Justice Committee on March 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The witnesses would like to reply.

[Carrie Kohan]

Well, there are a couple of issues.

First of all, we often hear comparisons to Europe. Borders around European countries don't share the same land mass that we do with the Americans. And yes, we do have to look at the sentencing in America, because it is reflective on our own community. If we don't keep up with the sentencing next door, we will have a pedophile haven. That is the situation we're finding ourselves in today.

We have to look at the 130-year sentencing that is predominant with our neighbours. You'd get three to five years here for that same crime.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's ridiculous.

[Carrie Kohan]

That is the sentencing they're getting, though.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I know, but it's ridiculous.

[Carrie Kohan]

Well, if you were ever, you know--

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

But 130 years is ridiculous.

[Carrie Kohan]

The fact is that the pedophile will be behind bars forever and never have any effect on another child again. That is the purpose of it.

We don't have that kind of situation here. It's a revolving door, where pedophiles come into the system.... We don't have resources that support the police, for instance, sampling.... You know, with child pornography, if it's not a criminal act then you have to discuss whether it is a criminal offence. It's ridiculous that we don't support the police system the way we should. We don't have the resources for them, and we don't look at this seriously.

I've heard from many members here that you are fairly new to this crime and that you had no idea of the epidemic level we're at. Sergeant Paul Gillespie, who was Kim's predecessor, would come here and actually show samples of child pornography. It was on a voluntary basis, and a lot of ministers and members would not show up.

I would like to ask you, the justice committee, to actually have Kim give a presentation and show you what we're dealing with. How can we make an educated decision without knowing what we're actually dealing with? And yes, they're horrific pictures.

When I started 10 years ago, we didn't have cybertips. People would send me child porn on the Internet and say this is what their daughter found online and what can they do about it. I can tell you that 10 years later I can still hear the little girl's cry. I can still hear her pleading for her life. You have to see what it is we're actually dealing with in order to make an educated decision. So I would ask that you do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Cryer.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Comartin, on a point of order.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Just so that we have the facts on the table, that material was distributed before the justice committee in the last Parliament. Most of us in fact did see it.

On a personal basis, I saw that kind of material in some of my cases going back 20 and 30 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

[Carrie Kohan]

I don't think everybody has seen it here, though.

With your background, you've obviously seen it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

That's fine, Ms. Kohan.

Mr. Cryer.

[Doug Cryer]

I recognize the importance of the justice issues in this, and they are very important, and I appreciate what I'm hearing. As well, I'd like to remind committee members that this is also about a community standards issue. We're really talking about children as we define “children” under the UN convention that deals with children. It's under 18. Our current pornography laws deal with children who are under 18. As long as we as a society think of those who are under 18 as children, I think any laws we come up with should reflect the fact that they are children and that as we raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16, we are still dealing with children.

I just want to remind us that not only is it about the justice issues, but it's also about the overall broader issue of raising the community standard so that all adults think of anybody under the age of 18 as a child and continue to treat them as a child.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't know why we seem to be second-guessing this particular piece of legislation, as much as it appears that we are. The House has already adopted the bill, in principle. So our committee exercise here is really just trying to ascertain whether the actual provisions of the bill are ready for prime time, and I don't see room for a lot of disagreement.

This committee table has seen lots of child pornography over the years, as disgusting as it was, but it has been here more than once, going back 10 to 20 years, and we passed very robust child pornography laws. We passed them. In fact, the Supreme Court rolled one of them back partially. So this has been ongoing.

I haven't heard a homicide detective who said he or she really enjoyed the fruits of their labours. They don't like the work environment. It's tough sometimes in law enforcement. That's just the way life is. The same thing is true with child exploitation. In fact, we can pass all the laws we want, including this one, but we're still going to need enforcement. We have very robust homicide laws. We still need enforcement, investigation, prosecution, conviction, sentencing.

So the same is going to be true, even though we pass this law. It doesn't mean there isn't going to be another incident of child exploitation.

We passed an Internet luring law here five years ago. I don't know why there's a sense that there's no legislation out there. Mr. Frizzell suggested that we're into this whole new world. Parliament has responded and we passed that five years ago. I don't know what the statistical outflow of that is, but the law's been passed. Now we're into the enforcement phase.

