not consider the real and often lifelong impact that offences have on the victims.

Data shows that contact sexual offenders, those who use the Internet to produce images and video, are most often not strangers. The impact on children raised in a home where they have been sexually attacked and exploited is an understudied phenomenon. But Ethel Quayle, one of the world's pre-eminent researchers in the field, states that the process of producing child pornography is a learning instrument in the grooming process whereby a child is de-sensitized to sexual demands and is encouraged to normalize inappropriate activities.

Health Canada has identified over a dozen observable effects of child abuse, including unusually high levels of anger and aggression. These effects have long-ranging implications for the children, their families, and their communities.

Sentence guidelines must integrate realistic societal standards. With the current minimum guidelines, criminals who have committed child pornography offences thousands of times may in fact receive a minimum sentence of 14 days. At present, the minimum sentence guidelines for the sexual touching of a child under 14 are the same. This sentence, in my opinion, serves no realistic intent or purpose, and I would argue that no reasonable person in Canada would think this is an acceptable penalty for the possession and viewing of images of sexual crimes committed against children.

Minimum sentences at present also fail to provide a modicum of rehabilitative potential. Indeed, sentences should offer some reasonable chance for offender change. The statistical data of convicted persons with addictions or addictive personalities is well documented elsewhere. Minimum sentences provide no time for recovery or cognitive treatment. Longer sentences could mean longer community-based programming and denying access to computers and the Internet as a condition of parole or probation.

In British Columbia today, with a minimum sentence of 18 months, day parole could be available under many conditions at three months and full parole at six, but the remainder of the sentence would be served in the community under supervision until warrant expiry. This, I believe, would be a more effective way in which to exercise better supervision and programming options.

This brings me to my recommendations. My recommendations are in support of the new minimum sentence guidelines and they are rooted in the belief that the new guidelines will better serve victims, offenders, and the public.

Victim recognition and respect are enhanced by longer sentences and greater penalties. In fact, Canadian research is being conducted now on child pornography victim impacts. It's being conducted in Canada, and that research should be out soon.

The offender's potential for rehabilitation is increased by serving longer sentences requiring abstention as a condition of parole or probation. A community, be it the real one or the cyber world, where children learn and play is made safer when offenders are denied access.

I believe public confidence in the justice system is greatly enriched when the Criminal Code and the sentence guidelines reflect the reality of today's world.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We're going to move to questions from our members. We'll begin with Mr. Murphy, for seven minutes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Witnesses, I want to thank you for coming today.

I want to state that on this side we're very happy to see a piece of legislation like this. There's substantial agreement with the legislation. We've been here...we just passed our fifth anniversary, and we haven't seen this legislation before. There was a precursor in Bill C-46, which talked about some of the investigative powers that Mr. Naylor was talking about, but by and large we haven't seen a lot in this area. So we're five years down the road and we're tackling this issue.

By way of history, you know that previous Liberal governments brought in I think it was nine offences, mandatory minimums. So this ought not to be a political thing. It ought to be something where we realize that society has grown more in exponential fashion.... Criminals have become more sophisticated and there's a plethora of crime out there that the code is way behind on. I think we can agree with that, at least.

I'm very interested in some of the concepts. There won't be enough time to cover them. One is the definition of child sexual abuse materials. The definition this legislation hinges on is sexually explicit material for the two new offences, and I applaud the Department of Justice, I suspect, for the two new offences and how they're crafted. Normally we have the minister here first and the Department of Justice officials, but we'll get into that on Wednesday. I guess what I'm getting at, my first question, would be do you foresee, Mr. Rushfeldt, that child sexual abuse materials could be combined with sexually explicit material? That would be a question.

I know how these things run--we usually run out of time--so I'll get both of my questions on the floor.

On a different topic, Ms. Dawson, what you argue all made sense to me, frankly, but some of what you say might argue in favour of retaining conditional sentences. We've heard over the years that conditional sentences, as they stand now, allow judges to craft a sentence service that frankly has more conditions on the offender with a view toward rehabilitation or treatment than even a parole situation, and certainly more than at the end of a sentence situation, where a person serves 90 days and is done.

So once we're finished with Mr. Rushfeldt, would you give me your opinion on whether conditional sentences should be omitted entirely or what vehicle you see, other than longer sentences, for the conditions in the community, in treatment, to put into effect the very wise things you said to the effect that you're warehousing an offender with a problem for 90 days--I think a number of people said that--and he's back out on the street without really taking the danger away from himself and from the community.

So perhaps we could hear from Mr. Rushfeldt for a couple of minutes and then Ms. Dawson after.

[Brian Rushfeldt]

I think in response to whether the definition as such could include sexually explicit material, some of what is referenced, some of the new stuff, and changes in Bill C-54, I think it could. Changing the terminology really doesn't change the definition per se. It is a terminology change that I think is key, but the definition that comes in section 163.1 I think could be broadened at the beginning. I think it's somewhat outdated, perhaps, or minimal, and I think it can be an all-in-one definition, which could then capture perhaps some of the things you're suggesting, yes.

[Catherine Dawson]

I'm sorry, I haven't studied conditional sentencing, so I wouldn't really feel informed to comment, but I would say that when I think about the law and particularly this law, there has to be that balance, and I believe that victims and offenders have to see there's that balance.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I want to ask Mr. Naylor something.

Inspector Naylor, I was specifically interested in your comments where you talked about the use of telecommunications to make arrangements to commit a sexual offence. I was drawn to the memory of Bill C-46 and some of the investigative powers that were in there. Of course that was killed by prorogation and politics and so on, but I think your phrase was that we could always use more.

I think we're interested in this committee, as most of us have been here a while, in what more we could do to help police forces. I suppose you're going to go down routes of telecommunication warrants and access, Internet service provider duties to provide information, which is also handled in another bill we've had. What did you mean by that? Do you remember saying that we could always use more?

[Det Insp Scott Naylor]

That's exactly what I meant. With the Internet service providers we deal with right now, we are handcuffed in the work we do--getting law enforcement requests, warrants, and things like that--to find out who is actually perpetrating these offences, or behind these offences. Some changes to the legislation and support for police in these investigative techniques would make our job that much easier, without violating people's rights. If we had the legislative changes behind us to help us do that it would make our job that much easier.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Do you know what I'm talking about when I refer to Bill C-46? Do you remember that? Did that include everything in the basket of what you would need in terms of tools?

[Det Insp Scott Naylor]

It was good legislation, in my opinion. Yes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Okay. Those are my questions. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur Ménard for seven minutes.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our witnesses are here today to speak to us about an issue with many facets. You all seem to be extremely well-prepared. I wish I were. Had I received your documents ahead of time, I could have gone over them. You gave a lot of statistics that I did not have time to jot down. Perhaps you were not told, but the committee members appreciate receiving documentation ahead of time. That has often been the practice of the RCMP when appearing before the committee. Their officials send their documents to the committee ahead of time. That gives us an opportunity to read them and to ask more specific and informed questions.

A few things struck me. Ms. Campbell, if I understand correctly, you have a list of 12,000 names. I am not sure whose names you were talking about. The names of abusers?

[Ellen Campbell]

No, they are people who want to see a change. When we worked on the age of consent we did a lot of awareness work with the public. That's what we do. So we have been reaching out through our community to get names.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Very well. So your list is a sort of petition.

[Ellen Campbell]

Yes. It's not signed. We have votes, but we've just started.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I would like to hear everyone's opinion on this.

What age range does child pornography cover? In French, we say pornographie infantile. From what age to what age is it considered child pornography?