JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

À

1000

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

À

1055

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Sargeant Sylvie Bourassa-Muise (Unit Manager, National Child Exploitation Centre)

Á

1100

The Chair

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Á

1105

The Chair

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

Á

1110

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.)

Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise

Á

1115

Mr. Christian Jobin

Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Á

1120

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Á

1125

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Hon. Hedy Fry

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Philip Rosen (Committee Researcher)

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Philip Rosen

Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise

Á

1135

Mr. Philip Rosen

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. Philip Rosen

The Chair

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

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

The Chair

Á

1140

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Á

1150

Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Â

1255

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

·

1300

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

·

1305

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

·

1310

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 071

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

À  (1000)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): We'll go into public session now, in the regular order of things. I won't be particularly hard and fast on time unless someone objects.

À  (1055)  

    Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): I know Kevin wants to ask a question. I just want to make a comment.

    I don't have any questions. I think the presentation is enough in itself to see what we're up against. I've said before that I think if every parliamentarian had to sit down and look at this, we wouldn't be having the difficulties we are having with some of the issues in getting some laws passed.

    I also say that if every parent in the country had to see this, we'd have riots going on in the streets, because I don't think people are fully aware of what we're dealing with here. People can't get their heads around this kind of thing, that this actually goes on.

    All I can say is that I have to commend the police. I just can't imagine having to subject oneself to this, day after day and hour after hour. My only question would be, what do you need from us to make your job easier?

    You can reserve answer on that. I know Kevin has some questions.

    The Chair: Kevin.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Just the same as Chuck talked about here, certainly we thank you for coming and helping to make this committee aware of exactly what we're dealing with when we talk about child pornography.

    It was said a couple of weeks ago that as a committee and as a government, or as a Parliament, we need to just decide that there are some things we have no tolerance for, and after seeing some of this today, child pornography has to be one of those things that we just say there is no tolerance for in this country.

    That said, we have to be sure that individuals are allowed certain rights, and it's hard to even talk about rights when you see a presentation like the one this morning.

    In one of your slides you talked about the organized crime aspect. It was in the slide called “Internet pedophilia”. Out of that slide came all these different arms going back to the central body of pedophilia.

    One of those slides said “fantasy story generators”. Although we saw graphically today what child pornography is, we have been involved in committees over the past two or three weeks where we've had individuals from different writers' guilds or different people involved in writing say we should not be able to legislate against any type of writing, because there is no criminal involved. What they're saying is these are all things in the mind and there's no child actually being criminalized. Yet you made it so clear that fantasy story generators feed to the same type of people.

    I would wonder how you can charge people. It's obvious from the scenes, when you see a child being victimized, that you can press charges, but when it comes down to these story generators, how do you go about ever charging anyone for written material? And what is your view on the people who would say no, you can't touch the story generators because it's artistic and it may have some public good?

    The Chair: Could you pick up on Mr. Cadman's question too?

    Sargeant Sylvie Bourassa-Muise (Unit Manager, National Child Exploitation Centre): There is nothing artistic when it comes to writings about children depicted for the sole purpose of sexual acts, where there's fantasy drawn from hurting children, from sodomizing children, and committing all kinds of cruel acts against them.

    Of course, we take the notorious writings in Sharpe. I don't know if you were ever privy to the actual writings in Sharpe. They weren't fantasies such as we're going for a picnic in a park on a nice little blanket and we're going to play kissy-kissy, play as if we're on a date with another adult. Those were not the stories.

    These depicted... I wasn't privy to those, but certainly a friend of mine, Detective Noreen Waters, who was a primary detective in that case, recounts one scene where the writer is saying that there is such joyous and sexual gratification from driving a spike through the skull of a child. The writer is depicting sexual gratification from hurting a child, from committing acts of sadism against a child. There is no artistic value to comments of this sort.

    Also, there is ownership on those who write such things, and liability, I believe, for those who write such things on other people, especially those who are being published. If they are published material or materials for accessing by others, then one should have the liability as to what effects this will have on others.

