Justice committee  But certainly I think the intention of the coordinating amendment is to be as specific as possible in identifying which other bill in which session. Even if it has a different title, we still know it's Bill C-16 in this session.

Justice committee  On the other question in terms of what Bill C-54 does generally from clauses 20 through to 27, in clauses 20 and 21, the amendments are to list the new offences proposed in Bill C-54 in the provisions that apply right now dealing with facilitating testimony by child victim witnes

Justice committee  The intention is the same, but there are--

Justice committee  --additional offences that aren't there right now, and that we're adding, again to ensure a consistent approach throughout when we're dealing with child sexual offences, but the intention is the same. Clause 26 proposes a similar amendment to the peace bond provision we just dis

Justice committee  I'm sorry. Was your last question about clause 29 with the coordinating amendment with Bill C-16?

Justice committee  Okay. Now I understand. Sorry. It's changed now when it comes forward....

Justice committee  Okay. I guess I would have to take that under advisement. I think the intention is clear that there would be a coordinating amendment between this bill and that number. I think the bill number actually carries weight in terms of indicating even if the title changes, but I think o

Justice committee  To reiterate, we think this does address a gap. We have turned our minds to the issues and the different scenarios that might apply, and there are safeguards in place in the offence and at common law, so that in the remote off chance that somebody does try to use it in an inappro

Justice committee  The proposed new offence in proposed section 172.2 addresses a gap in the existing law that the existing law right now addresses only through the luring a child offence, in section 172.1, where an accused communicates directly with a young person through the use of a computer sys

Justice committee  I can refer the committee back to the undertaking written response that I provided, where I provided our understanding. If it's a network that facilitates communication from one to another—you can have public-private—I'm not sure if that's a network in the same sense.

Justice committee  Well, I think I've tried to answer that already, in the sense that the starting point is that the court looks at the condition before it. The condition says to either consider restricting the use of the Internet or other digital network, or, as has been proposed, specified by the

Justice committee  I think that's a possible interpretation. I'm just trying to assist the committee in the sense of explaining what the intention is, how the wording works or could be interpreted.... Obviously, I'm not in a position to say it will necessarily...that the risk will materialize or th

Justice committee  I think my previous answer was that there is a risk that it would be limiting. If the wording was as proposed, “using the Internet or other digital network specified by the court”, then the expectation would be that the court would specify what other networks are not included in

Justice committee  Is it possible for a judge to simply adopt the wording of the condition? It is possible, but the condition as proposed by Bill C-54 also says “in accordance with conditions set by the court”. So number one, it's built into the condition. Number two, you're quite right in terms o

Justice committee  I think there's one risk that occurs to me when I look at the language. If a court, at the time of sentencing, has in mind the Internet, we all have a common understanding of what that means, but if there are other networks that we don't turn our minds to because we don't think a