Justice Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2015

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

We could do it at the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No, let's do it right now.

Anybody who's here who's not allowed to be at in camera sessions, we'll make sure we get you back here as soon as possible. We won't be too long, I don't think.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

While we're waiting for our guests, I have reports 13 and 14. One is to ask the House under Standing Order 97.1 for a 30-day extension for Bill C-590, which is number 14, and Bill C-587, number 13. Could somebody move that for me?

[An hon. member]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much to our witnesses from the Department of Justice and from the Department of Public Safety for joining us. Sorry about the delay.

There are no opening statements, just questions.

Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

Since we have some time, this is directed to the officials from both departments and the RCMP representative.

We've talked a lot with the ministers about the harsher penalties, among other things.

Ms. Morency, prior to drafting Bill C-26, did the Department of Justice conduct a jurisprudential review of cases going back a certain number of years?

In their comments promoting Bill C-26, both ministers often pointed to the fact that offences against children had gone up by 6% in the past 2 years. The media has often cited that statistic, as have both ministers.

Was any research done? And if so, what did it entail? What findings did department officials come to, and how? Was there a trend among courts indicating that the sentences being imposed were not harsh enough?

I'm trying to understand what motivated the decision to create Bill C-26. What kind of analysis and research was done to warrant the measures in the bill?

[Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question.

As the minister just mentioned, the idea was to increase penalties, both minimum and maximum penalties.

The package, in terms of Bill C-26, also proposes some other related reforms looking at the implications of consecutive or concurrent sentences in these cases as well. As you've noted, with Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, those reforms came into force August 9, 2011, and yes it is a bit early to see the progress of some of those cases as they start to work through the criminal courts. We were seeing courts beginning to note, for example, even before Bill C-10 came into force, that Parliament was considering the importance of ensuring that the penalties in these cases, not just minimums but maximums, adequately reflect the serious nature of these cases, and that courts should be treating these more seriously.

So it is a bit of a combination of things. First, it's looking at how the courts are dealing with this. We're starting to see some of that, but it's certainly in its early days. Second, if you look at Bill C-26, there's a combined approach of trying to increase penalties overall; it's not just minimum penalties and the approach that Bill C-10 had.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I understand all that. My question is more about what types of studies or constats we have seen that have led to the need for the creation of Bill C-26. If we're not yet even able to see the effects, good or bad, of Bill C-10, how can we need Bill C-26? For example, I'm hearing from the legal community that last weekend in my region in Gatineau, 50 cases of drunk driving were thrown out of court. Why? They were thrown out because of time, because according to certain people the crown didn't understand the case, because of the shift that happened with the new infraction, because of the new burden, and so on and so forth.

Do we take the time to inform all the courts of all the changes so that they apply them before we come up with some new section or new clauses? I'm just not seeing the logic behind it all, because you're not giving me the meat. From your answer, I don't see exactly what was used to create Bill C-26.

[Carole Morency]

Again, I can just point to the commitments that the government has made. The minister has clearly stated that the overarching concern and intention is to ensure that in all cases, all forms of child sexual abuse are treated more seriously. Some reforms were enacted through the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Bill C-26 takes that and goes further to achieve that objective. One thing I'll note in particular is that Bill C-26 increases the maximum penalties for quite a number of offences. You have a bigger range for courts to look at, which is different from what you saw in Bill C-10.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

So it's more in principles, but we're still not yet at the point where we can say what the other clauses were able to achieve and if it had deterrence on criminality or whatever. I understand that.

[Carole Morency]

I'll just add on that point another important thing that Bill C-26 is proposing to say. If you look at the case law and how courts are dealing with sentencing now in cases where you have child pornography, as well as contact sexual offence, Bill C-26 is ensuring that those are imposed consecutively. We're seeing that happen in some cases now. It's a matter of codification in many respects, but it's saying to do that in all cases. That's an important change that we don't have at this point.

Similarly, there is another reform that Bill C-26 is proposing. If you have one offender before the court at the same time with multiple victims, again it gives very clear direction to the courts on how to deal with sentences between those multiple victims so that, as the minister said, each victim feels that their victimization is reflected in the sentence that is imposed on that offender.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Why is this in Bill C-26, but it was not thought of in Bill C-10?

[Carole Morency]

I can't comment in terms of between then and now. Bill C-10, as you'll recall, was an amalgamation of nine bills. Some parts had been before Parliament over the course of several years and were merged in support of a government commitment after the federal election. It was a reintroduction of reforms that had previously been proposed.

If you'd like, I can ask my colleague Ms. Levman to give you examples of a couple of cases where we've seen courts begin to take the very serious direction that Parliament is giving to the courts, to treat child sexual offences more seriously.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I want to move to the RCMP, but I take note that there are some good cases that are showing, before Bill C-26 even came into effect, that the courts are taking the cases more seriously.

RCMP—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm sorry, Madam Boivin, but that's your seven minutes. Thank you very much.

Our next questioner is Mr. Calkins from the Conservative Party.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

My questions will be primarily for the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I have some questions of a bit of a technical nature. I would just like a reaffirmation that I'm reading the legislative summary and the legislation correctly.

The Sex Offender Information Registration Act already exists. The changes that are being proposed now are quite significant, in the sense that right now anybody who's in the sex offender registry does not have to notify if they're leaving the country. Is that correct?

[D/Commr Peter Henschel, Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

They have to notify if they're gone for more than seven days, but they don't need to notify where they're going to be and no details of their—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

There are no details?

[D/Commr Peter Henschel]

No.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

If they were to leave the country for less than seven days currently, would they have to notify?

[D/Commr Peter Henschel]

No.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

The legislative changes that are being proposed in this bill would change that should they become law. Is that correct?

[D/Commr Peter Henschel]

It will change it for those who are high-risk child sex offenders.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Just for the ones who are high-risk child—