    It will normalize a behaviour. It will say it's okay to act that way. It will create fantasies. Those in the behavioural science field tell us that there is a motivational continuum where we start with a thought projection on something. It could be a fantasy, but there's no acting out; it's just out there. However, through curiosity or facilitation such as writings, we see that there is normalcy: other people have the same thoughts as I do; it must be okay; let's see what else is out there. And so it progresses—the inquisition for the person to look further. It lowers inhibitions. So what I would think of as perhaps vile, if I see it in writing I'll say other people are writing it in the same way, the same little fantasies that I have had; it must be okay.

    There should be a liability, especially when it deals with children. If it's something to deal with a consenting adult, where acts between adults are taking place, even acts of violence... “Please hurt me”, a woman will cry out. “I want you to grab me”, an adult will cry out. There is no right, in my opinion, for a person to say that or to use a child, to actuate physical harm onto a child and write about it.

    To me, the writings are also considered as depictions of crime scenes, of records of crime scenes. Certainly in Robin Sharpe's case, those were the theories behind the writings that the investigators had, that they were writings on other Canadian criminal scenes.

Á  (1100)  

    The Chair: Mr. Cadman had asked a question as to what you would want us to do. Then we'll go to Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: I had prepared a little reply for this. I view child pornography as illegal, of course. It alters behaviour when viewed. It is a catalyst, as I said, for committing aggressions against children. I view this in the same way as narcotics. Narcotics are illegal because they alter behaviour and act as a catalyst to perform aggression against persons and properties. The same analogy applies to firearms.

    We should take the same approach with child pornography as we take with drugs—to regulate research, education, enforcement, and control. There should be no artistic merit. There should be no public good. Child pornography is like drugs. It is prohibited and should be handled and managed in the same way—forms for examinations, forms to be used for destruction, such as Health Canada regulates. There should be no research at will, no deregulation, no medical research at will, no education at will, but it must be regulated by a government body. As I mentioned, there should be no defence for child pornography. It's a prohibited substance like a drug. It's like a prohibited or restricted firearm. Certainly we regulate drugs, and we regulate firearms. We should regulate this prohibited substance.

    As for the public good, we should rely on the laws that presently exist, those that support the police acting as investigators to solve such crimes. Regulation should be strict and under the guise of such bodies as Health Canada, which would regulate control, storage, testing, and sampling. By that, we take it that when drugs are seized, a bag of coke is seized, the top portion is coke, as is the bottom portion. The same goes in a child pornography seizure. We know when we seize child pornography that the first seizure is child pornography and that the last seizure is child pornography. There is no possession over, no possession under. What is the difference between possessing one child abuse image or 200,000 child abuse images? It's still child pornography. Why make us sit there and catalogue every one of them?

    The only exception, the difference from drugs, is that we don't have to share drugs with other agencies in the investigation. We have to share child pornography with other agencies. We have to share it. We have to distribute it. We have to export it. The reason is for public good. The reason is to identify children and to identify offenders.

    I've talked to you about the kindergarten series, the hello series, and the Michel Québec series. Those are only three series, yet there are thousands of images out there, and it takes the efforts of international agencies to locate these victims. One of us can't stand behind. If it weren't for the Canadian efforts, the kindergarten series wouldn't have been cracked.

    At present, also, there are Canadian agencies that interpret child pornography laws at will and that prohibit and inhibit contribution to international investigations. Currently we have legal counsel who are of the opinion that child abuse images cannot be shared with Interpol Lyons, although there is legislation that facilitates the sharing of information and organized crime with Interpol. There are arguments on the privacy issues, meaning that a person has the right to keep his/her identity. We shouldn't be sharing these. We are working to identify these children, to identify these child abusers. We are not working to distribute child pornography among one another. We are not looking to abuse children. We are looking to protect children and to protect Canadian society and the public at large.

Á  (1105)  

    Recently, Detective Constable Sharon Girling of the National Crime Squad of the United Kingdom was strip-searched at one of the airports, as it was believed she was importing child pornography. She had come to Canada to meet with Images Technologies, which were developing software, an investigative tool for the U.K., to identify child abuse images, to categorize them, to form links in the hope of identifying children. There are thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of images out there. We can't possibly find enough walls to put all these images on. We need the assistance of technology.

