Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Ms. Morency.
In your explanations earlier, you said that it would perhaps amount to the same thing. This is the wording of the proposed addition: “using the Internet or other digital network, unless the offender does so in accordance with conditions set by the court.” The phrase “conditions set by the court” sounds awfully like the phrase “specified by the court”. The words “specified by the court” are the same as “conditions set by the court”.
I come back to the fact that, for a given offender, a judge will impose or repeat those conditions. If we take the amendment as it is worded, the judge would use the words “or other digital network specified by the court”. But consider a case where the court forgot to specify those conditions. If ever a person is caught again—there is a risk of reoffending—defence counsel could tell the judge that, because the networks that his client could not use were not specified, he cannot be convicted or charged again, nor be accused of having failed to meet the conditions imposed.
So the fact of requiring the court to specify the conditions would allow the defence to appeal at any time if the judge has not specified the networks that cannot be used. We know very well that the Internet has all kinds of networks, like Wi-Fi, and electronic and telephone systems, not to mention any other networks that could be invented between now and the time the bill gets through the Senate.
If the wording actually says “specified by the court”, the danger is that we will be dealing with offenders who have started to make contact with children under 16 years old again but who will tell the judge that they cannot be convicted again because no one told them specifically about the networks that they were prohibited from accessing. So that is going to limit the judge's power of decision.
With our current wording, “using the Internet or other digital network, unless the offender does so in accordance with conditions set by the court”, aren't we giving greater latitude to the judge to tell the offender what is prohibited, simply by repeating the exact wording? In that way, when the person is convicted—we are still talking about children under 16—all networks will be prohibited because the offence was committed through one of those networks. If a network is forgotten, he could use it to reoffend and say that he had not been prohibited from using it. Could that happen, with Mr. Lee's amendment?