JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, November 20, 2002

¹

1545

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

Mr. Bob Mills

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

Mr. Bob Mills

º

1600

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)

º

1605

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Bob Mills

º

1610

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.)

Ms. Marilyn Bongard (Acting Senior Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice)

Mr. Ivan Grose

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Ivan Grose

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Mr. Bob Mills

º

1615

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

º

1620

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

The Chair

º

1625

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

º

1630

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

º

1635

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

º

1640

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

º

1650

Mr. John McKay

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

º

1655

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

»

1700

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 003

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, November 20, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1545)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights meeting number three. Today we are dealing with Bill C-231, an act to amend the Divorce Act (limits on rights of child access by sex offenders).

    As witnesses, we have the sponsor of Bill C-231, Mr. Mills from Red Deer, and Marilyn Bongard from the Department of Justice. The committee has heard Mr. Mills and witnesses on this subject before, but it was some time ago. So for purposes of bringing us back to where we left it, I would call on Mr. Mills to give us a brief overview and Ms. Bongard, if she wants to respond. I know both will be ready to take questions in any event.

    Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you very much for inviting me back.

    I will start off by apologizing. I do have another commitment at 4 o'clock, for which I've already arranged to be 15 minutes late.

    Let me take you back to what motivated this bill, and then try to pick it up from there. This was motivated by a lady named Lisa Dillman, a single mother who had two children by a Dr. Schneeberger in Saskatchewan. Dr. Schneeberger was charged and convicted with sexually assaulting a patient, a girl who was at the time eleven years old and was his stepdaughter. He was convicted, put in jail, and then applied for visitation rights for his five- and six-year-old daughters, who he had not had any contact with from the time the youngest one was eighteen months old. The court had given full custody to the mother. The judge in the case ruled that Lisa had to take these two children on the last Sunday of every month to the prison to visit the prisoner. I did talk to the then Solicitor General and asked if this meeting could not occur in a more neutral place than the prison, and various psychologists who had dealt with this issue as well suggested that this would not be a good idea. There was a court order.

    On a May afternoon I, along with a psychologist, accompanied Lisa Dillman and her two children to that prison. As we entered the room, the prisoner was there, who the girls did not really know at that point, not having seen him for a number of years. Being five and six years old, they went into what I would say was the most traumatic experience I've ever seen two young children go through. The look on their faces I will probably never forget, seeing what was happening and hearing the screams of those two little girls clinging to their mother's leg and saying, please don't make us go through those doors, but going through those doors. I thought to myself, no other child in Canada should ever have to go through that.

    Because of the publicity on this on talk shows right across this country, faxes, e-mails, I now have 83 other Lisas, similar cases where children have been ordered by the courts to visit pedophile parents in prison. The most notable is a case in Toronto, where an eleven-year-old girl was forced to visit her father, who had raped her repeatedly. On her return, she slit her wrists. Fortunately, the mother was there and was able to save her life. This is the kind of story I have been getting across the country from victims of this sort of thing.

    The issue, then, is forcing children to visit pedophile parents, sex offenders, in prison, and I guess it's just about that. It's children, it's forced, and it's visits to sex offenders. That was the motivation for this private member's bill. I have been asked whether I would agree that if the children and the custodial parent agree that the visit would be good, that would be okay. Yes, it would, but I'm talking about forced visits of children who have been sexually assaulted. I'm not talking about other offences, just sex offences. That's the gist of the bill. I have yet to find anybody who is opposed to this amendment to give clear guidance to judges.

    I am pleading with you that no children should have to go through the psychological trauma I personally saw those two girls go through and a number of other children have had to go through. Those two girls are still under psychological care. They are doing very well, but at any time Dr. Schneeberger can force those visits. It was appealed in the Alberta court, and they were told it had to be dealt with in the Saskatchewan courts. The mother has since appealed that decision, and it now has been transferred to the Alberta courts. But there is still the court order that this mother has to take those children, on the last Sunday of the month, to visit a person who had sexually assaulted their stepsister for five years .

    That's the gist of the whole case. I appreciate your time. I'm prepared to answer any questions you might have, and I look forward, of course, to this coming back to the House and addressing it there.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mills.

    Ms. Bongard, if you have anything, maybe we could set that aside while we have Mr. Mills here.

    Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): You have explained the thrust of this, the genesis of it. You have certainly written a law for Lisa, but I'm not so sure you've covered a lot of the other circumstances that may exist across the country.

    Would you confirm--and you may already be aware of this--that the law as drafted doesn't apply to situations where there is a guardian of the child, it only applies to the spouse scenario? That's how I read it. It appears to apply to someone for the whole term of a prison sentence. It doesn't distinguish between period of incarceration and parole, so that the individual could be out of the prison and still the draft here would appear to apply to that person. If the offender has 10 children of 2 or 3 different spouses, it appears to apply to any child of that offender who would have been referred to in a court order. It doesn't apply to Provincial Court orders, it only applies to Divorce Court orders. It doesn't apply to separation agreements, which govern the vast majority of separation and child custody issues.

