Over sixteen witnesses appeared before the Senate Committee during another marathon session of testimony on Bill C-10. Today’s session dealt primarily with the fight against child abuse and the spread of child pornography. Witnesses represented advocacy groups, victims of sexual abuse, and experts on sexual offenders.
Many witnesses put forth a position that mandatory minimum sentences provide adequate deterrence for sexual predators and give more leverage to police during questioning. Senators Runciman and Lang voiced their opinion that Canadian judges give sentences to convicted predators that are too low and that judges across the country gave “inconsistent sentences” . The witnesses who were victims of sexual abuse were unanimous in their feelings that they had not received justice and that their perpetrators deserved harsher sentences.
Yet incarceration was not the only topic that the committee discussed. Senator Jaffer and Paul Gillespie, a former policeman now with Kids Internet Safety Alliance, noted that incarceration should be one step in a comprehensive strategy to fight abuse.
All witnesses agreed that funding for prevention strategies and treatment services needed to be increased.
Senator Fraser read a submission by a Rupert Ross, a former crown prosecutor, who found conditional sentences a very useful tool in encouraging offenders to cooperate and possibly report other abusers. He implored the committee not to legislate mandatory minimums, as he feared it would cause less cooperation and more acquittals. This directly contradicted earlier testimony from Mr. Gillespie, who stated that Crown Prosecutors are demanding mandatory minimums to help them push for tougher sentences.
Dr. Ellerby from the Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers added further dimensions to the debate. Ellerby voiced opposition to the notion that abusers cannot be cured and stated that treatments have proven to work in rehabilitating offenders. He went on to argue that a range of approaches can be successfully used in fighting sexual abuse including community monitoring and engagement.
With many offenders victims of abuse themselves, having an incarceration only approach for sexual abusers is fraught with contradictions.
A number of witnesses referenced the need for a comprehensive strategy incorporating prevention, incarceration, mental health treatment and rehabilitation. Yet government-side questioning and discussion of the Bill continued on the assumption that tougher sentences were the only strategy to deal with sexual abusers, with little research to prove this.
Dr. Ellerby flatly stated that if the goal is the reduction of crime and recidivism mandatory minimums will not succeed.This statement seemed to fall on deaf ears.
Despite evidence that seemed to downplay the requests of many victims of sexual abuse for tough sentences, the unanimity of their request cannot be ignored. There is real debate to be had here, one that will involve weighing emotions and evidence to create a comprehensive sexual abuse strategy for both victims and offenders. All witnesses seemed very willing to have this discussion. But with the growing combative attitude between the federal government and voices that oppose it, it’s unlikely that Ottawa will be sanctioning such a discussion anytime soon.
