[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 19, 1996
.0941 
[English]
The Chair: Order, please. We have a procedural motion, for which I think I'll step down and ask the vice-chair to take over.
We'll get to our witnesses in a minute.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): We have a motion from Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Thank you, Madam Chair.
As the whip for the Reform Party, I am troubled that I even have to appear before you on this issue. I would like you to know that I have never done this before. It's not as though this is a regular procedure for me. I'm somewhat uncomfortable to venture into these waters, but I feel I must, so I will.
We are all grown-up people here. I feel I should not have had to appear on this, really, but feel I am forced to because of what has gone on both inside and outside this committee over the last little while, in particular with the chair of the committee.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Strahl, since you're talking to the motion without the motion being on the floor, can I ask you to put the motion forward first.
Mr. Strahl: Pardon me. I thought you had read it into the record.
I move that this committee consider, in a report to the House, the recent improper conduct of the chair of this committee.
In Beauchesne's, subsection 830(1) reads: ``The Chairman of the committee is responsible for order and decorum in the committee.'' The key word here, and one I would like to talk about briefly, is ``responsible''. Being the chair of a committee is an important responsibility. It's not given lightly, nor is it taken lightly, I suppose. The chair of a committee frequently sets the tone of the debate, sets the standard of the debate, and sets the demeanour of the committee.
All the chairs I have seen have different ways of doing this, but the standard always is towards impartiality, towards mirroring the Speaker's role in the House, where the Speaker is impartial; is seen to be impartial; does not enter into the debate; is reasonable with all parties and all members in the House; and when there is a procedural problem, or any kind of problem, in the House, keeps his cool and tries to find a solution that maintains order and decorum. That's the Speaker's role, I believe, and it is the role of the chair of the committee, which is, as I say, very similar to the role of the Speaker of the House.
What I'm addressing here today is not just a matter of rules, however; it is a question of good sense, of propriety, of decorum, as it says in Beauchesne's. Decorum in this case, I would argue, simply means straight decency and politeness.
.0945
I think the job of the chair, in other words, is to remove himself or herself from the cut and thrust of political debate, to rise above the partisanship that could take place in the position of the chair if they're not careful. In other words, there needs to be a degree of independence for the chair to be regarded by all parties to be legitimate. That has to be maintained at all times or else the work of the committee can't proceed along those lines.
I have noticed, going back over some of the minutes from the committee meetings, what I think is a pattern of one-sidedness on behalf of the chair. At times - not all the time, certainly - she seems to forget which hat she's wearing, and sometimes she leaves her partisan hat on too long. She does not check it at the door but takes it with her to the chair. I think that's contrary to the spirit of the House and contrary to the generous principles of democracy we all try to maintain in both the House and committee.
I was before the committee just recently on the issue of what happened on November 7, when the Speaker made a ruling - what should have been a very routine ruling, I felt - on how the member for Wild Rose, substituted into the meeting, was denied the rights of a full member of this committee. I brought it to the attention of the chair. She didn't want to acknowledge it, saying that's just the way it was. She'd made a ruling. So I had to appeal in the House to the Speaker.
The Speaker on November 7 made the ruling that indeed the member for Wild Rose was a full member of the committee when he was substituted in and should have had full rights. In essence, he chastized the chair, saying, pay attention to this, because this is the way it should be.
I shouldn't have had to do that. I mean, it's embarrassing to go to the House to get the Speaker to rule on affairs of the committee.
I could go through some of the other examples. I don't really want to get into this. In some ways, it's embarrassing for me to even have to do this. But when we get into a pattern of the chair entering into debate with the member for Crowfoot on occasion, actually debating the points of the bills they're supposed to be discussing, taking a partisan position as the chair - and if she wants to step down, as she is today, of course, that's her business - it's distressing.
The icing on the cake was the week before last, when the chair of the committee, while she was in the chair, asked the member for Crowfoot to step outside to have a discussion. As I understand it, she turned the chair over to you and asked the member for Crowfoot to step outside, and accused him there of shanghaiing, or somehow undermining, the work of the committee and single-handedly destroying the attempts of the committee to deal with the Young Offenders Act.
Understandably, I think, the member for Crowfoot, not realizing that he had so much power, asked how on earth it was possible that he was single-handedly destroying the work of the committee, at which time she accused him in the hallway of using underhanded and sneaky tactics and one thing or another. She repeated this in the House during a debate here a couple of days ago.
In the House she went on to describe how the Reform Party had tried to shanghai or to stop the hearings from going ahead. But that's debate in the House, and that's her business. I'm just saying that was the accusation made in the hallway.
When the member for Crowfoot asked her to come in and put it before the committee if she thought there was a problem, to get it on the record, she told him, in not so polite terms, to ``f - off'', and stalked off.
I'm not exactly sure how that is supposed to add to decorum and decency and respect for the chair when you get invited by the chair to step outside and are promptly told to ``f - off'' if you don't like what she says. Madam Chair, it's very difficult to have respect for that between any parliamentarians.