    So there are a lot of things left out of this, and it appears to apply only to offenders who have been involved in sexual offences. Proposed paragraph 16(9.1)(a) refers to any Criminal Code offence, but there's an emphasis here on its applying when there's a sexual offence. It wouldn't apply, for example, if the inmate had attempted to murder the same child. Maybe it would apply when the offender, 5, 6, 10 years before, had failed to supply necessaries to the child.

    I don't want to say this is a piece of Swiss cheese with a lot of holes in it. I understand the thrust and where it's coming from, but could you explain to me how we could fix this so that it perhaps better accomplishes the goal that is intended?

    Mr. Bob Mills: First, I hoped it could be fixed in committee and all the legal loopholes filled. I am not a lawyer, but I did consult the justice department lawyers, I did consult the parliamentary lawyers, and I did consult five private lawyers to get suggestions as this was being developed over the course of a year. The main gist of that advice was not to broaden it to the point where it includes other crimes, but to keep it to sex offenders and to children. They said, the broader you make it, the more complaints you're going to get about that. So that was my legal recommendation. I hoped, again, that many minds put to this would be able to deal with some of the problems you raise.

    I do intend it to be sex offenders. I don't believe it should include other crimes, because that then gets into the rights of child custody and all those things. I don't think we should go there. I do intend it to mean children from a common-law or any other kind of relationship. It's children and it's definitely pedophiles I'm referring to, and my intention was that they not be forced to go into prisons to visit. What arrangements are made by the courts with visitation rights and so on once that incarceration period is over is, I think, another issue.

    I think I've addressed most of the points you raised.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Toews, then Madame Allard.

    Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    Mr. Mills, I think I heard Mr. Lee give a litany of under-inclusiveness. There was a concern that it wasn't broad enough. There was a concern that this doesn't apply to guardians only, it applies to spouses. There should maybe be more children included or fewer children included. There were references made to statutes and agreements under provincial jurisdictions. Obviously, we don't have the authority to do that.

    What your bill is saying, as I understand it, is, let the custodial parent make the determination; the court should not be making this kind of order. There might be issues of under-inclusiveness, but that can be determined at a later date. I think this is a very good step. This needs to be done now. I think the courts can figure out some of the issues that have been raised. I don't think these are difficult issues for a court to determine. They make these kinds of determinations and distinctions all the time.

    Do you agree with my assessment?

    Mr. Bob Mills: I was also advised not to tie the hands of the judges, that they did need some leeway. Obviously, if there are 83 Lisas who have contacted me, this must be a pretty major problem out there. So I shouldn't tie their hands, but give them a definite direction in regard to forced visitation by children to pedophiles.

    Mr. Vic Toews: In respect of the concern raised over the issue of serving a term of imprisonment for an offence, it seems to me pretty clear that a person has to be serving a term of imprisonment. A court might come by and say parole doesn't apply in this situation. As far as I am concerned, we can live with this for now, and we will see how it operates in practice.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

    Madame Allard.

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I got here a bit late, but I think I get the gist of the bill before us here today.

    Given my experience as a lawyer with the Divorce Act, I admit I am somewhat skeptical at the thought—maybe Quebec judges are different—of a judge forcing a child to go see a parent who should technically be stripped of parental authority for having abused that child. However, I think this bill could also serve as an excuse for a parent who, as often happens, wants to turn a child against the other parent. There are some parents whose intentions are not always clear, but in my own experience, no judge today is going to force a 14-year-old girl to go to see a parent she doesn't want to see. At 14, you are already a young adult. I know someone has told you it happened to them, but I admit I am somewhat skeptical about what you are proposing here today.

    Could you provide further explanations to convince me that this can actually happen? Did you say that you know of a number of situations like this?

[English]

    Mr. Bob Mills: I'm very aware that children are very often used as pawns by parents, but we're talking about convicted sex offenders, we're talking about a pedophile. Someone has been convicted, they've been found guilty of having sexually assaulted a child, and then that child is being forced to visit that sex offender. I can't remember whether there were any 14-year-olds, but there was an 11-year-old involved where a judge had ruled that way. There was a case from Montreal where a parent called me. Most of the parents who called me, I must admit, are females, so it seems this is more a case where the male is the offending party. Only one person called me where it was actually the mother who had been involved, and it was a quite different situation.

    But it is happening, and I have done talk shows everywhere, including Montreal, because the interest level is so great across the country for something like this. The number of calls you get from concerned people who know someone.... I'm just so convinced that it's a major concern in all provinces. We've had it explained before that the Quebec law is different, but I'm afraid it's happening there as well. Many of these people do not want their kids to go through what Lisa Dillman's kids did. They've had media literally chasing them from school. She risked that to expose this flaw she sees, and I see now, in the justice system.

    I believe this amendment to the Divorce Act is just to give the judges a little more guidance. One judge in Saskatchewan and one in Alberta said they felt that the Criminal Code did not give them enough guidance on this issue to prevent visitation. That was enough for me to say, then we should give it to them. Our job as lawmakers is to give them the guidance where they think they need it and not tie their hands to all the details Mr. Lee mentioned.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Peter MacKay.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you very much.

