Françoise Boivin

[Government Accountability, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable for the government to hide information on a subject as complex and sensitive as this one.

The Conservatives made public their online consultation on prostitution, which has serious methodology problems. Now the minister is refusing to disclose the results of a scientific opinion poll ordered at a cost of $175,000, which he has had for four months. As it happens, he was allegedly warned that some responses could contradict his position.

Why does the minister want to wait until the end of July to release this public poll? Will he promise to make it public before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights wraps up its study on prostitution?

[Government Accountability, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are refusing to release the results of a public opinion poll on prostitution. The poll was done four months ago, but it is being hidden until July.

Reforming our prostitution laws is a complex issue. Canadians expect their government to work in a transparent and thorough manner, so why is the Minister of Justice refusing to release this poll? What information is he trying to hide?

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister had given a more detailed answer earlier when I asked him the question. We know how important it is for parents and communities to know when a dangerous predator is going to be in their midst. Once they know, what do they do? He stopped there. I am curious about what that information would enable victims and parents to do.

The minister talked about the fact that it was not up to politicians to determine the criteria. However, I would like him to comment on clause 11 of the new registry, which states that the Governor in Council can make regulations establishing the criteria. I would like him to adjust his earlier answer. It is not necessarily the RCMP and its commissioner. The Governor in Council is the one who will be able to establish the criteria for determining whether a person is a dangerous predator.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for his speech.

He spoke about the public registry of high-risk offenders and said that it would allow parents to take the necessary measures. I would like him to elaborate on what he means by that and what measures parents could take once they know who is in the registry.

Since we are lucky enough to have the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in the House at this wonderful hour and we know that the commissioner of the RCMP will have to decide who will be included in the registry, determine the criteria and so on, I am curious to know whether the minister intends to give the RCMP any additional resources. The RCMP is already having a lot of difficulty keeping the criminal records in registries up to date, which is problematic. Individuals who should be being found guilty of reoffending are not because the crown does not have that information when entering its pleas for sentencing.

Does the government intend to give the RCMP more resources so that it can fulfill its obligations?

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I have no problem with what he said.

However—and I mentioned this in my speech—there is the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. He lectured us about how these sentences are ineffective. I may agree with the thinking behind that; however, I would like him to tell us whether the Liberals have done an about-face.

From 1993 to 2003, they added a number of mandatory minimum sentences to the Criminal Code. The Conservatives were not the first to introduce mandatory minimum sentences—it was the Liberals. I am thinking about the offences of sexual assault with a weapon and living off the avails of prostitution. All of these mandatory minimum sentences were imposed by the Liberals.

Does this mean that it was not a good idea at the time and that they will no longer do this? Are they changing? Are there offences for which it these sentences are called for and others for which they are not? I am a bit confused about the Liberals' philosophy on this.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that excellent question.

Of course, prevention is extremely important. We also have to be realistic about sexual predators and some sexual offences. When I worked as a radio announcer, I did a show following a serious case of pedophilia that received a fair bit of media attention in Quebec.

That day was probably one of the most defining moments of my radio career. During the call-in show, which was mainly about the castration of pedophiles, since experts were considering that issue, I received a call from a pedophile.

He admitted that he had a condition that could not be healed. He had made the decision himself to withdraw from society because he no longer trusted himself in an environment where he would be in contact with children either directly or indirectly. All that I remember was that I was there, with my headphones and microphone, and my producer was begging me not to say anything and to let this man talk. That is what we did and it was enlightening.

We have to act intelligently when it comes to matters of criminal law. It is true that crime does not pay and that we have to punish criminals appropriately. As in labour law, the punishment must fit the crime, but we must not become obsessed with just that. We have to look at the whole picture, and I hope that is what we will do in committee.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to consultation, that was one of the questions I asked the minister after his speech.

It will be interesting to see how the provinces react to everything that is thrown at their courts, especially since access to justice is not satisfactory across Canada.

With respect to how justice is perceived, it is a vicious circle. The wheels of justice are turning more and more slowly, and this certainly does not help convince the public that justice is served.

Thus, there is a great deal of work to be done. There is no way to be informed because this government does not provide details about its consultations. In any case, for the government, consulting means talking rather than listening.

With respect to compliance with the charter, every time the Conservative government introduces a bill, we are usually given this assurance. In fact, under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, the government is required to ensure that its bills are charter compliant.

