Evidence of meeting #21 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-16.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
If you would not impose the clause here, you will never impose the clause. That's my point.
Liberal
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
If you would not impose the clause on this decision, you will never impose it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Baber, you're out of time.
Ms. Dhillon, it's over to you, please, for five minutes.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the minister and officials for coming today to committee.
You spoke briefly, Minister, about technology and how it's rapidly changing. First, there was sextortion and the distribution of intimate images without consent. Now there are AI deepfakes. Technology is rapidly increasing.
We are addressing the current technological landscape of what happens online, but my question to you is this: Since technology is so rapidly changing, are there any safeguards in the legislation that would automatically address technology so that the law can keep up as well?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Yes. Let me build on my response to Mr. Chang's questioning.
There are obvious, very direct examples, including in this legislation, of how we can modernize Canada's criminal laws to better address emerging threats that have come to light as a result of shifts in technology. We've cited a few times during this committee the prevalence of AI deepfakes and the extraordinary phenomenon of courts proactively raising the prospective need for legislative change in order to criminalize the behaviour that is arriving before them.
In addition to that change, I have cited the changes to criminal harassment that will make it easier for courts to move forward with convictions if somebody has been using modern technology—GPS tracking, for example—in the context of criminal harassment. This comes up again in an increasingly digital space when it comes to the protection of children against child sexual exploitation and abuse material, including the threat of distribution of digitally held materials.
You have to remind yourself that this is part of the solution. There is no one change to the criminal law that will forever, on an evergreen basis, keep everyone safe from emerging technologies. You need to look at those other pillars of the strategy that I led with in my opening remarks.
Yes, stronger laws are an essential ingredient, but we also need to give law enforcement the tools they need, including lawful access to digitally held information, which is the subject of a bill that's going through Parliament now. We also need to make sure that law enforcement receives the training necessary to combat this troubling frontier of digital crime that exploits people in a sexual way.
In addition to those different pieces, we need to look at whether there are non-criminal legislative reforms that we need to put in place to ensure we're creating safe online environments for Canadian children. You have to look across society at the range of different policies you can advance to protect kids online. Some of them that pertain to changes to Canada's criminal law are included in this bill, but that's only part of the job.
This is not a “mission accomplished” meeting. This is a step in the right direction that is so sorely needed and needed as soon as possible.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
You also spoke about coercive control. You've met with experts and professionals in the field. You spoke about behaviours. Have they explained to you what kind of behaviours would fall under this category?
Liberal
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
We're dealing with the kinds of circumstances that would involve violence in the home, including violence against pets in the home, which we know is predictive of violence against people who live in the home.
We are dealing with sexual coercion. We're dealing with a range of different behaviours, but perhaps, if I could encapsulate them simply, these are behaviours that would cause a person to reasonably fear for their physical or psychological safety. This is not someone who has a difference of opinion. This is not somebody who asks where a person went for coffee that day out of interest in how their day was going. This is a pattern of behaviours that we know are predictive towards violence, often fatal violence, in a relationship. It's very serious, and we need to take action.
We have made the decision to delay the coming-into-force date to give time for the system to become ready to deal with these new challenges in response to very real feedback. We heard about the potential weaponization of coercive control against the perpetrator of an abusive relationship. By enumerating sets of behaviours that would reasonably cause a person to fear for their safety, I think we've hit the right mark, as long as we combine that with training at a systems level to ensure that the courts and law enforcement have the ability to move forward with this offence in the way it was intended.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Often we hear victims say how difficult it is to navigate the justice system. How will this legislation help provide them protection and a better way to go through this system while they are testifying or in any other event?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
There are a number of different ways, some of which directly impact a victim who's going through the system for a particular crime. Changes to the standard for criminal harassment would be one example, which I discussed earlier, as is dealing with new laws that courts currently don't consider and dealing with delays in the system, where we've seen cases thrown out because too much time has passed, not because the charges weren't made out.
In addition to these changes that will fundamentally shift the experience of the victim and that may lead to a conviction for the perpetrator, we're including reforms to the Victims Bill of Rights, which makes clear that there are certain entitlements to the victim in the process they should be able to take part in.
The changes include putting clarity around their right to testimonial aids, their right to receive info about the process, which will be shared proactively, and the ability to make complaints to the victims ombudsperson. There are a number of different reforms included when it comes to the Victims Bill of Rights. We've tried to make sure that victims understand that they have a role to play in the process, that they have a right to have their voices heard and that they have a right to certain procedural aspects that make it easier to have their voices heard.
Whether it's on the process side—
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
—or substantive changes, we expect these changes will manifest in a way that will markedly improve a victim's experience going through the court system.
Liberal
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, the issue of inciting minors to commit a crime is something we in the Bloc Québécois are very concerned about. I had actually worked on a bill to address that. Our approach may have been a bit tougher than what you're proposing in Bill C‑16. When a person incites a minor to commit a crime on their behalf, I think it might be one of the most serious crimes out there. It's cowardly, it's criminal and, in addition to the harm caused by the crime, it potentially creates a new criminal who will continue down that path. It's completely unacceptable and it's a major problem that needs to be dealt with.
I had come up with a specific penalty for those cases. For example, if someone incites a minor to rob a bank, and it is obviously proven, they would automatically be convicted and receive double the sentence they would have had they committed the crime themselves. I thought that was an effective way of tackling the problem. I believe you are proposing a sentence of five years in those cases. It's better than nothing, of course. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I do find it a bit timid, as I said earlier.
Don't you think it's necessary to go further and crack down harder on this scourge: adults—often members of organized crime—who make minors commit crimes?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
First, I want to say thank you for your idea. When we discussed this issue, which is a priority for you, you told me about the need to tackle the problem of young people being recruited into crime. That's why this change is in the bill, so my thanks to you and your colleague.
When I was considering the appropriate penalty for the change, I looked at a similar offence that already exists, the recruitment of young people by organized crime groups. The sentence for that offence is five years' imprisonment. It's the same thing. If, however, the committee feels there is another way to address the problem, it's fine to propose amendments and to work with the other members of the committee. My department can provide clarification as to why a given approach was chosen, but amendments can be proposed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
Mr. Lawton, we'll go over to you for five minutes.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you, Minister, for being here.
When Mr. Baber was asking you about the notwithstanding clause, you said something I felt was quite interesting. You didn't think it was productive to engage in hypotheticals, yet the Senneville decision was the Supreme Court doing that very thing. It was the Supreme Court inventing a case that was not before it and using that to strike down mandatory minimum sentences that applied to the very heinous people who were at issue in that case, Mr. Senneville and Mr. Naud.
I'll begin there. Do you think it is reasonable for courts, for unelected judges, to use reasonable hypotheticals to override laws that parliamentarians have put in place?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It's interesting you should use my desire not to discuss things in the abstract while the courts use the hypothetical.
It's actually important that courts use reasonable hypotheticals that can and do in fact exist in reality when they're assessing the application of criminal law that could result in the person's incarceration. They need to consider whether we drafted good laws. When we're drafting good laws, we need to make sure we're trying to address real-world problems, not things that we think may exist. I think each body, as a function of the decisions we take as a government and a legal system, improves the quality over time of the decisions that are finally rendered and baked into our laws.