    I want to congratulate Mr. Mills for the incredible effort he's put into bringing this legislation forward. I know he has a great deal of personal attachment to the family and to the cause. I support fully what you're attempting to do. I acknowledge some of the technical and legal concerns that have been raised, but I think the basis of your bill is very good. It's obviously better than nothing, which is currently the case. I don't accept that there aren't anomalies that can occur in the law that result in what happened to Lisa and her family, who were the impetus for this bill.

    Having said that, I do believe judges are going to interpret this reasonably. There are ways, perhaps, we can tweak this or tighten it up. With the terminology here about serving a term of imprisonment, there are situations where persons are incarcerated on weekends only or might be serving a period of incarceration in a halfway house. I think that could be addressed through language, perhaps including the phrase “while incarcerated”, as opposed to a “term of imprisonment”. I think the issue of a person who has custody is broad enough to include foster parent situations, other modern family dynamics that exist when it comes to children.

    The purpose and the principle behind this are what's important. I think we have to be careful that we don't step on jurisdictional issues or create unintended consequences, but I very much endorse what you're trying to do. It's an enactment for the protection of children. As for whether it will be used for a tool of abuse, that's a situation you face every time you pass a new law that pertains to family maintenance or the Divorce Act. What we have to do is recognize that judges and lawyers are going to interpret this in a certain way. I don't think there is great potential for abuse in using this as a tool. One parent might try to use a child or deny access to a child in a messy divorce.

    I do have one question about the application of this particular provision. I'm assuming that this attempt to deny access can be initiated either by the child, independently of a spouse. Or is it your feeling, Mr. Mills, that this would only be initiated by a custodial parent or a parent of a child? Could somebody, for example, on behalf of the child, independently of either parent, make an application before the court?

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Bob Mills: My belief is that it could be initiated by the child. I think children are capable of making that decision. Certainly, that 11-year-old girl I told you about could have made that decision. Should grandparents be able to initiate that? I think that is what you're asking. I didn't intend it to be that way, but I can think of situations with some of the people who have called me where that would be better, because the parents maybe aren't as capable as the grandparents might be. Maybe that's just going too far, though, at this point. Maybe that's the next step, once we go this step. Again, I was advised not to get into too many options for fear of simply having the thing thrown out.

    The Chair: Ms. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not a lawyer, so I may ask questions that seem to be pretty stupid. I understand what you're trying to do, but I have concerns about the prescriptiveness of this. As one of my colleagues said, could this not be abused in many ways by people who have other issues?

    You're saying the person has to be already found guilty in a court of law. So you're narrowing it down. I don't have any problems with narrowing it down, because I think then you're saying they have to be convicted and it's not just hearsay.

    You say “spouse or former spouse”, and my concern is that they may not be spouses. It would be the person who has custody. A common-law partner is not considered to be a spouse in the true sense of the terminology. So I thought you might want to make sure who you were talking about.

    When we're talking about guardians etc, it's only referring to the convicted person while they are in jail. Does a pedophile or a sexual offender cease to be a sexual offender the day the prison gates close behind them? If you're doing this because you're concerned about the harm that can be done to the child or the best interest of the child, you will need to talk about places outside prison. Unless one is absolutely certain that this person has been rehabilitated, there may need to be certain types of access that are chaperoned or whatever. I don't know. Then you open this to something much bigger than you're saying. I'm concerned that it is too narrow. I hear you about going too broadly. Then we're becoming very prescriptive and we leave it open to abuse.

    So I have those two basic problems with this. It's too narrow, but if you broaden it, it's going to be open to abuse. I understand your principles, but if it's only going to be with one who is convicted and in prison, are you worried that the child will be walking into a prison or that the child will be subject to harm? In my opinion, a child going into prison under the supervision of guards to visit a non-custodial parent may be safer than a child going into a home to visit a non-custodial parent who is a sexual offender all by themselves. These are the questions I'm bringing forward. I don't have the answers to them, but they're things that concern me a bit.

    Mr. Bob Mills: All of those I have certainly tried to deal with in developing this, talking to people and so on.

    With the common-law issue, when I think of parents, I'm thinking of the genetic parent, whatever the relationship from which that child occurred. Children should not be forced to visit a pedophile, whether or not that's the genetic father or mother of the child. I interpret spouse as the parent.

    As to the second one, Lisa Dillman is very concerned that when Dr. Schneeberger is released from prison in the next couple of years, he will immediately demand access to those children. When he was out of prison, he didn't have any access to the children, because of the court order. When he got into prison, now he had access to the children. She has been assured by her legal counsel that when he is out of prison, he will again not have access to those children. So it's very confusing, because he will be more dangerous to those children outside prison, no question about it.

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Hedy Fry: Maybe the judge thinks the kid is safer in prison. That's how I would see it. The child would be safer in prison, with a lot of guards and everybody around, than alone.

    Mr. Bob Mills: But you're not thinking of the psychological impact on the child of visiting that father or mother, no matter where the visit occurs. The psychological trauma on the child is that great. I saw it, and I have followed that family since. Those two girls still have nightmares about that visit. It's pretty traumatic. But even if that had occurred in a hotel or a house, I think it would have been as traumatic.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Grose.

    Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you.

    Bob, I'm not a lawyer either.

    This is being done under the Divorce Act, does that mean it only applies to the people who are divorced?

    Ms. Marilyn Bongard (Acting Senior Counsel, Family, Children and Youth Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice): Yes.

