Justice Committee on Feb. 16th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 49 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and for the record, today is Wednesday, February 16, 2011. This meeting is being televised.

You have before you the agenda for today. We're continuing our review of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children). After we hear three witnesses who are before us right now, we'll move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Before we move forward, there are two items.

We received a communication from a witness who testified at last Wednesday's meeting with a clarification of his status. Mr. Randall Fletcher was shown on the meeting agenda as representing the Office of the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island. You may recall that the chair sought to confirm his representation of the AG during Mr. Fletcher's testimony, at which time Mr. Fletcher appeared to confirm that he understood his presentation had been reviewed by the minister. Last Thursday, Mr. Fletcher sent a clarifying note to the clerk. I'll read it verbatim:

Prior to my videoconference presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights yesterday I advised the person I report to about the request to present. I was not certain if this was being passed on to the minister and had not had a chance to pursue the matter before the presentation. When I was introduced as representing the Department of the Attorney General for P.E.I., I thought perhaps there had been some communication to that effect, as I had not represented myself as doing so in my own communications. As of this morning I believe that the matter was not put before the minister and would like to clarify that the opinions I expressed in the session may, or may not, represent those of the department. I will attempt to get further clarification on this but do not want any current misunderstanding to continue.

That's the end of his quote. That's just for the record. He wanted us to ensure that it was on the record.

The second item, before we move to our witnesses, is that you have before you the eighth report of our Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. At that meeting we decided to move to Bill C-4 next, meaning the Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments, and it was agreed that we were going to ask approximately 21 witnesses to either come for a first time or to return for further testimony. We've agreed that the panels will consist of no more than three groups apiece per hour. That's your eighth report. I believe it accurately reflects what we settled on there.

Do we have a mover for that report? It is Monsieur Lemay.

(Motion agreed to)

Moving to our witnesses, we have with us Julie McAuley, Craig Grimes, and Mia Dauvergne. They are representing Statistics Canada and are all coming back to testify.

You know the process. I don't know if you've prepared remarks. Would you like to start? Then we'll open the floor to questions from the members.

[Julie McAuley, Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada]

Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee on the act to protect children from sexual predators.

Statistics Canada does not take a position on the bill.

The presentation we have prepared contains our most recent data on the sexual offences committed against children that are the subject of this bill. They include only the sexual offences against children that have come to the attention of the police and the courts.

The version we are presenting to you today differs slightly from the advance copy you received. During the verification process we noticed an anomaly with data received from Quebec; that anomaly has been corrected. Slides 4, 5, and 6 of the presentation were affected.

All data sources used are clearly indicated on the slides, as are any pertinent data notes. My colleagues, Ms. Mia Dauvergne and Mr. Craig Grimes, will help answer any questions.

Please turn to slide 2 in the presentation.

Using data received from police services across Canada, we can examine trends in police-reported incidents of sexual offences committed against children. Over the last ten years, the rate of overall police-reported sexual offences committed against children has remained relatively stable.

Sexual offences committed against children can be grouped into two categories: sexual assault and other sexual offences.

The rate of police-reported sexual assaults committed against children has been generally declining since 2005, while the rate of other sexual offences committed against children has increased in the last two years.

On slide 3, we can examine the geographical variation in the rates and number of victims of police-reported sexual offences against children.

In 2009, the highest rates of these offences in Canada were in the north. While rates were used to ensure that trends are not biased by variations in populations, it is important to note that the number of incidents of these offences in the north is considerably lower than in most provinces.

Slide 4 provides an overview of the ages of police-reported sexual assaults against children. In general, for police-reported sexual offences committed against children and youth, we know that females are more likely than males to be the victims and that teenage girls are the most at risk. This finding holds true for victims of police-reported offences of child sexual assault.

In 2009, more young females than males were victims of police-reported—

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Could you slow down a little bit? The interpreters are unable to follow.

[Julie McAuley]

Oh, forgive me.

More incidents were reported of females aged 12 to 17 being the victims than for those in other age groups, whereas the number of incidents for boys remained relatively stable regardless of age.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I think the witness knows she has to slow down.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

The problem was that we were no longer getting the translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Please proceed.

[Julie McAuley]

Slide 5 provides an overview of the ages of victims of police-reported other sexual offences committed against children. While females are more likely than males to be victims, the distribution of the victim's age is different from what we saw on slide 4 for sexual assaults. While the number of incidents for boys remains relatively stable regardless of age, the risk of victimization for girls peaked at age 13.

The next three slides show 2009 police-reported data on the relationship between victims and those accused of committing a sexual offence against a child. As you will see, as children age, the accused-victim relationship generally shifts from parents and other family members being the most frequent perpetrators to acquaintances being the most frequent.

Slide 6 focuses on children aged 0-5 years. Here we see that parents and other family members comprise the majority of accused persons. In 2009, almost 6 in 10 boys and close to 7 in 10 girls were victimized by a family member.

On slide 7 we look at the accused-victim relationship for reported sex offences involving children 6 to 11 years old. As you can see, while boys and girls in this age range were still most likely to be victimized by a parent or other family member, the proportions were less than those for younger children. In contrast, 6- to 11-year-olds, particularly boys, were more likely than younger children to be victimized by an acquaintance. In other words, the relationship is beginning to shift from family members to acquaintances.

Slide 8 shows the accused-victim relationship for police-reported sex offences involving children 12 to 17 years old. Here we see an even greater drop in the proportion of children who were victimized by a family member and an increase in those victimized by acquaintances and strangers. These data also show that teenage boys are about three times more likely than teenage girls to be victimized by an authority figure such as a teacher or a coach.