    I know Images Technologies very well. They were developing the software. Detective Constable Sharon Girling was strip-searched at the airport by Canadian law enforcement authorities. This caused horrible embarrassment to the Canadian government and Canadian law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP. In mid-September, the U.K. still talked about this incident, and it created much distrust with the Canadian law enforcement agencies.

    Those are my comments at this point.

    The Chair: Garry.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): I think you've just answered my question. I wanted to know what your concluding comments were, because I thought it was absolutely essential. And the second thing I want to know is what we can do to support you. This is atrocious. I don't know if you have anything to add, but those are my two real questions.

    Is there not something also that we can do to go after Internet servers that allow this to go across the Internet? If something is this terrible, can't we go after the people that allow this to be spread by their servers?

Á  (1110)  

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: Certainly you've heard my friend Detective Gillespie talk about this. I understand that the laws of lawful access are being worked on by government. Certainly when I look at other countries and the advances they've made.... Look at our friends in the United States. In the United States, an ISP, an Internet service provider, can be charged up to $100,000 per image, per day, if they don't remove child pornography, child pornographic images, from their servers—up to $100,000 per image, per day. I think there's motivation there to work with law enforcement agencies.

    Microsoft has come to the forefront with Canada recently, and certainly there are many others. I'm not sure how this is administered in the United States. I'm not very well versed on American law, whether it's a civil fine or a criminal fine. But certainly that provides a whole lot of motivation and a great general deterrent for ISPs to host child abuse images or any prohibited material on their websites.

    I don't know how many times we have to go back to our international law enforcement agencies and say sorry, we can't give you the information, as the ISP doesn't hold the information for more than 30 days, for more than two weeks, for more than 60 days. Often by the time an investigation has gone through the process, more than 60 days have gone by. Two months is not very long in an investigation—in a serious crime investigation—and these are considered serious crime investigations. So we really need the help of the ISPs, and certainly a lot of them are moving, but a lot of them are not.

    The Chair: Anything, Derek?

    Okay, Monsieur Jobin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): I really appreciated your presentation. However, I still have some serious questions. You go to an awful lot of trouble to catch pedophiles. But knowing that from one day to the next, there's a strong chance of their reoffending, I would like to know why they are released so readily.

    Statistics show that a pedophile will always try again. In Quebec, recently, a pedophile who had been released committed another crime. These people are not supervised. They are left to their own devices. I'm wondering why, after going to such great lengths to arrest them, is it so easy for them to get released.

    Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise: Mr. Jobin, unfortunately, that's a question that I often ask myself. One of my colleagues was involved in a project in British Columbia, and she was monitoring pedophiles who had been released from prison after serving their sentence or released on probation. Within 15 minutes, some of them were already near children or schools, trying to seduce children or abuse them, or to assault adults or children. The officer in charge of the project told me herself that monitoring these pedophiles was almost a game to them. They thought they would have to spend hours or days watching them, in a car or on foot. They were very surprised to see how fast things happened.

    Why are pedophiles released? I don't know, sir; I can't answer that question. There are other acts or regulations involved. There's also the Correctional Service and our courts. As I said, I initially thought that six months of prison for sexual assault on a child—touching a child or forcing a child to touch an adult, for example, was a reasonable sentence. You can imagine the actual effect of these acts and how a child might be affected by an adult. That deserves more than six months of prison.

    As to whether pedophiles can be cured, I can tell you that experts like my British friend Joseph Sullivan and Dr. Collins tell us that they can't. Their behaviour can be controlled, but the fact remains that once a pedophile, always a pedophile. It is a matter of sexual orientation. Just as a homosexual person is attracted to adults of the same sex, a pedophile is attracted to children. Pedophiles don't like touching adults; they like touching children. This is a life-long orientation. Behaviour is the only thing that can be controlled.

    Those are my comments. I'm sorry I couldn't be more informative.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Christian Jobin: In short, the sentences should be tougher.

    Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise: That's my opinion. More should also be done in terms of monitoring their behaviour and registering pedophiles with the police and supervising their treatment.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci.

    Marlene.

[Translation]

    Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): You said that a system was set up in the United States to impose penalties or fines on companies that, among other things, hosted websites that post child pornography. Have any studies been done to determine whether fines of $100,000 per image per day have actually resulted in a decrease in the number of these websites?

    Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise: Ms. Jennings, I may have misled you. It's not true that there are fewer websites created or administered in the United States. In fact, there are many more. The United States creates or at least has over 80 per cent of the websites in the world. The number increases every year. However, companies that know that their server carries images of child pornography can take certain steps. That's what happened with Operation Snowball, where Microsoft helped the police get search warrants.

[English]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So far there hasn't been proven an actual direct link between the creation of these new penalties on servers who distribute child pornographic images or websites that they're actually posting and a reduction. You responded to a question of what can we do to help, and you gave the example of these penalties that exist now in the United States. So the logical conclusion is that Canada should institute the same kinds of penalties. But if there's no proof that it has actually been acting as a deterrent, then perhaps we need to look at something else.

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: Madam Jennings, certainly I don't want to misguide this committee. I'm not aware of such studies; however, I'm sure that the Centre for Missing and Exploited Children can assist us in this. If you wish, we can obtain that information for you.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It would be of help.

    The Chair: And if you could please provide whatever supporting documentation you can, it would be much appreciated.

    Paul.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As an observer, is what you showed us today fairly representative of what is on the Internet and what is being bought, sold, and traded as far as pornographic images are concerned? Perhaps I could establish that first, then I will see where I go after that.

Á  (1120)  

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: Do you believe that I presented some hard-core images or perhaps the upper scale of images on child abuse?

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I don't know; I'm just asking the question. Is that representative of what is being traded or bought and sold?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: Yes, it is. These are images that we have coming through our office. It took me 18 hours to make this presentation. The reason for that is I wanted to be fair to this committee. I didn't want to show you the most grotesque images out there and say this was the average. I wanted to show you the average. At the same time, I didn't want it to be too basic also and to show you just child nudity. So I wanted the committee to have an honest appreciation of the average images out there.

    There are some images out there, sir, that you and I couldn't even watch. I have been told by veteran investigators that they dare me to sit there and watch this image without throwing up or without going home sick. There are grotesque acts. I have difficulty with some of the images where children are tied down. Certainly I only showed you one. There are many more out there.

    So I didn't show you the worst and I certainly didn't show you the mildest of the images. This is an average depiction of the images out there.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: For me, sitting here watching the presentation today, I guess my reaction is how could there be any question as to what you showed us being pornographic? Is that a fair statement?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: Yes, it is.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Okay. Therefore, going forward, is the question, then, one of definition of “pornography”, from your perspective, looking at most of the cases, or is it in fact a question of law enforcement and its ability to be able to detect, ultimately investigate, and prosecute these individuals?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: A bit of both, sir. From the legal point of view, we have such defences as artistic merit.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: To what you displayed for us today there would be a defence of artistic merit with any of those children?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: We also have the age of consent. In Quebec their interpretation of child pornography is that any picture that depicts a child from 14 to 18 years old is not child pornography because of the age of consent. On average, let's say, a 30-year-old or a 40-year-old can engage in sexual relations with a 15-year-old in consensual sex. That being said, now that consensual sexual act is being filmed; however, once it's distributed it becomes child pornography. Quebec is saying no, that the act here is a consensual act between two people. The mere fact that it was put on the Internet without the child's knowledge or without the child's consent is perhaps mischief.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Most of what you showed us here today I thought you referred to as “pre-pubescent” or “pubescent”, meaning, I would have thought, 12 years and under. We're not talking age of consent.

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: However, the age for child pornographic images, for child abuse images, is 18 and under. What I'm saying here is that law enforcement has a discrepancy in the application of the child pornography laws. For between 14 and 18 years, Quebec is saying no, it's not child pornography. Manitoba is looking at it and saying it's child pornography. They're looking at nudity and saying it's child pornography. Some other agencies are looking at full-frontal nudity as not being child pornography.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Could I just get a clarification, then? You seem to be referring to provincial authorities. Are you suggesting this is something that flows from the prosecuting authority within a provincial jurisdiction, this difference in interpretation? I thought we had a uniform law throughout this country, as represented and reflected in the Criminal Code. Can you help me out in understanding why you see that as a provincial...

Á  (1125)  

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: It certainly appears that way, doesn't it, that there's a provincial interpretation?

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Is that your experience?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: Yes.

    The Chair: John.