    Mr. Ivan Grose: Well, that's a very narrow scope, because there may not necessarily be a divorce, for religious reasons or whatever. You're narrowing this down to a very few people.

    Mr. Bob Mills: But now we get into provincial jurisdiction, and again, I was advised that this is how it had to be by lawyers. I was following that advice to accomplish the purpose, which is what some of my colleagues here have explained. It is the nature of the beast. That's why it is done that way.

    Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Now we'll give Mr. Macklin an opportunity to disclaim his profession.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I will not apologize for being a lawyer. There is something that legal training does give us, some insight as to how things are interpreted and how we make a case for interpretation to the courts.

    Mr. Mills, I think I heard you say that your concern was to give some guidance to the judges. If I read this correctly, you are deeming a provision that says only if the spouse or former spouse consents can there be another decision. In other words, you have tied the judge's hands and made it that only the spouse can give the judge the freedom to make choices. I think that's not the way to go. I would prefer this to give the judge a sense of direction, but not necessarily to tie the hands. Could you comment on that?

    Mr. Bob Mills: The intention is exactly as you stated, to give the judge guidance, because two judges said they didn't have that in the law and they needed it to do what they deemed to be what the many people who got involved with this were asking. They said the law was not clear enough to give that guidance, so they could prevent the parent from demanding visitation rights. So the aim is to not force children. If the other parent can agree to something, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about all those cases that are out there. As I say, if two judges said that, there are probably others thinking that. That's why there are 83 cases I've been made aware of.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I have trouble dealing with something that puts the decision-making process in the hands of a potentially disaffected spouse.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, but can that not be fixed? I guess that is the question I'm asking.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

    Mr. MacKay.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: As a supplemental to Mr. Macklin's, that part is somewhat worded in the way Mr. Macklin described it, as binding on the judge. It's my understanding, Mr. Mills, that your intention here is to make it a form of application that the spouse or former spouse can make to the court. It's almost like negative billing the way it's worded here, so the judge has to do it upon application, but this is really in the form of an application where the former spouse or spouse has to go and make their case before the judge that access should be denied. Is that a fair characterization?

    Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, I would agree that's how it has to be. We should fix it. That's why we have committees.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I think a very simple rewording would accomplish that.

    Have you or those involved in drafting it looked at the impact on the family maintenance act as well? I think Ms. Fry raised a good point, that this definition of spouse may cause some problems too. I think we should make this broader than just those who have been legally married. I think it will also preempt possible changes we may be getting into in the future when we're dealing with individuals in a same sex marriage situation, should that come down the pike. So maybe we can be a little proactive for a change in trying to anticipate that.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. MacKay.

    Mr. Toews has the last intervention.

    Mr. Vic Toews: We would have to consider carefully what the definition of spouse is at present, but I assume it adopts the existing definition of spouse. I don't think we should be any more proactive than the existing law is, pending what the committee finds out in other areas. What this indicates is that this is the custodial spouse. There's obviously been some legal ruling ahead of time or presumption that this is the person who has the ability to make decisions on behalf of the child. Why are we interfering with what has already been granted to a custodial parent? What the bill is saying is, look, that's the custodial parent. We're not talking about joint custody, we're talking about the custodial parent. That parent has the right to make the decisions. Why would we interfere with the custodial parent's right to make those kinds of decisions about who the child sees?

    The Chair: Thank you, Vic.

    Mr. Macklin, on the final point.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: This deals with the access issue separately, regardless of what the order was, and puts it completely in the hands of the custodial parent to make that decision. I think that's wrong. They are the custodial parent, but the order may provide already for access for the inmate.

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney has not intervened before, so I'm going to let him.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I've listened to the debate with interest. I think perhaps this bill needs to be massaged. There have been concerns expressed that have some validity, but on merit, I think there's a lot of support for it. It's within our power to make amendments. I don't suggest that we make amendments today, I think they have to be well thought out. Notwithstanding all the consultation Mr. Mills has done with legal counsel and the justice department, there are obviously still some shortcomings. We shouldn't vote it down today without having the opportunity of trying to amend it to give it a form more palatable to all concerned. I would even make a motion that we defer a vote on this bill, allowing time for amendments to be considered and tabled.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: I see various heads nodding the affirmative, so I'm not going to ask for a vote. I don't see any objection.

    Madame Allard.

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, there's one thing left. The Divorce Act comes under federal jurisdiction, but if you are trying to enact something that affects custody, you are crossing over into provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, all common law spouses are governed by the Quebec Civil Code, and divorce is not very popular in Quebec. People no longer get married; they live together without getting married.

    The principle put forward by my colleague is certainly valid, and we don't want these types of situations to happen again. Isn't there some way to put this in some other legislation so that it covers the greatest possible number of parents and children, without necessarily being tied to divorce?

[English]

    The Chair: I think I see a consensus in the room that we don't want to defeat the bill today, or at all. People have identified problems. Mr. Mills has acknowledged those problems. Those problems may compel people to vote against something they'd rather not vote against, if I can read it that way. I don't think I need to take a vote. I think I see a consensus on Mr. Maloney's suggestion that we defer this, put it back in Mr. Mills' hands really.