During the teenage years we also see a substantial increase in the proportion of sexual victimizations committed by strangers to about 10% for boys and 14% for girls.

The number of sexual assault and other sexual offence cases completed in adult criminal courts in Canada has remained relatively stable during the last five years. In 2008-2009, there were approximately 7,400 sexual assault charges in Canada, which were contained in approximately 5,000 court cases.

Sexual assault data collected from criminal courts does not permit us to differentiate between those committed against children and youth and those committed against adults. As a result, it is not possible to identify the ages of the victims in sexual assault cases using data collected from adult criminal courts. However, we know from police-reported data that approximately half of sexual assaults committed in Canada in 2009 were committed against children. The vast majority of these were sexual assaults level 1.

In 2008-2009, there were approximately 7,200 charges of other sexual offences, contained in approximately 3,300 court cases.

Cases involving child sexual offences often include charges for other offences as well. Slide 10 shows the proportion of guilty findings for charges of both sexual assault and other sexual offences, regardless of whether this was the most serious offence in the case.

In 2008-2009, 32% of cases contained a charge of sexual assault and 48% of cases contained a charge of other sexual offences resulting in a finding of guilt. These proportions have remained relatively stable since 2000-2001.

Slide 11 shows the difference in the types of sentences imposed for cases of sexual assault. In 2008-2009, custody was the most serious sentence imposed in approximately 55% of cases involving sexual assault. This represents a slight increase from the year prior. While the proportion of conditional sentencing has remained relatively stable since 2000-2001, the use of probation has been decreasing.

As we can see from the next slide, most custody sentences imposed in cases with a guilty sexual assault charge were for a term longer than three months but less than two years. The median length of custody for these cases was approximately one year.

Since 2000-2001, between 23% and 27% of cases with guilty sexual assault charges involved sentencing to custody for two years or more—which is federal custody—compared with only 4% of adult guilty cases in general. These longer custody lengths may indicate the seriousness with which the courts treat these cases.

Slide 13 shows the difference in the types of sentences imposed for cases of other sexual offences. In 2008-2009, custody was the most serious sentence imposed in approximately 65% of cases involving other sexual offences. This is an increase over the year prior and a continuation of the upward trend seen since 2003-2004. The use of probation has declined since 2003-2004, and in 2008-2009 it was the most serious sentence in approximately 18% of cases involving other sexual offences. The use of conditional sentencing has also decreased over the last four years.

On slide 14 we see that the distribution of custody sentences for other sexual offences has been changing since 2005. There has been an increase in the use of custody with a term of three months or less and a decrease in the use of custody of longer than three months but less than two years. This change began in 2005 and coincides with the introduction of mandatory minimum penalties for several of the offences in this category.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee. This ends my presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. I'm assuming both Ms. Dauvergne and Mr. Grimes are there as resources to answer questions.

[Julie McAuley]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right.

We'll begin the questioning with Mr. Murphy.

You have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses. That was a very interesting report, and I'm going to thank you for the breadth of it in timing. My generalization is that most of the slides in the deck show a fairly static situation with respect to sex crimes.

One question I have is a general one. There has been a lot of publicity about unreported crimes. Now, you're Statistics Canada, so I'll let you answer it in your own time and in your own way, but I suspect you can't really tell us what crimes are not reported; at least, they're not in this deck. I'll let you answer that at the end, because I have more specific questions from your presentation.

On page 13 we see an increase of custodial sentences by a significant amount—I'm going to say 15% or more—after 2006. I'm going to guess that it has something to do with some legislation, but you can maybe help me there. The green line spikes up.

The blue line on page 14 is decreasing. That's for sentences of more than three months and less than two years. I think you said it was declining because of mandatory minimum sentences that were introduced in 2005.

Can you clarify? You said it, but I'm not sure I got what the relationship would be. Can you explain that a little further?

[Julie McAuley]

I'll start with your last one and ask Mr. Grimes to interject as needed.

What I said on that slide was that it “coincides” with the introduction of mandatory minimums; I did not say it was a result of the introduction of mandatory minimums.

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

You say it coincides, but you can't say that there's a relationship?

[Julie McAuley]

I cannot comment on the relationship between the statistics and the legislation.

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

We're supposed to figure out whether that is or is not just a fluke or something.

[Julie McAuley]

I can only comment on the data.

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

I understand.

You're talking about mandatory minimums that were brought in in 2005. Is that the 14 days, or which mandatory minimums are you talking about?

[Craig Grimes, Chief and Advisor, Courts Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada]

Those would be the mandatory minimums brought in in 2005, which were the 14-day and 30-day ones. They are shorter mandatory minimums than some other mandatory minimums that currently exist in the Criminal Code.

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

I should know this, but might a custodial sentence of more than three months and less than two years have been used before 2005, instead of a 14-day minimum? Is that possible?

[Craig Grimes]

Yes, it is possible, but prior to 2005, it would also be possible for probation or a conditional sentence to be a sentence for those offences. After 2005, conditional sentencing would not have been a valid sentence.

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

A mandatory minimum is a custodial sentence, right?

[Craig Grimes]

Yes, that's right.

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

So it's probably represented by the green line, which is three months or less. That's probably what that is. We're left to figure it out for ourselves. That's fine. I think that's what it must be.

Let's go back to slide 13.

[Julie McAuley]

In terms of slide 13, again, Mr. Grimes can comment on exactly what legislation was introduced in 2006-2007, but we cannot comment on whether what you see in terms of the increases is a result of the legislation.