Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on June 20th, 2017

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We've heard several times about the importance of educating people, particularly in these countries, about the fact that this is not acceptable. But as a country like India develops a middle class, it changes people's entertainment priorities and interests or whatever. I'm just wondering if you have seen a change in their interest, if you want to call it that, in sexploitation as the middle class has developed. Has that improved the situation? Is it making it worse?

[David Matas]

I think it's made it better. One of the things I saw recently when I was in India was government changing the currency. It withdrew all the 5,000 rupee notes—I think it was—which were relatively high denomination notes. The idea was that people were hiding this money and not paying taxes. Whether this should have been done was a matter of much debate, but I heard many people talk about it.

It would be like, in Canada, removing the $100 bill from circulation. Some people would say it's disruptive. Others would say it would help to control crime because the drug traffickers tend to use them. In fact, we removed the $1,000 bill exist, for precisely that reason; it was being used in crime a lot.

Just from the conversations I had with people there, the middle class tended to support this measure because they thought it would help deal with tax evasion and crime. The poorer people didn't like it all, because they weren't used to dealing with banks. For them, it was a big inconvenience.

I think this kind of demographic shift is helping shift attitudes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you, Mr. Matas.

I'm going to take the opportunity to also ask you a few questions, because I know there are some issues that will help in the writing of our report from this study. We've talked a lot about and focused today on India. Does ECPAT have information or programs in smaller states like Bhutan or the Maldives?

[David Matas]

We are in 86 countries. I must confess I can't list all 86 countries for you. I'd have to look that up. I could get back to you on it. There are 193 countries now. There are many countries in which we do not have a presence. We don't have comprehensive coverage. We'd like to have it. We could be into more countries.

When I was on the international board, I used to be involved in considering membership applications. We don't just say yes when somebody applies. We have some evaluation criteria. Sometimes we feel people haven't been doing enough work in the area, or they are not knowledgeable enough about the area. There are sometimes problems with the applications. We have to be sure that, when we get an application, the applicant is going to fit within the values and teams and process and so on.

Obviously for the government and the committee in the report, you don't want to focus just on the countries where ECPAT has a presence. It has to be global in nature. It may well be that those countries where we don't have a presence are in even more need of help than the countries in which we do have a presence.

I would say generally that this is an area where there's been increasing public awareness over time. I would say it's been increasing both in depth and breadth. There are some places where this increasing consciousness has really yet to arrive. I think what the committee and the Government of Canada can usefully do is help to spread this increasing awareness of the abuse and the need to deal with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you.

Can you describe any international co-operation across South Asian states, when it comes to the enforcement or investigation of these sorts of activities?

[David Matas]

Well, there's something called the Bali Process. Canada is involved in the Bali Process, but it basically deals with crimes of trafficking and smuggling in Asia. It doesn't deal specifically with child sex trafficking, but it would be a component of that process.

The Bali Process, I think, is useful as an exchange of information. It is about operatives in the field getting together and exchanging notes, so to speak. I think it's less useful as a policy forum. My own view is that the Bali Process should be changed so that it has more policy content and more collaborative content, so that it's more of a deliberative body, rather than just police officials getting together and exchanging experiences.

Getting any multilateral body to do anything is a big task.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

That relates to my final question. Has the UN or any of it agencies played a constructive role in the region on the issues that we're addressing with this study?

[David Matas]

Well, UNICEF, of course, is an organization for children. Our current director of ECPAT used to work for UNICEF, which has given us some funding. They are supportive and interested. If you're looking at the United Nations, I think UNICEF is a good point of contact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much.

With that, we're going to move to the last question from MP Hardcastle.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

My gosh, I get the last question? Okay.

Maybe on that, then, with those relationships, do you have any observations, best practices, or suggestions of ways that we could be addressing the issue of data collection?

[David Matas]

ECPAT Luxembourg did a report about best practices around the world, which is in English and French, so you could take a look at that. They did refer to the Beyond Borders' Man-to-Man campaign as a best practice. They referred to many others as well, so there are some. Of course, what Luxembourg was looking at were best practices generally, not just data collection specifically.

ECPAT was founded—I think it was in 1985, something like that. It was quite some time ago now. It has developed quite a lot of experience, had a lot of projects, and written a lot of reports. There's a lot of material out there already.

I would say, though, that this has been largely a private sector initiative. There have been some international conferences that ECPAT has co-sponsored with governments. There was one in Sweden. There was one in Brazil. There was one in Japan. There have been a few over the years, and these international conferences, intergovernmental conferences, have produced some resolutions that are worth looking at.

In fact, the chair mentioned that I was a moderator at three international meetings. One of them was held coincident with the intergovernmental meeting in Brazil. I just went to the ECPAT meeting; I didn't go to the intergovernmental meeting, but I remember its being there. Of course, these intergovernmental meetings are big efforts of organization and involve big expenses. I'm not necessarily sure that's the best way to promote this issue, but I think it's worthwhile to look at what previous intergovernmental meetings have done. I'm not necessarily recommending another one. I would suggest taking a look at them and even implementing what those previous governmental meetings have approved.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Matas, I want to thank you again for your valuable testimony before this committee. I suspect that it may not be the last time we have you before us on a range of issues, but I know that your words and insights will be of great value as we move forward with this report.

To the members of this subcommittee, on the chance that we will not sitting again on Thursday, I want to wish you all the very best for a busy and productive summer, and certainly I look forward to moving ahead in the fall with the great amount of work we have to do on some very important topics and studies.

I also want to recognize that our fine clerk may be leaving the committee as of this meeting and wish her well in whatever role comes next.

With that, we shall adjourn this meeting of the subcommittee on international human rights.