    I would, however, point out that we've had this conversation before. I wouldn't want to see us come back and have to go through the same exercise later on, so let's make sure of the changes that are necessary. We have a transcript of today's proceedings, so let's make sure we've dealt with some of these issues. The last time we were here, we identified many of these problems. They were deemed at that time to be amendable, but I don't know that anyone took the action to cause them to be amended, and here we are. That's the point I would make.

    Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Those who have objections to the bill should provide them to Mr. Mills, so he can consider them. Then it'll come back. If there are no specific suggestions brought to Mr. Mills, it'll come back for a vote and we'll all assume the bill is sound.

    The Chair: I will call this one, Mr. Toews. The proceedings today have identified a number of concerns. I don't believe that at this point the onus is on the members of the committee. I think Mr. Mills has acknowledged a number of places he himself has said he'd like to improve. The proceedings are on the record. Get them, Mr. Mills, and please try to accommodate, in the interest of your own legislation, those considerations. Is that a fair reading of Mr. Maloney's wisdom?

    Mr. John Maloney: I'd like to see perhaps the parliamentary secretary and the justice department work along with Mr. Mills to see whether it's possible to reach a drafting that would be acceptable to all.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I'm very willing to work with anyone. I don't see this as a partisan issue in any way. This is about kids. If the minister would take it and make it law, that would be fine too. That's really what it's all about.

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Mills. Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much, Ms. Bongard.

    I'm going to suspend, but only for two minutes, because we're coming back in camera for business we discussed on Monday and may take up now.

    [Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mills. Thank you very much, Ms. Bongard, for your insights.

    On November 6 I received notice of two motions by Mr. Sorenson. We have a quorum, so we can deal with those two motions today. I would ask Mr. Sorenson to speak to those two motions.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    My first motion dealing with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was discussed and agreed on during the last Parliament. Unfortunately, we weren't able to deal with the motion before the prorogation of Parliament. Because of that, today I want to reintroduce this motion, in anticipation that we will get the opportunity to have appear before this committee the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, the corrections investigator, the National Parole Board, and the Solicitor General, to provide a status report on whether or not any amendments have been made to the CCRA as recommended in the May 2000 report of the subcommittee entitled A Work in Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act. More than two years ago the former Solicitor General indicated, in an October 2000 response, that the government intended to take action on 46 of the committee's 53 recommendations. To the best of our knowledge, absolutely no action has been taken. Therefore, as mentioned in the last Parliament, it's incumbent upon this committee to determine why.

    As was also previously discussed, under recommendation 11 the subcommittee recommended that the CCRA be amended to require Correctional Service Canada to review all cases eligible for statutory release to determine whether they should be referred to the National Parole Board for a detention review. This particular recommendation is of extreme importance, given that since 1994-95 offenders on statutory release have accounted for 62% of all violent offences by offenders on conditional release.

    So I am resubmitting the motion that was before the committee last spring.

    The Chair: Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I've been asked to speak to this by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. Essentially, the position of the Solicitor General is that they are quite willing to have any official appear before the committee to respond to Mr. Sorenson's inquiry.

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney: The nature of the questions that would come up is very similar to those we would put when discussing the main estimates. How far down the agenda will we have to go to address the main estimates? I'm just wondering if there's duplication.

    The Chair: The main estimates will be dealt with after Christmas. The next order of business today is to talk about when we would be able to deal with the supplementary estimates of both Justice and the Solicitor General.

    Mr. John Maloney: Could we not combine them, rather than have a separate meeting on it, to at least get a crack at it, even if we needed to attend to it at another time?

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: As a new member of Parliament, I've sat in the one time the main estimates were brought forward. I'm not sure if at that time we can go into any depth when looking at the CCRA and really ask the questions of the Parole Board to the degree we would like. They appear for such a short period of time. Our intent was to delve a little deeper, I think. It doesn't have to be a drawn-out affair.

    The Chair: To bring clarity to this, I'm told the Solicitor General has advised us that he won't be able to appear on the supplementary estimates before Christmas.

    Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

    I'm of the view that 95% of what is intended here can be accomplished during the estimates procedure. Committee members will recall that the estimates procedure normally followed here is to invite to one meeting the commissioner of corrections and to another the chairman of the National Parole Board. By the way, the motion shouldn't refer to whole National Parole Board, that's too many people to bring in. So I think you're referring to the chairman. A lot depends on the committee's available time, but one meeting just for CSC and one for the National Parole Board and the corrections investigator would seem to be a pretty reasonable time allocation. If you can't get all your questions in in that time, then we have another problem to deal with.

    That would happen roughly in March, and in terms of the parliamentary calendar, that's only six to eight weeks away. The questions are all valid. If we had these questions, we'd want to give them a bit of time to put together a response. We'd have to give them a couple of weeks anyway. So it might be that the chairman could correspond with these parties and indicate that questions have arisen and we would intend to look for answers at the earliest possible date, not later than the estimates procedure, which might happen in the month of March.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: My concern--and again I look to others for advice on this--is that at main estimates I want to see a focus on the CCRA. I want to see a focus on why out of 53 recommendations 46 have been accepted, but none of them implemented. We want to get right down to the CCRA, not just in passing. We'll be bringing up a lot of other business at the meeting on the main estimates to the Parole Board and the commissioner. This is dedicated to the CCRA.