.0950
If there are accusations to be made about the work of this member on the committee, they should be made before the committee and dealt with if that's necessary. I don't think any of us should expect to be called outside by the committee chair and told in no uncertain terms, using terms that I don't think should be used.... Well, what other words do you use to describe that? You can't fuddle duddle with the word.
Madam Chair, it's very inappropriate. At the very least the chair should apologize for that.
The reason I brought this motion is to bring it to the attention of the committee that this kind of stuff is.... If she somehow thinks the committee will run more smoothly because of this, she's badly mistaken. It's not going to run more smoothly, and of course that's why I have to be here today. If that's the kind of stuff that's going to go on, I'll park my rear end on this committee and make things hellish. That obviously shouldn't be necessary, nor should a chair of any committee have to resort to that. If she has a problem with a member or with a party or with anything else, then by all means she should bring it up for discussion at the committee so it can be dealt with; to personally attack someone is just inappropriate.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Kilger.
Mr. Kilger (Stormont - Dundas): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I do want to respond to the Reform Party whip, and I would begin by saying that he's engaged in debate and not in procedure. What goes on between members in the hallways outside committee rooms and outside the chamber is of course a matter of privacy between those members. I don't think the committee is positioned at all to deal with such a subject matter. I would hope that in the interest of their interest in justice issues, at some point in time they'll be able to resolve it if there are any outstanding differences as colleagues and as parliamentarians.
I think we all know this committee has been charged with a great deal of work, some very important work. I believe the quality of the work that has come from this committee, due to all parliamentarians from both sides of the House, has repeated itself and stands this committee well for what it has accomplished.
I want to wrap this up because of your workload and the importance of your work here and because you have witnesses waiting. I submit to you that this is not a motion I would support. Clearly what goes on outside the committee room should be left outside the committee room and members should deal with that by themselves. That's how I would put it. I will leave the matter at that, but I think this motion is out of order and I certainly would not support it.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you.
I'll recognize the next two speakers, but we do have witnesses here who have come a long way, and I wonder if we could be as succinct as possible in our comments.
Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Madam Chair.
As members who were present in this committee on the morning of November 7 will remember, I was requested by the chair to meet her outside the committee room. The chair at that time did not indicate what the subject matter was. When I got outside the door I was subjected to what I can only describe as a verbal attack. I was accused of shutting down the work of the committee. I was accused of using sneaky tactics to do so. When I asked the chair not to call me sneaky and asked her to bring this conversation back into the committee so that her accusation could be placed on the record, I was told to ``f - off''. I use the initial; she did not.
To begin with, her accusations are false. As a committee member I have no power to shut down the work of this committee. That is clear. I have never been sneaky in -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Excuse me, Mr. Ramsay. I think yet again we're engaging in some kind of a debate. Mr. Strahl has already outlined the information, and you're repeating that. If you wanted to speak specifically to the motion -
.0955
Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, I'm speaking directly to the motion and the basis of the motion.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Excuse me, could you perhaps add more substantive information rather than repeating everything -
Mr. Ramsay: That's exactly what I'm doing.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Excuse me, Mr. Ramsay. If you'll wait a second instead of interrupting me, I just asked you -
Mr. Ramsay: You have interrupted me, Madam Chair, but go forward. I'll abide by the will of the chair.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Ramsay, instead of repeating everything that has already been said by your whip, I asked you to perhaps speak specifically to the motion and to add new information for the sake of our witnesses. Please continue.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I repeat that I have never been sneaky in any of my dealings inside or outside the committee. I simply objected, Madam Chair, to spending $60,000 on a panel at least partially made up of witnesses who have already appeared before the committee on the 12-year review of the YOA. I might add that the Bloc member who was present voted against it as well.
I find the chair's conduct to be an attack upon my rights and privileges as a member of Parliament and as a member at this committee, and it reflects an unacceptable degree of hostility and bias from the chair. This, coupled with the filthy language, I find contemptible and unacceptable, and I feel I have lost the fairness and impartiality of the chair as a result of this, and nothing that has occurred since that time has lent itself to a change of that opinion.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): On a point of clarification, the House wasn't sitting last week and we haven't sat as a committee since November 7. Is there something...? Don't worry about it.
Mr. Telegdi, you wanted to speak.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): Madam Chair, I'm not privy to what members talk about in the hall, and the alleged incident didn't take place in committee. I really don't think we should be dealing with infractions between members, whatever it might be, nor are we in a position to judge what happened in that kind of a situation. We're not that kind of a quorum.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Kilger.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Chair, with respect to all members, I would ask you to put the question.
Mr. Strahl: On a point of order, Madam Chair, and I don't want to go on at length -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Strahl, if you could just wait until you're recognized before you continue to march in, that would be helpful to the working of the committee.
Mr. Strahl, would you like to say something?
