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.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. St. Germain, I was really struck by your comment in your opening remarks about how disheartening it is to see the Supreme Court of Canada strike down offences related to the sexual exploitation of children, like they did in Senneville, based on reasonable hypotheticals.
While Bill C-16 doesn't prohibit the courts from using hypotheticals in their reasoning, clause 63, the so-called safety valve, makes exceptions in some cases to preserve and signal the importance of mandatory minimums for things like murder and treason.
I was wondering whether including offences related to the sexual exploitation of children to the safety valve of clause 63 might address your concerns.
General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
We actually feel that the provision that's been added to Bill C-16 is a reasoned response to the jurisprudence that exists. The reality is that we have the case law that we have on mandatory minimums.
From our perspective, since the Friesen decision was issued in 2020, sentencing, when it involves offences against children, has improved considerably.
When we talk about edge cases, which is what the hypotheticals were really focused on, that's where you start to lose sight of what the harm actually is in the vast majority of the cases.
From our perspective, this safety valve should help to preserve the mandatory minimums for the vast majority of cases that actually do reach the courts in this country.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I would love to dig into that a little bit. I'm wondering how it does that.
I worry that the cases that would cause the safety valve to be used become the very hypotheticals that then allow the whole offence to be struck down. If you're getting out of edge cases.... If there's a case that's in front of the courts, then it's not an edge case. I worry that they will also decide that those are edge cases as well, and it might actually increase the probability that the law gets struck down.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
Yes, but the safety valve is about sentencing; it's not about the offence itself. That would be a different issue, on challenging the offence and the constitutionality of the offence and what it covers, whereas the sentencing part is about what the sentence actually is going to be and whether or not a mandatory minimum is justifiable in the case of the specific offender who's before the courts and the specific offence that offender committed.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
You don't think the defence counsel will then use that to argue that the offence itself, because of the way that it was structured.... You're not concerned that there's going to be additional litigation as a result of this.
General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
I didn't say that.
What I was talking about was the difference between sentencing and the offence itself. There are always going to be constitutional challenges to offences, and we expect that will continue, but the safety valve provision is about preserving the mandatory sentences to the greatest extent possible in light of the jurisprudence we actually have.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Right, but it is the mandatory minimum. It's the sentence that actually gets struck down in these circumstances. We get into a bit of circular loop, as you can see from the question itself.
Are there amendments that you think would help under these circumstances? Are there amendments that would solve the circumstances that are causing the disheartenment?
General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
The safety valve will help in terms of reducing the amount of litigation that is then focused on hypothetical scenarios, because the safety valve itself is saying that when you're imposing something less than the mandatory minimum sentences is when that mandatory minimum sentence would be cruel or unusual as applied to that offender. The way things were working prior to the safety valve is that the courts could come up with a hypothetical and then use that hypothetical offender who wasn't before the court, and that offence being committed in that way that also wasn't before the court, to say in that circumstance this sentence would be excessive.
What we see is that the cases where the mandatory minimum sentence, or where a court is imposing less than mandatory minimum sentence.... It's not that often. When it does happen, there are some extenuating and exceptional circumstances that exist.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Do you think that a one-year mandatory minimum for child pornography is reasonable?
General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
Absolutely. We've always been supportive of the mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual abuse and exploitation material.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Kronis.
The last round is for you, Ms. Lattanzio. You have five minutes.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I want to thank Ms. Dunn, Ms. St. Germain and Ms. Szabo for being here today and helping us do our work on Bill C-16.
My first question will be addressed to Ms. St. Germain.
The bill would significantly enhance the mandatory reporting act by extending data preservation timelines, broadening its application to all online platforms and increasing transparency.
In your opinion, how will these changes improve law enforcement's ability to detect, investigate and prevent child sexual exploitation online?
General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
The mandatory reporting by providers is a very significant contributor to identifying cases that do need to be investigated for law enforcement. The mandatory reporting act has always been an important act. Mandatory reporting that happens in the U.S. also triggers a lot of Canadian investigations.
The amendments that are being made in the mandatory reporting legislation are really important because they are clarifying the scope and extent of these obligations for Canadian companies. They're making it clear that it's covering companies that provide Internet content hosting, as well as those who are incorporated in Canada and have their head office in Canada, etc. Those are all very helpful amendments.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
My next questions are going to be for Ms. Szabo.
Your organization and you, in your opening remarks, highlighted that online child sexual exploitation has increased in the last years, reaching record levels. In light of the alarming trend, Bill C-16 would restore mandatory minimum penalties for offences such as making, distributing, possessing and accessing child sexual abuse material—offences that courts have previously struck down in both Senneville and Pike.
From your perspective in working with survivors, how important is it that the law clearly reflects the gravity and the lasting harm of these crimes through meaningful sentencing?
Advocacy Lead, Daughter Project Canada
I think meaningful sentencing is one component of the entire approach when it comes to supporting survivors and victims. It's vital that the seriousness of the offence is reflected in the sentence.
However, I would also argue that the seriousness of the offence can be reflected in funding and supports that are given to survivors and victims of the crime, whether that's after it's occurred or through prevention upstream of the judicial system and education. I think it is one component.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Based on your frontline experience preventing child sexual exploitation and supporting victims, do you believe that the proposed sentencing reforms in Bill C-16, including the restoration of mandatory minimum penalties, are aligned with what is needed on the ground to better protect children in Canada?
Advocacy Lead, Daughter Project Canada
Again, it is part of what's needed to protect children in Canada, but I cannot stress enough how important prevention upstream of these systems is.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Bill C-16 also updates the child luring offence, as both of my colleagues have pointed out this afternoon, to capture extortion-related conduct. Given how predators now operate online and how often manipulating and coercing youth occurs, would you agree that this change better reflects the reality that your organization is seeing on the ground?
Advocacy Lead, Daughter Project Canada
Yes, definitely. It's happening every day, as our friends at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection have echoed. Yes, we do support that.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Do you have data that you can share with us in terms of how much of it is happening?
You said that we're reaching record levels. Do you have any data that you can provide to the committee?
Advocacy Lead, Daughter Project Canada
The initial statistic I provided was that since 2014, online sextortion cases have increased by 347%. I would let you know that there was a massive uptick during COVID when everyone was inside and the screen time for children increased.
Liberal