    The Chair: John McKay.

    Mr. John McKay: My only suggestion to the mover would be that he consider bringing the motion forward again after we do the main estimates. We're supposed to be doing that in the next--

    The Chair: We're not doing supplementary estimates on the Solicitor General. We've attempted to get him, but we can't. The main estimates would probably be dealt with in March. Essentially, the discussion that's taking place now is whether that would be sufficient. I take it from Mr. Sorenson that he doesn't believe so and would want to put this motion.

    Mr. John McKay: My suggestion is for that to be a preliminary run. You can choose whatever questions you're going to ask at that time, and you would, in effect, have a preliminary run at the questions you want answered. If at that point you're not satisfied with the answers, bring the motion forward again. It's not likely that the motion is going to be heard prior to that date in any event.

    The Chair: While Mr. Sorenson ponders that, we'll hear from Peter MacKay.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I have a question for the chair. If the Solicitor General is not going to appear on the supplementary estimates, that's not to say we're not going to do them. I'm assuming we're going to have officials appear before us.

    The Chair: The last time this happened the committee decided it didn't want officials. It's in your hands. It's a decision I had intended to put immediately following this piece of work, where we would speak to the schedule for the rest of the period.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I didn't mean to pre-empt that. After hearing that the Solicitor General wasn't coming, I don't think we should forgo the entire exercise.

    The Chair: Madame Allard.

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, I find that the way the motion is worded assumes that the recommendations have not been implemented. Like Mr. Sorenson, I am newly elected. I think that some of the members here today were on that committee. Are we correct in thinking that the recommendations had an impact on the security of Canadians? I would like to hear someone talk about the recommendations. There were 43 recommendations made in May 2000, and it is now November 2002. I do not believe that the committee did all that work for nothing. I am concerned about this, just like Mr. Sorenson.

    I would like to hear from the members who worked on that report. I would like to know what they think and whether they feel that there is an urgent need to ask the solicitor general the right questions on this subject.

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I apologize to my colleagues for arriving late. I had another pressing appointment.

    Does the solicitor general not have an obligation to appear before this committee? If I understand correctly, he said that he could not be here for the estimates. Can we not require him to come? I thought that he was under that obligation.

[English]

    The Chair: We can ask him more forcefully than through an invitation. It is not unusual, given their schedules, our schedules, and so on. Generally, in that case, as Mr. MacKay has pointed out, the minister would send officials. It was in a reaction to that offer the last time that the committee decided they didn't want the officials.

    So those are the options available to us. We can be as forceful in the request as we wish to be. I can see us engaging in the questions about the estimates, because they inform the discussion on the motion before us. I would not want to get too far into that discussion. We have a motion. Suggestions have been made that we might dispose of the motion in other fashions.

    Mr. Sorenson, would you like to proceed with the motion, or would you like to fold it into the estimates? If you want to proceed with the motion, I'm prepared to put the question.

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, I also have a question.

[English]

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I think we had this discussion last time, didn't we? It seems to me it was almost going to be defeated, and then you suggested that we were to go ahead without the Solicitor General, if I'm not mistaken, and have a separate time where we were able to question all those involved.

    The Chair: Mr. Sorenson, I would make the point that Mr. McKay said in his first intervention on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General that they were prepared to send anyone other than the minister right now.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Then that's what I would request.

    The Chair: I think we're talking about a friendly amendment to remove reference to the Solicitor General from the motion. Is that correct? This is motion two.

    Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I apologize once again. When are we going to do that? When are we going to deal with the points that were raised on Monday, as well as with the same-sex issue? I am not saying that this is unimportant, but it seems to me that our eyes are bigger than our stomach.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau, this is a notice of motion Mr. Sorenson gave before. He put the motion today. It's a motion we've discussed two different times in the past. Consequently, we are really reacting to Mr. Sorenson's motion, which would call the people you see on the sheet to appear to speak to the issue of the recommendations on the CCRA. Mr. McKay has offered, on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, that they would send everybody on that list, with the exception of the Solicitor General, and we would proceed to try to make arrangements for that meeting. We have some space between now and Christmas.

    So I'd like to put the question as amended.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: That second amendment should also read "and the chairperson of the National Parole Board".

    Mr. John McKay: Yes, that's understood.

    The Chair: So it's understood?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: It's now for Mr. Sorenson to put the second motion he gave notice of on November 6. That would be number one on your list there.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you.

    Obviously, the rationale for this concerns Karl Toft, who is Canada's worst ever pedophile. He was released recently into a halfway house in Edmonton. After his arrest in 1991 Toft denied abusing boys over the 20-year period he worked as a guard at Kingsclear Training School in New Brunswick. He later plea-bargained a deal for a 13-year sentence, pleading guilty to 34 charges, which included sexual interference, sexual assault, and buggery. As the years passed, Toft's count rose, to 80, then 100, 150, and 200. Some 233 compensation claims have been settled since Toft's incarceration, and one victim claims there were at least 700 victims.