Mr. Strahl: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): And then I'll recognize Mr. Bellehumeur -
Mr. Strahl: Would you not interrupt me, please, after you've recognized me? That's the kind of crap that makes for so much friction in this committee. Jeepers creepers, you people don't have any respect for common.... Even the idea of of whether this is a debatable motion.... You accuse the member of entering into debate, and this is a debatable motion. Yes, it is debate. Of course it's debate. It's not a matter of procedure. It's a motion of debate. You shouldn't get all out of whack because we're debating a debatable motion. That's what a debatable motion is - debatable.
So whether people here agree with it or not, a motion before this committee is debatable. That's what we're doing, so don't get upset when we debate it. He's putting the facts on the table. The person who has been involved in this altercation wants to go on the record to say what happened, and you didn't want to hear it. All I'm saying is -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Was that a point of order, Mr. Strahl? Is that your point or order?
Mr. Strahl: That this is a debatable motion and we can enter into debate.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you, Mr. Strahl. I had recognized that it was debated. I just asked Mr. Ramsay to not repeat everything that you had said, and to get on to more information rather than just having everybody repeat everything everyone else had said.
Mr. Strahl: That's improper.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): I did not say that it was not debatable, Mr. Strahl, if you'll check the record.
I'll now recognize Mr. Bellehumeur.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): I know we could discuss it if the Chair had been guilty of improper conduct, but we shouldn't be dealing with something that happened outside the committee. We have heard the version of the Chair and that of the member from the Reform Party. All this happened outside the committee room.
.1000
Today, we are wasting precious time. Witnesses have come from across the country so that they might appear on a bill of great importance, and here we are fooling around, because this is really a waste of time this morning. This is childish. This involves $60,000 and I was against it. I protested, as is my right under the Standing Orders, and I have nothing against Mrs. Cohen. We don't always share the same opinions, but that's democracy, that's politics.
I don't know if this is the proper time to do so, but if we must vote, I would ask that we deal with this motion immediately and be done with it.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: The member just mentioned that the chair of the committee...we have one version and then we have the chair's opinion. We haven't heard from the chair. Perhaps she would like to say what she said happened out in the hallway.
Madam Chair, walking up and down the hallways...conversations are going on all the time. While she was in the chair she told the member she was going to leave the chair and she wanted to meet him outside. So while it is not happening in committee perhaps, it was in her role as the chair of the committee that she called the member for Crowfoot outside to talk with him about something, and he went in good faith to do that. Perhaps you'd like to comment on whether she agrees with this account or not.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you, Mr. Strahl.
I've recognized everybody who indicated a willingness to speak on this issue, and now I'll put the question.
All in favour of the motion?
Mr. Strahl: Can we have a recorded vote?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Yes. Will the clerk please call the vote?
Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 2
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): The motion is defeated. I'll ask that the chair resume her position and that we move on to the testimony of the witnesses.
Thank you.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Yes, Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: I would like to move that we report the findings of this committee to the House.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Would you like to make a motion to that effect, Mr. Strahl?
Mr. Strahl: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to that effect.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): All in favour of the motion?
Some hon. members: Apply the vote.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): I'll apply the vote.
Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Yes, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Is this motion not subject to the same rules as other motions that require a 48-hour time period?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. That would be appropriate. If you would like to put the motion in writing, we will take it as notice of a motion. Thank you.
The Chair: We're now on Bill C-27, and I am very pleased to welcome Rosalind Prober from Winnipeg, and her son Charles J. Prober.
You have given us an outline of your brief. Ms Prober, did you want to read that in?
Ms Rosalind Prober (Individual Presentation): Yes, I thought I would read it.
The Chair: Great. That's the usual procedure, so we're happy to hear from you.
Ms Prober: Thank you very much. I'm very happy to be here from Winnipeg. The snow was very heavy, so I am lucky to be here. In defence of Winnipeg, I would like to say that the sun was shining.
The Chair: The sun can't shine at the same time all that snow is being dumped, so be careful, because you're credibility will be very important today.
Ms Prober: Before starting I'd like to publicly thank Lloyd Axworthy and his wife Denise for the support and encouragement given my family and me over the past several years.
Thank you for inviting my son and me to appear before you today. We've come here to discuss the necessity and urgency of Canada having effective and comprehensive laws to protect all children, including our own Canadian children outside of Canada, from Canadian sexual predators.
.1005
Bill C-27 recognizes this need with respect to those children who are paid for sex. Regrettably, Bill C-27 completely ignores those children, both foreign and, as my son will discuss, Canadian children who are sexually assaulted outside of Canada by Canadians and not paid.
I don't feel it's necessary to give graphic examples of the sexual crimes being committed against children around the world. One can imagine what goes on in countries that offer up an endless supply of very young children for sex to tourists coming from wealthy nations.
The child sex industry is self-perpetuating and cyclical. There is no escape, only AIDS and death.
Women brothel owners in India were all child prostitutes themselves. Children who at a very young age are forced into prostitution become tomorrow's pimps and abusers of other young children, as no other way of life is open to them. This industry therefore grows and grows.