    We're just going around the table, Hedy. The next round will be for just the people we didn't get around to the first time.

    Go ahead, John.

    Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Going back to Ms. Jennings' question about the $100,000 per day per image, what would a server--assuming you could prove anything--expect in Canada? What would it be?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: A fine?

    Mr. John McKay: Yes.

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: We don't have such things.

    Mr. John McKay: There's no penalty for a server carrying pornographic images?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: I don't want to confuse the committee. I'm not aware of any actions taken against Internet service providers for willingly hosting child pornographic images on their servers.

    Mr. John McKay: Can they not even be charged?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: In my eyes, they can. I would find something in the law to charge them with.

    Mr. John McKay: What would you charge them with?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: I'd be creative in using the laws at my disposal to charge them: aiding and abetting, distributing or facilitating the distribution of child pornography....

    Mr. John McKay: My friend is whispering that they'd have to delete 15 (a), in fact.

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: Yes, upon court order--that's right. Upon a court order, you can delete.

    Mr. John McKay: Is that an actual punishment, or is it simply a cost of doing business?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: That would be for the ISP to give an opinion on.

    Mr. John McKay: You're a police officer; you're in the field. It doesn't seem to be overly serious for a server to carry images such as this.

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: We can't look at the ISP, the Internet service provider, as the big bad wolf either. There are some ISPs out there that are very concerned with this problem. Certainly we have the Internet service providers association--I'm not naming it right--and there are large ISPs such as Vidéotron or Rogers that will work with police, will assist police the best they can without compromising the privacy or the individual rights of their customers.

    If I go to Rogers, for example, and say they have child pornography on their server under this IP and that IP, some of them will hold it back, remove it from their servers, put it aside. Yahoo and Microsoft Canada do this for us also. They'll hold it aside and say all right, you go get your warrant, and I'll hold it for you. It's off the server.

    Mr. John McKay: How many service providers are there?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: I don't know, sir. In Canada?

    Mr. John McKay: Yes, in Canada.

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: I'm sorry, I don't know.

    Mr. John McKay: It wouldn't be a large number, though, would it?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: It used to be a large number. Now we see more and more of the larger companies overtaking the smaller ones or creating situations where it's no longer viable for the basement type of ISP--literally, basement run--to be in business, just because it's so cheap now.

    Mr. John McKay: In your opinion, is that an area the committee should explore? If you can't transmit the image, it's pretty hard to carry on Internet child pornography.

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: Perhaps I would regulate Canadian ISPs. However, with wireless technology, with technology where it hops from one server in Japan to one in Germany and it eventually hops onto my computer, I haven't touched the Canadian ISP.

    Wireless right now is freezing us in our tracks. To get training is very expensive right now, just to get the concept of wireless technology. The cheapest quote I've had for one person's training is $2,000, just to learn about it. Wireless is going to be the death of us as far as enforcement is concerned.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: To Manitoba, Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): I'm sorry, I'm going to pass. I didn't have the benefit of hearing the entire presentation. I think another committee member should ask a question.

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): It's the same here.

    The Chair: Ms. Fry.

    Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Actually, I wasn't here either, but I want to ask a question following up on something someone had asked.

    Does the Butler decision cover child pornography? I don't know if it does or doesn't in terms of what constitutes pornography. The Butler decision is particularly specific about what constitutes pornographic images, isn't it?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: You're testing me. Could you recall for me the Butler decision?

    Hon. Hedy Fry: I think it talks of images of anal penetration. I think it talks about bondage. I'm not sure of all the pieces; I'm not a lawyer. But I do know it was pretty clear on what constitutes pornography. Full frontal nudity was, but certain other types of acts weren't.

    I was wondering if it was only for adults or if it also covered child pornography.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Just on a point of order, I argued that case in the Supreme Court, and I think it's a very difficult question for a police officer, indeed even for me, to answer in terms of what the case actually meant. It was usually a combination of explicit sex and violence that made it pornography. But I think that's a question we should probably get a briefing on from the justice department, not only on what the decision itself said, but how it has been applied over the last decade.

    The Chair: Mr. Rosen, if you can answer that one....