    Judge Richard Miller was commissioned by the New Brunswick government to review the internal misconduct and inadequacies in the handling of the original allegations made against Toft by one of the correctional youth counsellors at the New Brunswick training school. In fact, Miller lambasted high-ranking officials and police officers who were told of Toft and other pedophiles, but failed to stop them. He accused some of being less than candid and truthful in their testimony. As Judge Miller pointed out in his report, "it is not the function of this inquiry to determine whether persons held in custody in the New Brunswick training school who testified before the inquiry were victims of physical and sexual abuse. This remains for another forum." Miller also said, "much was heard about who had varying degrees of involvement in the training school with its residents". After hearing testimony from 48 alleged sex abuse victims and109 other witnesses and after sifting through 594 exhibits, Miller said that the whole truth about Kingsclear was not out. I quote from page 3 of the commission of inquiry: "The fair question now is whether I am confident that the whole truth has emerged. I regret to report that I'm not satisfied that our objective was reached”.

    Since the task force was supposedly established two and a half years ago, some four years after Miller's report was released, the RCMP have received some 200 criminal complaints of sexual abuse by former Kingsclear kids. Many victims, particularly John Fearon, who was refused any compensation, claimed that Toft was not acting alone and that he was the leader of a pedophile ring that included a former RCMP officer, who has been named by half a dozen as a pedophile who sexually abused them while taking them out on day passes. Hector Duguay, the school's maintenance man, who died some years ago, former superintendent John Hoyt Patterson, and 11 other staff members have been named as abusers by a number of the Kingsclear kids. Many of the former Kingsclear abuse victims whose lives have been ruined fear that there is no real commitment on the part of the RCMP to mount an investigation of the magnitude needed to uncover what may amount to the worst case of institutional sexual abuse, even greater than that reported at Newfoundland's Mount Cashel orphanage.

    I would ask that the committee undertake a thorough review of the Miller report and call as witnesses a number of the victims to determine and report to Parliament whether or not a full public inquiry should be held to uncover the truth regarding Kingsclear, bring the accused to justice, and finally give the victims of this horrific abuse some closure.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay: Again on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, it is the position of the Solicitor General that the RCMP investigation is ongoing and it would be ill-advised for the committee to create its own inquiry during the period in which evidence is being taken, witnesses are being interviewed, and until that entire police process runs its course. So the concerns raised by Mr. Sorenson, while they may be valid in and of themselves, are considered by the Solicitor General to be premature.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Basically, what we are calling for here is a thorough examination of the report that has already been given, the Miller report, bringing back a number of witnesses, along with new individuals who have come forward, to report to Parliament whether we need a full public enquiry. That is not going to undermine what little work is currently being carried out by the RCMP, but I think it would work in conjunction with it, not disrupting any ongoing investigation, but over and above what the RCMP is doing. This is to take a look at the report that was given. When the Miller report came down, he made it abundantly clear that we have not got to the bottom of this, the truth is not yet out, and it needs to be held in a separate forum.

    Mr. Chairman, this goes back many years. Toft was originally arrested in 1991. We can wait forever for investigations to be done. We've already seen a number of the witnesses and those involved who are deceased.

    The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: When was the Miller report tabled?

    You spoke of 200 further complaints. Are those complaints that have resulted in charges, and are those charges pending before the court?

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I do not have when the Miller report was tabled. I've read portions of the report. We have individuals working through the report.

    The Chair: I don't want to misinform the committee, but it was 1994 or 1995. I can't say with certainty.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: It was the mid-1990s for sure.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: And what about the criminal investigation? Do you know?

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Some have been charged, not recently, but after the fact. As I did mention, initially the victims were counted at 80. Now 233 compensation claims have been paid out. But Toft only was charged for a very small number of the cases that have ultimately come to light. A lot of the victims who have come forward believe there could be well over 700 victims, not only of Karl Toft, but of a complete pedophile ring, including an RCMP officer. There are those who believe this may be in part why this is moving so slowly.

    I applaud the government for some of the things we have seen in regard to Internet luring, commitments to child pornography and protecting children, but this here is not right and not just. When the head of the commission, Miller himself, says we haven't got to the truth of it and we need to go deeper, how much later are we going to go deeper? There are people, as I've already stated, who are deceased, people involved in it at the time who have died of old age.

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney, then Mr. Toews.

    Mr. John Maloney: I have a question that probably can't be answered. When Mr. Miller says we need to go deeper, I would have thought those were the terms of reference he was given in undertaking the enquiry. I don't know why they haven't completed it, why they didn't go further. Perhaps no one here can answer that.

    And perhaps even this can't be answered. How long have the RCMP been doing the investigation we're asked to defer to?

º  (1650)  

    Mr. John McKay: I can't respond to that.

    Mr. John Maloney: Can we find that out?

    Mr. John McKay: My quick reaction is that a parliamentary committee should not be investigating anything in which there is an outstanding police investigation, as an operating general principle. Mr. Sorenson raises the issue that the police themselves may be part of the problem. That's a very serious allegation, and it would make any of us hesitate.

    I put this as a suggestion. I would be very hesitant to move on this motion unless there were some more factual, concrete information on which the committee could make a decision. The danger of a committee conducting inquiries during an ongoing police investigation is very significant. You would only override that principle where you had prima facie evidence that there was something wrong with the investigation itself.