Bill C-27 sends a clear message that all paid sex with children abroad is wrong. An arrest in Canada will be made whether the perpetrator is a person who just once hired a prostituted child abroad or is a pedophile who regularly travels abroad for sex with children.
Legislation like Bill C-27 is essential to stop these crimes. Pedophilia is a compulsive and psychopathic disorder which, like most addictions, is progressive in nature, requiring more and more victims. Canadian sex tourists and pedophiles leave Canada and travel to countries where they feel they can engage in all forms of sexual activities with children and not be held accountable for this criminal behaviour. If arrested in the foreign country, they just skip bail or bribe their way out of the country and return home to Canada, which becomes their safe haven.
The system of using treaties and extradition to deal with these crimes has failed. Judy Steed, in her book, Our Little Secret: Confronting Child Sexual Abuse in Canada, devotes one chapter to a Canadian sex tourist. It is difficult to read about this man's activities abroad. It's no surprise that once back home he repeats the same crimes.
It is also no surprise that none of the Canadian victims reported their abuse to the police. When a country allows its citizens to commit sexual crimes abroad and return home unhindered, they are more than likely to commit the same crimes at home. It is therefore in our own self-interest and in the interest of protecting Canadian children that legislation on sex tourism be enacted.
The enormity of the problem of the sexual exploitation of children, the speed at which it is spreading and the unbelievable amount of money being made off children who are, more often than not, kidnapped, stateless and, battered into submission and a lifetime of sex with strangers and disease cannot be ignored.
In fact, many of the delegates at the World Congress Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Sweden felt that the crimes against the children in the child sex industry should be regarded as crimes against humanity. When you start thinking in terms of a million children a year involved in what is really the wickedest form of child labour, the prostituting of pre-pubescent girls and boys, I believe they are correct.
Australia and New Zealand were the first Commonwealth and common law countries to enact extraterritorial laws to stop sex tourism. Great Britain has followed suit. Canada has an international obligation as a highly developed country to do the same. Bill C-27 is definitely a step in the right direction.
Bill C-27 states that if you leave Canada and pay or give consideration for sex with a minor, you can be arrested in Canada. Unfortunately, those Canadian sexual abusers who don't pay, even when the victims are our own Canadian children, are ignored by this bill. Canada is the only country that has extraterritorial jurisdiction on sex tourism that discriminates against those children who are not commercially exploited.
At the world congress in Sweden, when I spoke to many government representatives and NGOs from around the world about the fact that Canada's new extraterritorial legislation would allow for the prosecution of only those who paid for sex, the response was generally one of surprise. The question would be asked: why leave out those children who are not paid? To make money the issue focuses on the means, not the deed.
Two individuals who are on the front line fighting sex tourists had this to say. The first is Father Shea Cullen of the Philippines. He says that should the Canadian law contain limiting and constricting provisions or requirements, it would render any such law ineffective and counter-productive, thereby denying justice to victims.
.1010
Wanchai Roujanavong, the deputy director of international cooperation in the criminal matters division in Bangkok, asks: should a Canadian who assaults and rapes go unpunished? Why make the law unnecessarily complicated by adding an extra burden of proof to the offence?
By focusing only on some sexual crimes committed on children abroad, those where money or ``considerations'' are involved, Canada's Bill C-27 is very disappointing. It extends extraterritorially only one of the many laws in Canada that protect children from sexual abuse.
I hope and trust that this committee, in the interest and protection of all children, Canadian and non-Canadian, will ask the Department of Justice to fine-tune this bill.
Canada must join those countries that have criminalized all forms of child sexual abuse committed by their citizens abroad. I'm here to urge this committee to amend Bill C-27 so that Canadians will know that child sexual abuse anywhere will not be tolerated.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. Did you have something to add, Mr. Prober?
Mr. Charles J. Prober (Individual Presentation): Yes, I did. Thank you.
Good morning, everybody. Bonjour à tous. My name is Charles J. Prober. While I'm in my second year of law school at McGill University, you'll all be glad to note that I'm not here today in my capacity as a future lawyer. Rather, I'm here to discuss with you the future of Bill C-27, both as a Canadian concerned about the protection of children in Canada and throughout the world, and as a victim of child abuse that occurred outside Canada, but which was committed by a Canadian.
Bill C-27 will not provide a legal remedy to children who are abused abroad by Canadians if it is outside the realm of child prostitution. In my very respectful opinion, it's inappropriate to limit the application of Bill C-27 to situations that are considered offences under subsection 212(4) of the Criminal Code. The application of Bill C-27 must be broadened to include all instances in which child abuse is committed abroad by a Canadian.
Here are some of the reasons.
First, as you know, Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. By doing this, Canada has undertaken to protect all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. With all due respect to the drafters of Bill C-27, while this bill is a step in the right direction, the instances of sexual exploitation to which the new legislation will apply are severely limited. Bill C-27 falls a long way short of protecting children from all forms of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation.