However, in light of the suit launched by Mr. Schmidt, the public servant who says that that is not exactly the order that the justice department is given, and the government's monumental losses of 7-0, 8-0 and 6-1 on criminal justice issues brought before the Supreme Court of Canada in the past year, we certainly have doubts. However, we will verify these doubts in committee.

If the Conservative government did not make sure that its bill was legal and charter compliant, we will do so in committee because this is a serious file that concerns our children. Let us at least have the decency to study the bill in committee.

I do not claim to be the greatest constitutional expert the world has ever known, so I have some questions. I do not have all the answers just yet, but we hope to get them in committee.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I never mentioned that I had any amendments at this stage. What I was trying to understand is why, after Bill C-10 and after increasing certain mandatory minimum sentences, the department and the minister felt the need to increase these minimums and maximums yet again. Are we missing some information that would explain whether this upsurge in offences came about after the increase in mandatory minimum sentences and that increasing the sentences did not have the desired effect?

Those are the types of questions that we should be able to address quite calmly in committee, not to destroy the bill, but to ensure that it does what it is supposed to do. That will be our objective in committee to try to address this upsurge.

It is worrisome to hear that offences have increased by 6% over the past two years when we have a law and order government in place.

It is worrisome when the cases mentioned during press conferences date back to a time before the Conservative government came to power.

Is there a disconnect somewhere? Is there something that did not happen that was supposed to? Have we been more concerned about press conferences and less concerned about content? I do not know, but that is what we will find out in committee.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House at 10:20 this evening to discuss Bill C-26.

Much pomp and ceremony accompanied the introduction of this bill in February. More than three months have since passed, and we are just now beginning this first hour of debate on a bill that the government declared was of the utmost urgency and importance and would solve pretty much all of the world's problems.

Like most members on this side of the House, I have some concerns. I would like my colleagues opposite to keep an open mind so that we can take a calm look at this bill and ensure that it really will do what they say it will. This bill is called the Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The Conservatives like to call it the tougher penalties for child predators act.

The Conservatives like to portray themselves as heroes by saying they are against child sexual predators. It seems to me that everyone in the House is against child sexual predators.

This bill was introduced with great fanfare. However, after reading it, we realize that the cases used to justify this bill during the many press conferences held by the minister and the Prime Minister are eight years old.

I definitely have a lot of questions. We will certainly have the opportunity to ask the minister questions in committee, but I am going to ask him a few in advance. It would be nice if he shows up in committee with some answers.

Essentially, as the minister said, this bill will increase the existing mandatory minimum sentences. It is not as though we were reinventing the wheel or having a great debate on the merits of having minimum sentences or anything else. Some people are more or less in favour of the idea of mandatory minimum sentences.

Sometimes our colleagues at the end of the House like to say that it is absolutely appalling. However, when we look at some of the changes the Liberals made to legislation over the years, we see that they also introduced mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. They are ones to talk.

The bill would:

...increase maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders and peace bonds; ...clarify and codify the rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences.

There is a case currently before the Supreme Court about the legality of consecutive sentences. In the short and medium terms, many decisions made here risk being seen in another light. That is why I was saying that it is good to assess the bill calmly in order to do what we really want to do.

The bill also seeks to:

...require courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against children; and ensure that a court that imposes a sentence must take into consideration evidence that the offence in question was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order or released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence.

What is more:

It amends the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of the accused are competent and compellable witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases. It also amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to increase the reporting obligations of sex offenders who travel outside Canada.

The following is new:

It enacts the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act to establish a publicly accessible database that contains information—that a police service or other public authority has previously made accessible to the public—with respect to persons who are found guilty of sexual offences against children and who pose a high risk of committing crimes of a sexual nature....[and] it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

The NDP has always had a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual offences against children.

I am saying this a little more enthusiastically than I did in the case of Bill C-10, which was an omnibus bill. The government had lumped in some provisions that applied to sexual predators with a number of other completely unrelated laws. As we did not agree with some of the provisions, we tried to split the bill. The government's petty politics were an attempt to stymie the opposition. The government could thus say that the opposition had voted against provisions to deal with sexual predators.

It seems that it did not work because Bill C-10 is in effect and the tougher mandatory minimum sentences do not seem to have had the desired effect. I would like to hear the minister tell us, in committee, how these new mandatory minimum and maximum sentences will succeed this time when they failed before.