    Mr. Philip Rosen (Committee Researcher): I can't answer that, because it's been ten years since I read the case. But my recollection, Mr. Toews--and correct me if I'm wrong--is that this case may have predated the current child pornography legislation, which I think dates to 1993.

    Mr. Vic Toews: It was 1991 or 1992 that the decision came out in Butler.

    Mr. Philip Rosen: Okay.

    My question has to do with your comments about having to review all the images to prepare a prosecution. You made a representation to the effect that you would like to be able, as in drug cases, to present a sample of child pornography images, just as you can, as law enforcement does, in drug prosecutions.

    Assuming the committee or someone were to change the law so you could that, isn't there also another context within which you have to review all of these images, the context of crown disclosure to the defence? As you probably know, the Stinchcombe case required that the crown disclose all of its evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory, to the defence. If it doesn't do so, the defence can go to court.

    So don't you have a double problem, having to review all of these images, not just for the purposes of your actual prosecution, but also for the purposes of determining what you will disclose or for disclosing, often these days via CD-ROM with index and searchable capacity, to the defence?

    Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise: Yes, we have a double problem, for sure, in that prosecutors and defence are not only asking for the complete package, but they're also asking for an organized package. So sometimes you'll have an offender, one of these collectors I was mentioning before, who is an organizational freak. And we like those people, because all we can do is a clip and paste, and they've organized all the images for us and done a whole lot of work. They've saved hundreds of hours of organizing these images.

    It's because police officers work that way. We want to be professional in the way we present our packages to the crown, to the defence. We want to be taken seriously, and certainly we'll work in order to prepare your packages as best as possible. There's nothing I know of in the law that says we have to do that, other than it says we have to give you that information. There's nothing that says we have to collate that information and give you a pretty package.

    However, I am of the opinion that I'll give you a copy of whatever we've seized. Have fun. I'll give you a sampling of what I took out here and there of these seizures, of these files, and I'll show you what they are, I'll educate you as to what they are. But why view every single image?

    Recently in one of our major cases we've asked the assistance of other police departments. And we came together and formed a working group, as such, because the information was so overwhelming. It was a pay-to-view site being hosted where people, like Snowball, would visit. Anyway, various websites were captured and so on and these were analysed by the Manitoba ICE unit for us.

    The reports are overwhelming, in that every image is stated. There are six images of child nudity. There are two images where there is a girl standing, and it gives a precise description on what each image is. For an investigator to do that, it's painstaking; and in my mind, it's worthless. What difference is it going to make at the end of the day to categorize...?

    However, as I said before, there are inconsistencies from the practitioner's point of view on whether we have to go to that extent. Or will it suffice that, yes, you'll get the whole thing, but why do we have to present such a pretty and organized package to you?

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Philip Rosen: So the change you're recommending would have to apply both in the disclosure and in the presentation of evidence contexts?

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: I would agree to that.

    Mr. Philip Rosen: Thank you.

    The Chair: Derek.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Could I add the possibility that the cataloguing and the taking of inventory of all this stuff may also relate to any possible order for forfeiture? I don't know what happens after a seizure, but presumably there'd have to be a court order that the subject matter be forfeited. And if that is the case, then you'd have to catalogue whatever you're forfeiting. That means the whole list. So I just want to add that into the record, because the two might be related.

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: There are ways of cataloguing without actually having to view these images, and I'm sure you'd go through a CD-ROM or any kind of storage device. You can tell the number of files you have on your storage device without having to view them. So you say you have six files containing child abuse images or suspected child abuse images. It's like saying, “Well, I have a bag of coke. It weighs 10 pounds, minus such-and-such that I've sent for analysing.” So if I say to the courts, “I have 50,000 files that I want destroyed”, then so be it. So it's 50,000 files. Whether they're catalogued or not, who cares?

    What we see, though--and you're talking about forfeiture--is where electronic equipment is returned to the suspects. We have no problems in the box being returned to the suspects, but why are the drives being returned to the suspects? Because there's always a way of retrieving. And why do we put it upon certain police departments to wipe it clean? Why not just seize it? You play; you pay.

    In some provinces, such as Manitoba, we look at these forfeitures as proceeds of crime also, in that we put value to the computer equipment and to the images themselves. We say these would sell for such-and-such on the Internet or as a hard copy, therefore this is what they're worth. So we're seeing that too. They're actually putting value into these images, which is quite disturbing, actually, but it's a reality.