Second, there is no real difference between children who are abused as child prostitutes and those who are abused in other circumstances. Most children in the prostitution trade abroad do not have a real choice as to whether or not to prostitute themselves. They are too young to have the capacity to make this type of decision, and sometimes they're sold to pimps by their families, who are unaware of what's in store for their child.
Why should Bill C-27 be limited to instances of sexual exploitation in these cases? As I will discuss shortly, there are many Canadian children abused outside of Canada by Canadians, and these children are denied legal recourse in Canada. How are these victims different from children who are abused in the realm of child prostitution? In either case, the children have no real choice in the matter. The crime is the same. These are all children.
Third, as my mom mentioned, there are 11 countries that have enacted legislation to protect their children, and children throughout the world, from their country's pedophiles who abuse children outside their borders. Not one of these countries has limited the law to situations involving consideration, as is proposed in our country's Bill C-27. Why should Canada be the first to fail child victims who are abused abroad by Canadians when no consideration is involved?
Finally, there are many children not trapped in the prostitution trade who are abused by Canadians outside of Canada. Currently, the only recourse available to these victims is to have the sexual deviant prosecuted in the country in which the abuse occurred.
As you may be aware, this can be a very difficult and often impossible task. Charges must be filed in the country where the abuse occurred. The authorities there may not be cooperative, or the acts may not even be considered offences in those countries.
.1015
In the event that charges are filed, the accused will be required to travel to the country where the offence occurred. Since these individuals will not likely be willing to travel outside of Canada to stand trial in another country, he or she will have to be compelled to appear. The victim must hope that Canada has an extradition agreement with this country; otherwise, a trial will never take place. Even if there is an extradition agreement, this process is long and unpredictable. There are numerous other shortcomings in this process.
To illustrate, consider my situation. I brought a complaint to the RCMP in 1992 against a Canadian who abused me while I was on family trips in the Bahamas. Four years later there's little hope that justice will be served. In a sense, it's almost unfortunate that this person never had the chance to abuse me in Canada. At least then my family could have seen justice served.
Bill C-27, as drafted now, will continue to deny protection to victims like me who are not in the child prostitution trade but are nonetheless exploited outside of Canada by Canadians.
In my opinion, it is unacceptable that under Bill C-27 a non-Canadian who is abused outside of Canada by a Canadian in the realm of child prostitution can have a legal recourse against that person in Canada, whereas a Canadian like me who is abused outside the borders of Canada is denied that recourse. This is simply for the fact that they did not receive any money or contributions for the abuse they endured.
If Bill C-27 had been in place when I was abused and brought a complaint, I would have found it offensive that no legal recourse was available to me because I had not received money for being abused.
With the increase in the amount of time Canadians spend abroad, there is an equally increasing opportunity to abuse children away from home. Many Canadian adults such as teachers, sports coaches, or even family friends travel outside of the country with Canadian children other than their own.
Sandra Kirby is a sociologist at the University of Manitoba who conducted a study on sexual abuse in athletics. It was concluded that a number of the instances of sexual abuse on athletes happened outside of the country. Currently these children are denied legal recourse in Canada for the abuse they suffered outside of Canada, despite the fact that they are Canadian and the person who abused them is Canadian.
Bill C-27 does not remedy this problem. I submit to this committee that this is not right. I realize there are some problems with extending extraterritorial jurisdiction under Bill C-27. In my humble opinion, however, I don't think there's any additional objection to broadening the bill to apply to Canadians who abuse children whether or not any consideration is involved. These problems of extraterritoriality remain the same.
It is the same crime to abuse a child whether money is involved or not. The sexual exploitation of children throughout the world must stop. The damage done to children who are abused is tremendous and irreversible.
I urge this committee to take the opportunity to level the playing field against child abuse. Please extend Bill C-27 to apply to Canadians who abuse children outside of Canada whether or not any consideration is involved. Thank you for your time and attention.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any questions?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon.
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): I have questions to ask and some comments to make. You know that I also tabled a bill on sex tourism and the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill that is before us. However, some amendments might be necessary. Moreover, you are here to enlighten us. There is a provision that I find surprising; it involves charging people who have sexually abused children as compared to those who are paid for this service. I hadn't noticed that distinction in the bill.
You have shown us a dimension that I had not seen and which is quite restrictive in the bill. I had prepared another amendment that I want to include in the bill. It involved criminalizing, through the bill, paedophile agencies and networks. I wanted it to be a specific provision in the bill. I don't know yet whether we will debate this amendment. As far as we are concerned, we will move an amendment on sex tourism. Therefore, this is a bill that should be supported by all parties, because we know that this is a curse.
.1020
When I took steps to introduce a bill to this effect, I was told it would be difficult to enforce. Do you think that such a bill would be difficult to enforce, and why? In other countries, witnesses can be heard through video-conferencing. When I spoke about my bill, the main objection was that it would be difficult to enforce. Do you also feel that way?
Mr. Prober: I will try to respond in French. If I have problems, I will speak in English.