That is one of the serious concerns that I have about this file. Many Conservative bills, whether government bills or backbenchers' bills, do nothing but increase mandatory minimum sentences while claiming to solve the problem of these types of crimes in particular.

Each time we ask the Conservatives why they are making the change. Is it because the sentences are too lenient? Is it because the mandatory minimum penalties they initially put in place were not enough and statistics clearly show that there is a serious problem?

If there is an increase in the number of crimes being committed, is it the penalty that is the problem or is it the services?

Earlier I heard the member talk about the circles program that they cut. This program had a proven track record and it worked. Everything was fine and it had a good success rate. Sometimes, the real problem is with the related services. We need to ensure that these people, who are predators when they are arrested and who are found guilty, serve their sentences and no longer pose a risk when they are released.

The other day I was giving an interview on the radio and I was asked whether I would oppose this bill. I said that I was flabbergasted that they were not offended that the government thinks it can solve the problem of high-risk child sex offenders with a registry.

I do not understand how the government can think that its high-risk child sex offender registry, to be managed by the RCMP commissioner, will solve the problem.

By the way, there is small problem that may also have to be examined in committee, and that is the definition of “high risk”. Under the act, the commissioner seems to have the authority to declare someone to be high risk, but the Conservatives always like to sneak in a few extra little provisions. There is one in this bill that is a bit worrisome to me. It is worth looking at what it says. Clause 11 of the new registry act, under the heading “Regulations”, states:

The Governor in Council [meaning cabinet] may make regulations

(a) establishing the criteria for determining whether a person who is found guilty of a sexual offence against a child poses a high risk of committing a crime of a sexual nature; and

(b) prescribing anything that, by this Act, is to be prescribed.

In this bill, they are also providing for a way to change the manner in which regulations are made. We might look at this more thoroughly here at some point and perhaps in committee as well. When I put all these pieces together, it makes me wonder about this bill.

I was looking at some statistics about the various crimes that are mentioned in Bill C-26. Section 151 refers to sexual interference.

Canada is a big country. I think we now have a population of about 34 million. One sexual predator is one too many. We can all agree on that. I would not want anyone to quote me tomorrow as saying that it is okay if we have 100 sexual predators. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that we have to be realistic.

Here are the statistics on sexual interference: 241 people were charged in 2008, 574 in 2009, 818 in 2010, 918 in 2011 and 916 in 2012.

We are seeing progress. However, that is probably the least serious sex crime, at least in comparison to sexually assaulting a child, for example.

There were 56 cases of invitation to sexual touching in 2008, and that rose to 206 cases in 2012. There were 17 cases of sexual exploitation in 2008, but that increased to 49 cases. It was relatively stable between 2010 and 2012. We do not have any statistics about making sexually explicit material available to a child because it is a new offence that was created in 2012. There were 54 cases of luring a child through the use of a computer in 2008, and 127 cases in 2012.

I remind members that these are years under Conservative power. These are the law and order years, when the government is claiming to have solved all kinds of problems. That remains to be seen. The government has been forced to review some offences, saying that it may have been mistaken in 2010 when it set a range of years for a sentence and that perhaps it should have been harsher. This proves what we often hear at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: offenders do not carry around the Criminal Code when they commit an offence. They do not carry it around thinking that they may have to serve eight years in prison. On the contrary, there are people who are absolutely sick, and we need to focus on getting them off our streets. I am not interested in simply saying that I was harsh and I punished the offender. That is certainly important, but we need to ensure that offenders get the support they need, so that when they are released into society, the public is not left relying on a high-risk child sex offender registry to find out who is in our communities. Programs such as the Circle of Support and Accountability can help these people so that we can provide reasonable assurances to Canadians across the country and so that the public knows that we did our best to limit the potential number of repeat offenders.

There are so many questions. The government often stays silent, especially when it comes to statistics and explanations, aside from their press conferences, where they sell their message.

When I visit my riding of Gatineau, people are happy to know that we are addressing the problem of sexual predators. Everyone agrees with that. There is nothing worse than hurting our children. If someone touches a hair on our child's head, we would obviously be prepared to go to extremes. That is why we must make sure that we do things right.