    I hope I've answered your question, sir.

    The Chair: I don't see anybody else wanting to ask a question, so I'm going to take the opportunity.

    I missed it too, by the way, but it seems to me there's a possibility that one of the complications of this debate is.... I don't know that any of the people from the Writers Guild, were they here today, would suggest there was a defence, if I understand what you saw. I don't think any of those people are talking about that, and I don't think either that you're talking about The Tin Drum or some contemporary....

    You tell us, as a law enforcement person, are the kinds of literature mentioned, for instance, when the witnesses were here from those kinds of organizations...? In your mind, is what we're trying to capture in this exercise what we would consider to be relatively mainstream literature? Some of it may be literature that is of questionable taste, perhaps, in some people's minds; nevertheless, is that what you're thinking about? How would you respond to that?

Á  (1140)  

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: We're dealing with the written word in its application. In my mind, if it talks about the depiction of a crime scene—or, if you want, describes the movie files you may have seen and adds some fluff to it, some niceties about it—or if it talks in a sexual context about a child, the law is very clear: it's against the law.

    Where it's up for interpretation, it's not my job to do it. That's for our judiciary to handle. As far as I'm concerned, on the practical side of it, if I seize the written word where a child is being talked about in sexual connotations, and it counsels a sexual act against a child, the law is clear: it's child pornography. It might be subjective, and we're not sure, maybe, but if it's as clear as day to me that it's counselling or depicting sexual activity with a child, then it's pornography; it's clear.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: There are two things. First of all, going back to this Internet server deal, a couple of years ago we had these servers come forward to talk to us. One of the things they were saying was “To start prosecuting us is like prosecuting the post office for sending things through the mail. It's very difficult to police all that is put out there. And yes, we are trying to do our due diligence and make sure they aren't coming onto the server, but the images are put out there.”

    In response to Andy's question, I wouldn't mind getting just that one screen of the graph that showed all the different arms of the Internet pedophilia. One of those arms is very specifically those who write fantasy story generators. It's part of the very same thing. I think that's what we have to....

    When you see the image it sickens you, but we didn't see the stories or any of the written literature that would play into the very same kind of thing. That is what I am trying to drive at here. We have to be able to come to a point where we can say we have zero tolerance for child pornography, and when we have zero tolerance for child pornography, fantasy story generators are part of it.

    Just to go back, if you look at the graphic picture, the pornography, those who are arguing the case of artistic merit would say they aren't going to argue about that. But those fantasy story generators are exactly what they were arguing for.

    Mr. Vic Toews: To follow up on that, what I heard some of the arts groups say is that as long as the picture is a virtual picture of a child, it isn't pornography. This is the distinction they wanted us to make: as long as the police could prove it was a real child, it's pornography; but a virtual child should not be pornography.

    Frankly, I think in this day and age it's unacceptable, given the fact that you can't distinguish in any substantive way between the two. I know that's the position the American Supreme Court has come to. It's a very disturbing situation, but I think here in Canada we need to address it. But the arts groups were saying if it's a virtual child, we can do with that image what we would like to do.

    The Chair: Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay: I would like to get a comment from the witness on what Mr. Toews just said.

    Sgt Sylvie bourassa-Muise: I find it very disturbing when such comments are made—not by yourself, but by others—about virtual images. Certainly we don't want to go down the road our American friends have gone down. That creates havoc for police departments. What they've had to do now is build child image databases, because they have to prove that the image is a real person.

    It's very simple these days to change an image. All I have to do is go into the codes and delete a couple of those squiggly characters, and now the image is no longer a real image of the child. It might be that the colour of one eye is gone. It's now making it a virtual picture, no longer the real depiction of the child. You get into all kinds of issues.

    I'm reaching here, but it could be as simple as the cartoons. I don't know if you watch cartoons these days; some of the virtual cartoons, such as those found in video games and the sort, are very realistic. They are cruel.

    In Japan, actually, they had big problems. They were embarrassed on the international front several years ago because of their lack of child pornography laws and their lowered inhibitions as far as sexual normality or acceptability is concerned. There, these virtual images were being shown right on the big TV screens in stores, depicting children in sexual acts, or depicting people in sexual acts. They made no differentiation. You get into all kinds of issues when dealing with virtual images. I'd say we'd be going backwards if we went there.