The difficulties with respect to enforcing this Act are the same in all cases. I suggested
[English]
to include situations of sexual abuse that occur whether or not consideration is involved...these problems are still evident.
In my case, however, one of the big objections to the bill in general is, as you mentioned, the problem of getting evidence. In my case, I was in Canada. Any witnesses who would have been presented in my case - with the exception of one or two - were already in Canada. So in a sense, by extending the law a lot of the problems of applicability to situations like mine disappear.
My mom might be able to address this better. As I mentioned, I'm not here as a lawyer and I'm not completely learned on all the problems of extending extraterritorial jurisdiction. But the more specifically you draft the legislation, the more resources you put behind it and the more instruction you give to the courts on how to prosecute people in these situations, it makes it easier to implement.
As I said, I'm not sure I can address that fully.
Ms Prober: First of all, I'd like to say that there's nothing in this bill that says another country cannot charge a Canadian in their country.
For example, they can certainly charge a Canadian who sexually abuses children in Thailand. The problem is when they whip home to Canada, then Canada protects them. We're talking here about protected pedophilia. Bill C-27 says we are no longer going to protect pedophiles; we're going to charge them in Canada.
So the point is that there are obviously problems with getting witnesses back and forth. There are countries that have certainly done this. They have charged individuals. They have brought witnesses to their own country. Other countries have provisions where they can use video linking.
Bill C-27 doesn't outline yet how they are going to implement this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I have just touched upon two paragraphs of Bill C-27 that you mentioned earlier. Are you alluding to clause 212(4) that was suggested? I will read it, it will be easier:
(4) Every person who solicits, in any place, for the purpose of or attempting to obtain, for consideration, sexual favours from a person under, or believed to be under the age of 18, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a maximum of five years.
You say that at this time, nothing can protect someone from the type of situation you experienced. There is nothing with Bill C-27 either, because it states that it would be for consideration. In your case it was truly sexual abuse. There is an assumption, in this provision, it's the next clause. We have created an assumption, that is that a person who is accused has obtained sexual favours or has attempted to do so from a person who has been presented as being under the age of 18. But you have to prove that these services were paid for.
.1025
You say that if we wanted to cover everything, or cover more, we would have to amend Bill C-27 to include not only the person who pays someone for sexual favours, but also the person who tries to obtain sexual favours for consideration, and any person who tries to obtain sexual favours or who sexually abuses a person outside the country. That person would be presumed guilty. Did I understand you correctly?
[English]
Mr. Prober: Yes, that's exactly correct. In Canada I'm not sure how subsection 212(4) - the one you just pointed to - has been applied. But as I read it, it seems to be a very specific situation in which child prostitution is involved.
As you pointed out very clearly, it just so happens to be that I'm a Canadian. If a Canadian goes abroad and abuses a child, I don't think it should matter if they paid for it, because, as I mentioned, child prostitutes don't have a choice in the matter. didn't have a choice in the matter. When you're four or five years old, you can't say no. You don't even realize what's happening.
Yes, I think it should be extended to all situations of sexual abuse.
Ms Prober: I'd just like to add that the other countries that have this legislation - Australia, New Zealand, etc. - cover sexual assault. They don't mention payment whatsoever; it's very broad so that children won't fall through the gaps in the law. And that's the way it should be, otherwise it doesn't really make sense.
What has happened here is that they've taken one Canadian law - and that is the law involving consideration or the hiring of prostitutes - and they've made it extraterritorial, instead of taking all the laws that we have in Canada against sexual abuse and making all of them extraterritorial.
If we want to talk specifically about our own Canadian children, just think of all the Canadian children who are outside the jurisdiction of Canada with another Canadian in a position of trust. Those children are going to report sexual abuse in Canada.
First of all, you have the issue of delay, because delay is a ramification of sexual assault. Generally if children are seriously sexually abused, they're not going to come forward right away. It takes them a long time to deal with the issue and to come forward later.
When this happens, if you have a bill like Bill C-27, no one can do anything. In fact, I find it rather offensive - and my son used this word - that a Canadian child would have to go to the RCMP and say, when I was outside the country with my sports coach, my religious leader, my family friend, my boy scout counsellor, my whomever, I was sexually assaulted. The police would turn around looking for some way to prove they were paid so that this law would apply, because there's no other one. In fact, even the idea that a sexual assault victim, prostituted or not, would have to testify on the exchange is offensive. It isn't quite right, in my opinion.
Therefore, the law should be very broad. With this law, obviously, you're not going to catch every sex tourist. This law, though, should send a clear message to Canadians that sex with children is wrong whether it's inside the country or outside the country.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur and Madame Gagnon.
Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): One of the things that's been raised is the matter of resources. People have rightfully pointed out that child abuse happens in Canada and we don't manage to prosecute it. There are lots of cases on the sex tourism side of things, and resources are going to be dedicated to that. How we are going to track down every sports coach, every family friend, or whoever on behalf of every Canadian child is really up to those countries to deal with. So what do you say to those people who say it's a resource issue?