We do not know if the government got a legal opinion about its registry. In fact, there are some questions about the registry. Information will be circulated and shared. Did anyone think about the possibility of vigilantes? It may not be a big deal to say that a convicted individual lives in Toronto. Toronto is big. However, in a small village, it is a different story. If people know that Mr. So-and-so lives in such-and-such a village, it is easy enough to find out where he lives. We need to take certain precautions and ensure that everything is done properly. No matter how disgusting the crime, I would not want anyone to take justice into their own hands. I would not want our actions to result in a situation like that simply because we did not take the time to fully analyze the issue.

Did the Minister of Justice speak with his provincial counterparts? They are the ones who will feel the impact of this. Consecutive sentences and tougher sentences affect plea bargaining, for both the crown and the defence. There are not enough crown prosecutors or enough judges in the criminal courts.

That has a serious impact. I asked the minister a question about the RCMP. I did not get a response, but we know that the RCMP is already having a very hard time updating criminal records. That is not insignificant. People are upset when a criminal is found guilty of drinking and driving for the fourth time, but it is because he was never tried for his repeat offences. If the police do not have the resources to keep track of his criminal record, his file is empty.

Even with the toughest laws known to man, and even if the RCMP commissioner is given full authority to create a registry for high-risk offenders, as long as the RCMP does not have the resources it needs to deal with each of those files, there will be problems.

That is why the minister needs to make sure this is bulletproof. Thinking that the bill is charter compliant is not good enough. Thinking that the bill is fine is not good enough. Will the bill pass the test if someone challenges it? Will we end up having to have to start from scratch? The Conservatives might not be too worried about that, but I do not like the idea of starting this kind of trial, especially when the victims have to go through what is probably the most difficult time they will ever have to go through. I always told my clients that there are two kinds of people who like court: lawyers and judges. Nobody else likes the whole business because it is an extremely stressful time, especially if it is a criminal trial.

Sometimes the victim is a person who has been robbed of innocence, someone to whom the most despicable things have been done and who is waiting for the trial and all kinds of things. That person ends up having to start over from scratch because the evidence is thrown out or challenged and the case is appealed.

All that to say that I hope the minister will be open-minded enough to listen to the witnesses in committee. The NDP will support this bill at second reading so it can go to committee because that is where the work gets done. This is the kind of offence that the committee should take its time studying.

However, we have a lot of questions and we think that the government has not been completely forthcoming. It has already introduced many similar bills. Either it dropped the ball and started over without telling us, or it had alarming statistics that would give us no choice but to amend the bill. If that is the case here, only the committee's study will tell us what is really going on.

Since the minister is here tonight, and not one of his parliamentary secretaries, I hope he will listen to our suggestions with an open mind. We do not want to pester the government; we just want to make sure the bill will do what it is supposed to do, which is implement tougher penalties for child predators and keep the public safe once a predator is released. Sooner or later, these people get out of prison.

Then we have to wonder what state these people will be in when they get out of prison. I am not a bleeding heart. I am just a realist. I do not want hardened criminals to be back on our streets. I do not want a repeat of what happened in the Outaouais recently.

Last week, a man got out of prison after serving a sentence for voyeurism and attempted sexual touching. The first thing he did was to get caught by the police again. That is not what we want. We want people to be able to reintegrate into society and to no longer be a danger to the public.

I hope that the minister will be open to our suggestions and examine them properly. We will support the bill at second reading.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech on Bill C-26. Finally, we can debate it.

It always makes me shudder to think that there will be a registry for high-risk offenders. I always wonder what high-risk offenders are doing in our streets. To me it signals that there is a problem if the government thinks that a simple registry will keep people safe.

In addition to that point, which we will surely address in committee, I have another question. Bill C-26 is not designed to establish mandatory minimum penalties or mandatory maximums, it is designed to increase both the minimum and maximum penalties.

I am wondering what statistics or study the people at the justice department used to demonstrate to the minister that existing penalties, both the mandatory minimums and maximums, needed to be increased. What evidence does the minister have?

The government boasts about having changed many laws, and perhaps it deserves to be congratulated for doing so. However, is it not a failure that there has been 6% increase in the past two years even though various bills we have seen in the past year have increased sentences? For example, Bill C-10 comes to mind.

How can the minister think that the RCMP, which has a hard enough time updating criminal records, will be capable of keeping its promise regarding the new registry?