Justice Committee on Oct. 25th, 2011

[Paul Gillespie]

I think law enforcement resources, when it comes to Internet crimes, are severely understaffed, and there never will be enough, to be honest with you. There are millions of men around the world who are using children and trading these horrible images. However, I think we need to look at it in different ways, and I'll just say two pieces very quickly.

We really need to sit down with people, all the stakeholders in this, including the younger generation, who have a much better handle on technology and the effects of the Internet and the impact on society. I think we need to really listen to them, and then we can come up with some solutions to help in this area. Unless we also use the capacity that's out there and try to build greater capacity outside of our borders—because there are no borders on the Internet—it is not simply something we can try to throw a few more dollars at, hire a few more cops. It's going to make a difference, but it ultimately will not make a large difference unless and until we figure ways to develop capacity around the world and foster a greater thinking that we're all working together.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Am I done? Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also want to commend the witnesses for being with us today.

May I begin by saying that I want to commend Maureen Basnicki in particular for her sustained advocacy over the years. You've taken a personal tragedy and converted it into the kind of action and advocacy that inspired me when I was Minister of Justice to propose—and when we were defeated could not go ahead with it—civil remedies for victims of terrorism. It was one of my first recommendations, as you may recall, that I made to Stockwell Day. With the incoming government, I'm glad this legislation is now before us, as well as your four clarifying amendments today, which I support.

To Jayne Stoyles, I think your contribution, in terms of advocating a civil remedy for victims of torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, deserves support as well. I hope that will be done, if necessary by independent legislation. You, too, have inspired me to introduce a private member's bill in that regard.

My question, though, will be for Mr. Comras, because with regard to this particular legislation before us, I recall your testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Relating to this legislation, in particular to the listing mechanism, you said don't go there; don't enact that legislation. Your exact words were, “If we had to do it over again, I have no doubt we would have done it without a list,” and you concluded your testimony with the words, “Please learn from our lesson. ...do not make the same mistake.” I just want to say that that inspired me to introduce a private member's bill that supports in principle the legislation before us, but without the listing mechanism.

I'm wondering if you can just elaborate as to why you think the listing mechanism would be a mistake, apart from the political arbitrariness involved, and what would be an effective alternative to a listing mechanism.

[Victor Comras]

Thank you.

As you've seen from our own history of litigation in the United States, there have been a number of cases flowing both from the 9/11 incidents and other terrorist attacks that have affected American citizens internationally, where the attempts to hold those responsible have been thwarted because of the failure to put the state on a designated terrorist list.

One can look at the State Department's report of states involved in terrorism, and the number of states that have supported or actively encouraged terrorist organizations is quite large, yet the number of states that have been put on the terrorist list is very small. That list is out of date, and it has proven the unworkability of a system that puts upon the government the responsibility of designating a country that can have a major impact on its foreign relations and be a major impediment in its dealings with that country.

It's better to leave it to our courts to decide that a terrorist act has been conducted and that the state is engaged or involved in providing support for terrorism; place the burden on the plaintiff to demonstrate that to the court. Then the court has an opportunity to move forward without engaging the whole set of bilateral relations that are engaged when the United States itself declares a state as a terrorist organization.

Also, once a state is declared as a terrorist-supporting state, there are many other pieces of legislation that come into play and have a major impact in our whole relationship. I think it would serve our government well, as well as our citizens and our courts, to leave that issue to the courts to decide that terrorism itself is an act that is contrary to the customary conventions of international law. States that engage in that should be held accountable. Where there are grounds for jurisdiction, such cases should be allowed to proceed.

I hope that somewhat answers your question

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You have 30 seconds.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have one thing. Would there be any value to put in a provision removing the listing mechanism, but in order to protect against any frivolous or vexatious proceedings, to say that no action will lie against a state, for example, with which we have an extradition treaty?

[Victor Comras]

Yes, there are a lot of ways of controlling that. There should be requirements that all other jurisdictions be exhausted before these cases go forth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

My questions are directed to Mr. Gillespie. As a former police officer myself, I understand the trials and tribulations the police officers have with regard to trying to investigate some of these crimes.

In particular, we recognize that children are the most vulnerable when it comes to sexual abuse and exploitation. In fact, they are the major victims of all police-reported cases of sexual assault. With regard to Bill C-10, do you find the timeliness of this being introduced is something that will help in dealing with child sex offences, which are on the rise in Canada?

[Paul Gillespie]

Absolutely. As you know, these crimes are overwhelming. I think the Internet has opened a window to something that most of us were not aware was actually occurring. The sooner we can get this piece of legislation into law, the better. It will make a difference. As I said before, the direction we're moving in is very necessary.

Canada has some of the best laws in the world. I travel all over the world. I'm lucky enough to attend conferences and make presentations, and I'm often asked about the legislation we have in place and legislation we're discussing and trying to get implemented. Our legislation is regularly copied by many countries around the world.

I would say we're moving in the right direction, and we have been for some years now. I'm very happy about this.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Secondly, with regard to mandatory minimum sentences, certainly those young victims of sexual abuse, whom you have investigated and I've investigated, are traumatized for life. They will never be able to understand why that happened to them at such a young age. People will remember it well into their later years of life.

From that perspective, do you believe the minimum sentencing being brought in by Bill C-10 is appropriate? In my opinion, sometimes it's not enough, but is it appropriate?

[Paul Gillespie]

I believe it is absolutely appropriate. It's very hard to measure the long-term impact of abuse. One of the biggest challenges I've always had is that we can never fully document or understand how victims are unable to eventually realize their full potential to be the future lawyers, teachers, wonderful mothers, and politicians--how they never turn into something they should have become.

I will say in regard to mandatory minimum sentencing in this particular case that I think it's short and sharp. I think it sends a message. I think it also allows for judges, if they choose, to impose more severe sentences on the upper end. I think this is the frustration for most Canadians.

I am no longer a police officer. We do have great laws. We have the opportunities to sentence people appropriately. I find we don't always do that. I think the mandatory minimum is, however, something that is very important, and it also might incent others not to commit these offences.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You have one minute left.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I will defer to my colleague.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Do you feel, Mr. Gillespie, that one of the benefits of the minimum sentences is taking away the possibility of home arrest, and securing the public, additionally?

[Paul Gillespie]

Yes, absolutely. To me, house arrest in the particular cases of the Internet being used to commit crimes against children simply defies logic. The fact that the legislation removes that opportunity for some offences simply makes a great deal of sense. It certainly makes a great deal of sense to the victims.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

It takes away the public outrage.

[Paul Gillespie]

Absolutely.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Your time is up.

So the panel is aware, we do have to end five minutes early. We have some committee business to address.

Madam Boivin will be the last questioner.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Does Mr. Comras understand French?

I'll speak in English.

[Victor Comras]

I can understand French, but I'd prefer to answer in English. So I'll take it in either French or English.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much.

I'll practice my English for once. I understand--