I want to ask a question of Ms. Scanlan. I'm looking at some Justice statistics. The public record could benefit from the response. It has to do with enforcement prosecution of the existing child sexual exploitation...section 153. The records from Juristat, from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, show that 62% of the charges brought by police and prosecutors under section 153, over the last 10 years, have been withdrawn or stayed--62%. Sorry, in the most recent year it was 62%, but it's varied from 51% to 62%.

I'm curious at the very high level of withdrawal of charges in that envelope. It's very high. Usually when you think of a case going to trial, you think of three-quarters of them going through--80%--not having 62% withdrawn. Are you familiar in your work with that level of charge withdrawal or stays by prosecutors, and if you are, what would be the reason for such a high level of truncated enforcement?

[Det Sgt Kim Scanlan]

I've been with the child exploitation unit just since July, so I'm not coming up on a year yet. In my experience, that's not what we're seeing currently in Toronto, especially in the area of Internet-facilitated crimes. In fact, I think our success rate in the courts as far as convictions go is quite high.

As for the other areas in which other charges may potentially be laid, again, if you're looking at who the victims are, the court process is very adversarial. When you are getting young people into court to testify, it's problematic. Again, it's an issue of consent. Did they consent? Did they not consent? Sometimes I think their own vulnerability shows through in the court process, and I think that may be attributed to the numbers you're speaking of.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

You work with a dedicated unit, so you have a high level of expertise and quality investigations. That may account for your success rate.

In terms of your collaboration with other law enforcement agencies, are you familiar with weaknesses elsewhere in the country that would contribute to the high level of withdrawal or stays?

[Det Sgt Kim Scanlan]

When you're talking about the age of protection, it goes beyond just child Internet areas. It would go to any vulnerabilities or type of exploitation. We're speaking about 14- and 15-year-olds.

I can't say what's going on in the other areas of Canada, but I know that in the area of child exploitation, we are very careful and collaborate routinely to make sure we don't create bad case law and are successful in our prosecutions, in working with the courts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I want to thank each and every one of you for the words that you have brought to the table today, but I want to thank you for more than just the words, because I know the passion that's in your hearts regarding this issue. You really want something done. That's obvious, and I appreciate that kind of passion.

I have been at the centre with Paul Gillespie and some of the fellows in Toronto. I know what a horrendous task that is. Ms. Scanlan, please pass on my sincere gratitude to each and every one of them. I can't believe how they manage to hold up under such difficult conditions.

I've been around a long time. Before the Internet and before all this, we had this problem with this age of consent. As a principal of a school, I had an opportunity to get involved in several incidents of that type. You couldn't do anything because they were 14 and 15 and they consented. But what I want to point out is that most of the time when it happened, almost inclusively they ended in tragedy. I can think of five specific cases in which three ended in suicide; one ended with a tragic beating by the older partner, resulting in irreparable brain damage from this so-called agreement; and one ended up with two children before she reached the age of 17, and she was left stranded.

I know how severe it is. I know they are sought now in new ways with the Internet. I realize that. I could get into some of these things. The chairman and I have been here since 1993. I know personally that he went after every justice minister under a majority government, under Mr. Chrétien, to please do something about this. We hit every one of them. It never happened.

On September 28, 2005, Bill C-313 was brought forward by the member from Lethbridge and did exactly this. When the vote was taken, 99 voted yes and 167 voted no. I could have fallen out of my chair, because there's not a doubt in my mind that there is not one person sitting here who wants to do something about protecting these kids. I know they want to.

I respect Mr. Comartin and his background and his ability that he brings in regard to pedophiles. I don't know anything about that. I wouldn't even want to compete with Mr. Comartin on that. And I don't really care about stats. You know, if this happens to one, that's one too dadgum many, and that's my stat.

All I'm asking is if anybody on this panel has any opinion on what is stopping this kind of legislation from seeing the light of day. I've been here for 13 years and it hasn't happened. What's stopping it, when I know how people feel?

I would suggest to you that, in my opinion, courts are making decisions that say laws that are made are not constitutional. The laws don't meet the charter test. If that's the case, we have to do something about it, because it's hindering protecting our children. That's my opinion. Could you give me yours?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'm going to start at one end and quickly go to the other. I have one more member who would like to ask questions.

Mr. Hutchinson, what's your opinion?

[Don Hutchinson]

Mr. Thompson, the only thing I can think of that's holding up this legislation is the decision of Parliament.