.1030
Mr. Prober: I just wanted to say that if Canada is concerned about resources...in my case a lot of expenses were incurred because the accused had to be arrested in Canada. Extradition arrangements had to be made. In my case, in particular - I'll let my mom address the other concern about when it's a non-Canadian - it would have been much cheaper for Canada to have investigated and prosecuted him in Canada than have the RCMP try through INTERPOL. He has obviously assaulted children in Canada as well, because he's lived here all his life. It might have been cheaper to have him prosecuted in Canada.
Ms Prober: That's right. The time and resources when you have an extradition case are enormous. My son is absolutely correct.
As for Canadian pedophiles who leave Canada and sexually assault children abroad, as Canadians we stand for something and it costs money. One of those things we stand for is that we should not allow our citizens to go abroad and commit crimes against children. It is true it is going to be a resource issue, but it is an important one.
Ms Torsney: The other thing that I think is interesting from your case and from others is that there are sometimes simple cases but the law is complicating things. In your case, what did the Bahamian government say to you about trying to prosecute a case in the Bahamas of two Canadians?
Ms Prober: Of course there was absolutely no interest. It was going to cost them a lot of money. It was going to take them a lot of time. They knew perfectly well that if they started asking for the extradition of a Canadian, they were going to get into a very lengthy legal mess, because generally people don't want to be extradited.
Exactly what they predicted has come about. Years have gone by. The case meanders through the courts, and we have what in fact is protected pedophilia in this country. We cannot touch this individual here, which is quite wrong, considering, as I say, the number of Canadian children who are outside the jurisdiction of Canada in a position of trust.
Mr. Prober: I want to emphasize as well how fortunate I was in a sense to come from a fairly well-off family. My dad's a criminal lawyer. He is knowledgeable on the subject. We're friendly with high-ranking Bahamian political people, and this wouldn't have come about otherwise.
We pulled a lot of strings to get as far as we did. Somebody in a less fortunate situation, whose family didn't have the money to go down to the Bahamas and file charges, didn't have the money to go to the other country and convince their friends that this was something the Bahamian government should do, and didn't have the resources in Canada to have the person extradited, would have no chance.
Ms Prober: Just the phone bills alone, in trying to convince a foreign government to arrest or ask for the extradition of a Canadian citizen, are phenomenal. That puts the parents in the position of begging. If you have the money attached to the begging or if you have.... My husband's a lawyer. He had the legal expertise. If you can put all of that together, you have a shot at perhaps getting that country interested in the extradition of an individual. But an ordinary Canadian who doesn't have the resources or isn't familiar with the laws will go to the RCMP and very quickly give up.
Ms Torsney: It's not just financial resources. It's also a lot of personal determination that's gotten you as far as you have gotten, I would argue as well.
The other issue was sort of raised by Mrs. Gagnon. We do have the capacity in Canadian courts to do videoconferencing and testimonies as well, so that's not as much of an issue. We already have it written into our laws, so in your case we could have put a couple of witnesses...that would have been allowed and would probably have been cheaper than your phone bills and the RCMP's phone bills.
.1035
Ms Prober: Well, crime is a global issue. It's no longer just a national issue. There is enormous global crime, and justice systems cannot remain just within their own borders. Crime is crossing borders - we all know that - so trying to deal with it within just your own borders isn't going to work. We're going to have to think of solutions that work when crime crosses borders.
I really like New Zealand's solution. They made their whole criminal code extraterritorial, which is very shocking, but they did it. They are saying to their citizens not to leave the country, commit crimes abroad, and expect to come home and find a safe haven, because they will charge them in New Zealand if they're not prosecuted there.
Ms Torsney: I guess philosophically Canada has been against extraterritoriality in a number of cases. Where there's global agreement we do support it, for things such as terrorism.
Ms Prober: Absolutely.
Ms Torsney: I guess for the sake of our children and children internationally, there is a good case to be made here for extraterritoriality.
Ms Prober: That's right. Children are not going to call the police. If you're an adult outside Canada and something happens to you, your wallet is stolen or whatever, you'll call the police in that country. Children won't; they will wait until they come home and report what happened to them.
With Bill C-27 remaining as it is, we would have the potential of another Canadian family falling into the same mess, and it is a mess.
Mr. Prober: I'll just state one thing. Proposed subsection 212(4) puts an extra onus on the prosecution. I'm not an expert in that area by any means, but why impose this onus on the prosecution? They have to prove that the person paid money. Let's say a child suffered terrible abuse and under Bill C-27, as it currently stands, gets the case brought to court. Then all of a sudden it can't be proved that the person sought to pay this. Maybe this person grabbed the kid out of an alley and raped him in the back lane or something. It will be, sorry we can't help you, because you weren't paid for this service. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Ms Prober: Saying that, Bill C-27 is a definite step in the right direction. It is the right way to go. We can't ignore our international obligations to have good laws, strong laws, and enforceable laws against sex tourism. Sex tourism must end. All the developed countries of the world are joining together to say that.