    The Chair: Mr. Toews, and then Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Vic Toews: The question that remains outstanding for me is what we hope to accomplish as a committee apart from the police investigation. Mr. Sorenson can maybe answer that. What light can we shed on this matter that a police investigation won't?

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I'll answer that after responding to one thing Mr. McKay said.

    What I stated was that many victims, particularly John Fearon, who was refused any compensation, claim that Toft was not acting alone and was the leader of a pedophile ring that included a former RCMP officer. That many of the witnesses believe could be part of what the hold up is. I'm not alleging that as fact.

    What are we going to accomplish? I think Mr. Miller, in his report, made it abundantly clear that he had not got to the truth, and perhaps that was for a separate or a different forum, a different body, a different group.

    I have received hundreds and hundreds of letters and calls to my office. Every time the Karl Toft issue comes up on a talk radio show, the calls pour in. The public is at the point where they want answers, especially in New Brunswick, but throughout this country, because a lot of the victims are right here in Ontario. It applies more specifically to my riding because he is presently in a halfway house in Edmonton. The public is here, the public is wanting answers. It's been twenty-some years and they have had no answers that have satisfied them. That's why he is still the centre of talk radio shows and outcries from the public.

    The Chair: I think we've given a thorough hearing to the issue, and I'd like to put the question. I don't think the committee is not interested in this, but it's a matter of whether the motion is the best way to get at it.

    Mr. MacKay.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I have a very brief further question for yourself, Mr. Chair, or Mr. Sorenson. In the presentation you mentioned compensation. In the Nova Scotia Shelburne School for Boys abuse case the government did settle with a number of the victims and there was an ongoing compensation process in place. Is that still going on in New Brunswick? When I hear you say there may be as many as 700 more victims, along with outstanding criminal charges potentially against Toft and others, I'm wondering if the province of New Brunswick is still negotiating any of these claims. Is there a possibility that there is going to be a further New Brunswick provincial inquiry into this that might involve compensation?

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: I can't answer it, Peter.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: You don't know. Okay.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Hearsay has it that there have been some questions of the provincial government, but no direct commitment to have a further enquiry. As far as the compensation goes, it's very important to remember that Mr. Toft plea-bargained the deal for a 13-year sentence, pleading guilty to 34 charges. Later, as the count started rising, he was plea-bargaining things away. It's well over 233 compensation cases that they've paid out.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Just related to Toft?

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes.

    Miller's frustration is brought out in the report, making it abundantly clear. Your question as to why they didn't get to the bottom of it is a good one. I don't know. That was some fifteen years ago, but his frustration is evident in the report. We need to go deeper, it has to be a different forum that does it.

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): It seems obvious to me that there's a problem here, and I don't know if this is the best way to proceed with it. Maybe we need more discussion, and some people said we maybe need more facts.

    The Chair: I think we've discussed the motion today. I don't think it would preclude us from moving in some other fashion, recognizing that at this moment there are some outstanding questions.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: There's obviously some kind of problem that needs to be addressed.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I just want to say this. I came here today, I wasn't going to bring this motion forward. I had a rationale written out here that I wanted to give, and I wanted to bring a copy of the report with me today. I recognize that we have been handed, as a committee, some responsibilities that are going to take up a great deal of time after Christmas. I would still like to have the motion brought forward. I'm not in a rush, I'm not asking that this be given a priority, but I recall on the Westray mine how we fitted it in at a certain time. I want to make it clear that whenever it can be brought forward, that's when we can do it at the committee. I'm in no rush on this.

    The Chair: To be fair to process, notice was given. This is the motion. You can withdraw the motion--

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: No.

    The Chair: Then the questions's going to put. You can withdraw and come back, that option is available to you, but the question is going to be put.

    Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, first of all, this is not something that I am very familiar with. All I know about it is what Kevin read out a few minutes ago, as well as the bit of coverage that was in the media.

    You used to be the solicitor general. If a criminal investigation is under way, can the RCMP or one of the officers talk to us about the situation? Can they tell us what is going on and where things stand? That is all I want. I would just like to know what is happening in general, not the details. Any member of Parliament could write and say... I have the impression that if Mr. Sorenson introduces his motion, it will be defeated, and that would be unfortunate if there is something fishy going on.

[English]

    The Chair: There are very few advantages to being a former Solicitor General, but this is one. It is not for me to comment, as the chair of the justice committee, on what's appropriate to ask of the RCMP. If the committee wants to make an inquiry of the RCMP, we have every right in the world. They can refuse or they can respond, that's up to them, but this chair is not going to give advice as a former Solicitor General.

    So, Mr. Sorenson, let me just make sure we understand the parameters. If you want to withdraw, you can withdraw. If you want to put the motion, it will be put. Just so it's clear, we cannot then entertain that motion at a later date, but that does not preclude us from doing other things on this issue apart from calling for an inquiry. Is that understood?

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Say that last one again.

    The Chair: It does not preclude us from coming back to the issue in some other fashion, it only removes the option of coming back to the issue in this fashion. Understood?

    So the motion is put.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 6)

    The Chair: Now, I'm going in camera. I suspend for two minutes.

    [Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]