Evidence of meeting #24 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.
Board Chair, Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association
The initial answer is that if a judge gives a ruling that goes against the law, the remedy is for the Crown to appeal and to bring it up into an appellate court to enforce the mandatory minimum.
My co-witness, Lisa Henderson, may have something to say on that as well.
Lisa Henderson Member, Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association
For the benefit of the committee, I retired a few years ago, but I was a Crown attorney for 32 and a half years. In the last 20 years of my career, I was Ontario's provincial lead for our provincial strategy to prevent Internet crimes against children.
I think that in many of the cases where the mandatory minimums were struck down by the courts, it was based on a, theoretically at least, reasonable hypothetical and not on the idea that the sentence imposed on the particular offender or the particular facts for which they were being sentenced was cruel and unusual punishment. Rather, the defence counsel or the court would get creative in coming up with some idea of an example where the mandatory minimum sentence would be inappropriate, strike down the minimum, and then feel like they could give a sentence below the minimum to an offender.
I think the way this bill is worded goes some distance to stopping that, in the sense that it tells the court that they can't come up with some hypothetical situation. They have to look at this particular offender and the facts of this particular case and determine whether or not that would be cruel and unusual.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I don't think that it will stop the overall problem of hypotheticals in the long term, but I understand your point, Ms. Henderson.
Do you, as a former Crown, believe that, in virtually any case you were prosecuting in which there was a mandatory minimum in play, a defence lawyer would try to use this safety valve to argue against a mandatory minimum for their client?
Member, Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association
My mother used to always ask how someone can argue that. A simple answer is that people can argue anything. The question is whether a judge will buy it and then whether an appeal court will uphold a judge for having accepted that argument. I think that's where there will be litigation in the beginning. Then we'll get decisions from trial judges and from appellate courts, which will limit how that is applied.
I can only tell you that in 2004 when mandatory minimums were brought in, they saved us having to fight a lot about the appropriateness of conditional sentences for image-based or child sexual abuse offenders. Now here we are in 2026 and we're fighting the exact same issues we were fighting in 2004.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I only have a short time left.
I don't have any questions for you at this time, Ms. Cooke, but I just want to thank you for being here, first and foremost, and for sharing what you did. We cannot talk about law and laws in the abstract without hearing about the very real people affected by them. The testimony that you shared is a very real part of our consideration on this bill. I just want you to know—and I think I speak for all members of this committee—how appreciative we are and how much we admire your courage in speaking about something that I know is very fresh.
With that, thank you.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I also would like to thank you, Ms. Cooke, for bringing forward your story and sharing that with us. We hope that Bill C-16 will address most of the issues you brought forward today.
I also want to thank Ms. Marinos for being present.
My questions will be directed to both Mr. Ullock and Ms. Henderson.
Mr. Ullock, investigators have long faced challenges when certain online platforms argued that they were not captured by the mandatory reporting act. Would you agree that clarifying that all online services, including social media and app-based platforms, are covered will close a major loophole and materially improve your ability to identify offenders?
Board Chair, Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association
Yes, we do. As you said, it takes away the question. It takes away the ability for them to say that they didn't think it applied to them. The obligation to report once they discover material on their platforms.... That's a very large source of our investigations in Canada.
When all of the Internet service providers are compelled to report on that, it increases the likelihood that we're going to investigate and then catch someone, which has that deterrent effect.
Ms. Henderson also has some experience in dealing with mandatory reporting.
Could you speak on that as well?
Member, Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association
In fact, the only convictions I'm aware of under the mandatory reporting act were for individuals I prosecuted. They all pleaded guilty and were sentenced to different things with respect to that.
I think part of the problem is that it's always hard to prove a negative. Proving that somebody failed to report is difficult. However, with the obligation existing and being much clearer about whom the obligation applies to, it should go some distance in ensuring that people do make the reports. Hopefully, then we won't have to have any more prosecutions for people who fail to do so.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
You often deal with complex investigations that take months and not days. Under the current 21-day preservation period, how often is critical evidence lost? Would extending that to one year significantly improve your ability to build cases and, more importantly, secure convictions?
Board Chair, Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association
In other types of investigations, 21 days is a decent amount of time. However, in child exploitation cases, that's actually very short, especially when you consider that evidence and reports have to go through multiple hands before they land in the jurisdiction.
One of the challenges is figuring out where a report has to go, because the Internet doesn't have boundaries. A Canadian entity may have to report on it, but that doesn't mean the offender or the suspect is in Canada. There is an administrative process that has to be undertaken simply to figure out what jurisdiction it needs to land on. It passes through multiple hands, and each hand has its own backlog.
By the time it finds its way to an investigator's desk, it can be well beyond 21 days. It can be well beyond 30 days. Sometimes it's several months, and if all of the evidence has been purged before it even gets to an investigator, then the investigation never gets started. Therefore, extending that preservation time to 12 months would absolutely help.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Currently, reports can be sent to different police services, which can create delays and fragmentation. Would you agree that centralizing reporting to a designated law enforcement body, such as the national cybercrime coordination centre, would streamline investigations and lead to faster, more effective responses?
Board Chair, Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association
I would agree that this would work, so long as it is properly staffed and resourced. You get a net advantage in that you have one entity handling everything, and that's good. However, if it's not properly staffed and resourced, then that becomes a shortcoming. You have only one entity to handle all of it. That's where you get backlogs and things like that, and investigators will get their files a lot later. As long as it's adequately staffed, then that would definitely simplify things.
Member, Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association
I think the mandatory reporting act now requires people to report to a police service, but it doesn't say which one. Proving that somebody didn't report to any police agency becomes a bit overwhelming. If it were only one, then there would be only one place you would have to check to see if the report had been made.
I agree with Andrew that it has to be staffed appropriately so that things don't sit there, and they do get passed on to the relevant police agency. From the prosecution side, it would simplify proving that a report wasn't made.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.
The last word goes to you, Mr. Fortin, for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Cooke, in your presentation, you mentioned an expert report that you tried to submit to the court but that was reportedly rejected. I didn't quite catch that. I'd like you to tell me what it was about.
What kind of expert report was it? How did that go? What were the grounds for the rejection?
As an Individual
I am not a legal expert, but I think the therapeutic records touch on this. There is a lot of overlap in coercive control cases, where family courts and criminal courts are involved. Therefore, the ability to use the information through these support services with the professionals who staff them and support victims would help the justice system generally to assess the risk level that exists.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Okay. Did you have an issue with a specific report, whether it was from a doctor, a social worker or a psychologist?
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
If I understand correctly, the issue was the use of this report before the various authorities, in the various court proceedings. Is that correct?
As an Individual
Yes. It starts right at the beginning with reporting to police even before it gets to a court.
For example, when I applied for the peace bond, I had interactions with police prior, but I wasn't allowed to show that pattern to an individual officer. It was at their discretion. Therefore, that wouldn't go into court should that officer in interviewing me not see it necessary to include.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
That concludes all our questions.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for taking the time to be here.
Let me add my thanks to you, Ms. Cooke, for sharing your personal experiences. I know how difficult that is, and it's very meaningful to the committee, so I really appreciate it.
Witnesses, you're free to go. Thank you.
The last bit of business is that we need budget approval for this study. Everybody has received a copy, and I would like to get it approved. The total amount of the budget is $46,600. Of that, $40,600 is for witness expenses, $2,500 is for headsets, and the balance is for meeting-related sundries and whatnot.
Do we have approval of the budget?