Justice Committee on Feb. 14th, 2011

Evidence of meeting #48 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was research.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children)

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Vernon Quinsey Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual

Hubert Van Gijseghem Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual

R. Karl Hanson Senior Research Scientist, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Ed McIsaac Interim Director, Policy, John Howard Society of Canada

Richard Haughian Vice-President, Church Council on Justice and Corrections

Lorraine Berzins Community Chair of Justice, Church Council on Justice and Corrections

4:05 p.m.

Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem

There is a paradox there. Everyone would agree. Well, let's not exaggerate. Rather, let's say that much research indicates that children who are abused within the family are more scarred than those who are abused by strangers. That said, intrafamilial abusers are less likely to reoffend than extrafamilial abusers.

That is a paradox. If the sentence is based on the impact on the child, we should punish those who have committed incest more harshly; but if the sentence is based on the risk of reoffending, they should be less harshly punished. That is the paradox.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Woodworth for seven minutes.

February 14th, 2011 / 4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to our witness for being here with us.

I've been favourably impressed by the manner in which you have testified. You have been professional and cautious, and you do not overstate. Many times we see witnesses who are here to pursue certain interests of their own, and they are less cautious. So I thank you for that.

I note that you have both been careful to qualify your evidence by saying you are not jurists. I assume that neither of you is a lawyer. You are psychologists, so I mean this question in the best sense, just to understand where you're coming from. Have you actually read the bill we are here to study, Bill C-54?

4:10 p.m.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual

Dr. Vernon Quinsey

I read the briefing summary. I didn't read the whole thing, but I read excerpts.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Some of it.

And Professor Van Gijseghem?

4:10 p.m.

Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem

I also only read the briefing.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

All right. I understood at least one of you to be raising concerns about mandatory minimum penalties with respect to the possession of pornographic material. I forget which one of you it was. Am I correct in understanding that you have some misgivings about mandatory minimum penalties for simple possession of pornographic material? You have to say yes or no for--

4:10 p.m.

Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem

Yes, that's what I said.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Merci.

I should say there is a time limit on me, so I will try to ask questions that can be answered simply. I myself am not a psychologist, so large psychological explanations will be of less use to me than legal explanations may be to you.

In this bill, for example, we have created a new offence, which would impose a mandatory minimum penalty on anyone who, through telecommunications, arranges with a second person to commit a sexual offence against a child--in other words, a kind of conspiracy. Would your concern about mandatory minimum penalties extend to that sort of offence?

4:10 p.m.

Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem

Personally, no.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you.

And you, sir?

4:10 p.m.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual

Dr. Vernon Quinsey

I don't have a concern about that if the mandatory minimum is short.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Yes, in this case 90 days, I believe. One year on indictment, 90 days on summary.

Also, we have created a new offence that would impose a mandatory minimum penalty upon anyone who provides sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating a sexual offence against that child; in other words, to lure the child. Would your concern regarding mandatory minimum penalty exist with respect to such an offence?

4:10 p.m.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual

Dr. Vernon Quinsey

I think I would have some reservations. My reason is, if the child is 16, 16 is the age of consent, so it would have to be somebody who is 15--

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Correct.

4:10 p.m.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual

Dr. Vernon Quinsey

--and if it excludes age mates and close--

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Correct, only if it were an offence, that the facilitating is of an offence, so it would exclude close-in-age persons. Are you okay with that, then?

4:10 p.m.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual

Dr. Vernon Quinsey

Okay with that.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Merci.

Then, of course, we have also now imposed a minimum mandatory penalty upon those who commit an aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age. Would either of you or both of you be okay with a mandatory minimum penalty in such a case?

4:10 p.m.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual

Dr. Vernon Quinsey

Yes, I'm okay.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

And you, Professor?

4:10 p.m.

Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal, As an Individual

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem

The same.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Bien.

There are a number of other sections in the act that you would see deal with serious sexual offences of this nature, which impose mandatory minimum penalties.

I was curious, I think it was Dr. Quinsey who mentioned that the incidence of child sexual assault is reducing. We heard evidence from the manager of the child sexual exploitation investigations section of the Ontario Provincial Police that in four years alone that unit has conducted 11,537 investigations; it has laid 3,897 charges against 1,303 individuals.

I don't know, Dr. Quinsey, whether those figures would surprise you or not, but I want to place that in the context of what I think I heard, in that someone said these offences are reducing. Has it been worse than that in the past?

4:15 p.m.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Queen's University, As an Individual

Dr. Vernon Quinsey

Yes, necessarily so, if the rate is reducing.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

So this is a good thing that we've got it down to these numbers. Is that what you're saying?