Justice committee  Well, obviously federal responsibility is within federal corrections, but in looking at what implications there might be, we're not in a position to cost out provincial implications.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  Well, to clarify in terms of the statistics we just heard about, we obviously have access to the same statistics that the committee has heard. We have access to older reports as well. The committee heard that there is a difficulty for adult criminal court survey data in breaking down the number of general sexual assault offences that involve child victims as distinct from adult victims, and that's a challenge that I have little control over in terms of trying to provide better information to this committee.

Justice committee  No. My answer before was that within the areas of federal responsibility, calculations of cost would be for those areas that are a federal responsibility—that is, federal corrections.

Justice committee  I'm not aware if provinces have.

Justice committee  Sometimes it happens. There's no question that we've had opportunities in recent years to engage in discussions through existing FPT fora, but I'm not personally aware of issues having been identified on Bill C-54 through those FPT fora.

Justice committee  It has been out since November, and we have had various FPT meetings.

Justice committee  In response to one of my earlier appearances, I was asked to provide some information to the committee that provided an understanding and a definition of what was meant by the term “Internet or other digital network”. We did provide that information. From that response, the committee will see that the language does have a consistent meaning and understanding in that it involves a network that is connected to another network for the purpose of communication.

Justice committee  Well, as I say, I think the courts already take the guidance of what's in section 161 right now, use the language that's there, and tailor it as appropriate in the circumstances. So they're not constrained by the words on the paper. They may be able to go beyond that in the particular case.

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 about them as distinct from the Internet....

Justice committee  That's correct--

Justice committee  --and to the extent that a court wanted to specify, they would not be precluded from specifying with this language.

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 of looking to what's in section 161 right now, which is only a condition against using a computer system for the purpose of communicating with a young person.

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 the Internet.

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 that a court wouldn't be so inclined to interpret it, because as I say, if you read it all together, the provision already says unless the offender does so in accordance with the conditions set by the court, so the direction is there to the courts.