Ms Torsney: I think we've got some support from some members on the committee - me, anyway - to move an amendment. We'll try to do that when the time is right.
Thank you for coming. I'm sure my time is up.
The Chair: Actually it isn't quite, but we'll let Mr. Telegdi piggyback on you.
Mr. Telegdi: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, colleagues.
Thank you very much for coming in front of the committee. I think you pointed out a case in which we have a glaring omission, if you will. I think we'll have to look at it to see how we can amend it and make it more practical. Particularly disturbing is your statement that while we protect kids in other countries we don't offer the same protection to Canadian kids in your type of situation.
Thank you very much. I appreciated your testimony.
The Chair: I think you've got two votes, so you're doing well.
Did you have more questions, Mrs. Gagnon?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: I would like to come back to the question of consideration and non-consideration. Personally, I would see a problem with the bill, because it involves child prostitution. It is true that we would like to include sexual abuse in this bill, but I wonder if it will be possible. When we try to amend the Criminal Code in other bills, it is fairly difficult. We can't often include the amendments that we would like to see. When there is prostitution, there is consideration. Could we omit the element of consideration in this bill because in this case it is sexual abuse?
.1040
You have touched upon an important point. You have made us aware of a practice. Even though this bill purports to target sexual abuse, it does not do so in the case of child prostitution outside the country. I don't know how we could do that. Would we need another bill to amend the Criminal Code? I don't know. We will discuss this with our legal counsel and with our lawyers. But you have raised a good point.
I would also like to come back to the point that you raised and that I had already thought of, that is that the case be heard in the country where the offence was committed. I see a small problem there. We know full well that in some countries, the police and the whole legal system turn a blind eye to cases of sexual abuse and the sale of children, because it's a fairly lucrative market. All countries are not aware of this issue. In any case, they have not adopted legislation to this effect. If they had truly wanted to protect their children and stop the traffic in children and the abuse, they would have adopted strict laws. There is tacit approval for this type of sex tourism. The aims of the bill are good, but I wonder how we are going to give it teeth, so that we can eradicate this scourge and live up to our international obligations to defend the integrity of the person and the rights of the child.
I would like you to explain to us how you see the defence and what would be the advantage of hearing the case in the country where this takes place. If those countries don't have the necessary laws, it will be difficult. After all, we can't transfer our Criminal Code to Thailand or to another country.
[English]
Mr. Prober: I'm not sure I understand. What specific amendments should be made to the bill?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: You said that you would like the case to be heard in the country where the offence took place. I don't know if I understood correctly, at the very beginning, when the witness made her presentation.
[English]
Ms Prober: C'est possible. Let's give an example. If a Canadian goes over to whatever country and commits sexual crimes against a child, this bill doesn't say they can't be charged there. They can be and they have been. We do have Canadian sexual predators in jail in other countries. It's just when they come home. If they skip bail or if they are not being charged in those countries, they should not be allowed to come home and feel that they are free from prosecution.
If you read Judy Steed's book and the chapter on sex tourism, the general feeling was, well, we'll whip off to the Philippines for a couple of weeks and molest numerous children. This fellow molested hundreds of boys. He just went back and forth, back and forth. The Philippines did not arrest him, but had they arrested him he could have just come back to Canada.
Perhaps the problem you're getting at is that in these countries there is enormous abuse of children by their own citizens, and you're absolutely correct. The sex tourism part of it is a small portion. Sex tourists from other countries are estimated to be 2% to 5% of the problem of children who are prostituted. It's the citizens in their own countries who are using the child prostitutes. Obviously that does not mean that we can allow our citizens to go abroad.
The medical profession is even using video linking between countries. I checked on that before I came here. When you have a medical profession using video linking, our justice system cannot remain behind. We must keep up with the times. If video linking is the answer to global crime, then video linking we must do.
It would be nice if you could think of an international court of justice for children, and I would like to work towards that, so that all of this between countries doesn't take place, and children would have a right to go to an international court. In the meantime Canadians should not be committing sexual crimes abroad or even against Canadian children - especially against Canadian children - and returning home and really being virtually free from prosecution.
.1045
Bill C-27 is going in the right direction. Unfortunately they took one law in Canada, in proposed section 212(4), saying that it's wrong to give consideration or have sex with a minor. That is an offence. All the other crimes, all the other laws against sexual abuse, were not applied extraterritorially. This is different from all the other countries.
I'd like to point out that Germany was one country that first of all gave protection to its own children when they were outside Germany with a German. Later they said the children of the world are not less worthy, so we will protect them also. This bill seems to state that Canadian children are less worthy than the other children in the world, which is quite wrong.
Generally Canadian children who are outside the jurisdiction are not being prostituted. They're children who are outside in a position of trust, as my son was.
The Chair: Thank you, Madame Gagnon.
Are there any other questions on the government side?
Thank you very much, both of you, for your contribution. We'll see if it bears fruit.
The meeting is adjourned.