    Actually, Canada is looked upon favourably throughout the world for having such good laws. I know we're complaining here about the difficulties in their application, because although in comparison with other countries we're doing quite well with our laws, on the practical application side of it, we're doing poorly. I'll be quite blunt: We're a laughingstock.

    Law enforcement is now recognizing that we do great work with education and awareness, but we do lousy work with law enforcement. We're starting to, and it's just by the sheer will of police officers such as Detective Gillespie, who—I don't know when the man sleeps—works night and day on these cases, or such as the Sûreté du Québec, which has such a wonderful unit out there also. The same goes with Manitoba. We're starting to make strides, but we're not there yet.

    I would never entertain taking away a virtual image or the written word. As far as the comment on these stories that generate fantasies is concerned, there we can get into all kinds of moot issues also. It's just like advocating criminality on some other front. I'll take the bikers as an example, where “it's okay to hurt another human being”, if I can draw that parallel. They advocate that: “Go out and beat somebody or go out and kill somebody, and then you're one of us.” Well, here they're creating fantasies at the source—“It's okay to like children”—and then creating these fantasies.

    If you want to see some of these fantasies generated where they're just on the borderline of the written word, go to freespirits.org, which is hosted in Quebec. It's still on the servers. You'll see there many stories that, I tell you, are right on the fine line as to testing what the “written word” really is. They don't go there, but they'll create a scene, and then your imagination takes over.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau has a question. We have less than five minutes.

    Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: A number of artists present us with the following argument. If an author writes about a murder in a detective novel, the author won't be accused of incitement to murder for having written about that. So they ask why a person who writes on a topic like sexual relations with a child should face charges, whereas someone who writes about a murder doesn't get charged with anything. I would like to hear your response to that argument.

    The other example is that of an author who has won a number of prizes in Quebec and even in Canada, who published a collection of first sexual experiences of various authors when they were 14, 15 or 16 years old, for the purposes of sexual education, according to him. At any rate, they are writings that appear to me to be quite "kosher", if you'll excuse the expression. Where do you draw the line, basically? I know that's not an easy question.

Á  (1150)  

    Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise: No, Mr. Marceau, it certainly isn't an easy question. Crime scene prose is definitely different from Robin Sharpe's writings. When you write about crime scenes, there are certain standards. If it's a crime with a victim, the victim must not be named. You can't say that little Suzanne was assaulted, while the child's identity is kept out of the news. Do you see?

    Except that Robin Sharpe's work, as you said, sir, creates a fantasy. It's a story that encourages the belief that certain behaviour is normal and that could lead a person to commit certain acts.

    I'm sorry, but I find it hard to answer your question. I can only make personal comments on this point. The purpose of some writing is to describe our own behaviour, our first experiences; that's one standard. So it's up to our communities to reject standards that allow for such open discussion of those topics. It comes from our community. And what represents the community? Our laws do.

    When push comes to shove, I really don't know how to answer your question. I have personal opinions. I don't like seeing that kind of story. I always react badly when I see stories about the first time. But how do you regulate that? I can't tell you.

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: We know that most people have their first sexual relations before they turn 18. Even if we hope that our children will do so later, we want them to be educated in a certain way. Some people describe their first experiences for educational purposes, saying that they didn't like doing it on the Plains of Abraham or in their father's car. A number of people found their first time to be quite uncomfortable, and they described their experiences to advise young people not to do the same.

    Clearly, it is hard to know where to draw the line.

    Sgt Sylvie Bourassa-Muise: You're absolutely right. Etiquette, morality and even religion are all part of the context. In my opinion, especially when you look at the writing that is out there, it's very hard to decide what's acceptable and what isn't. With some work, it's quite obvious, but when it's fantasy or educational writing, it's very hard. As I said before, if it's for an educational purpose, there should definitely be rules.

    The Chair: Thank you, Sergeant  Bourassa-Muise.

[English]

    For purposes of the motion, I suspend for five minutes.

Á  (1154)  

---

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz, on your motions.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The motions are under orders of the day.

  (1255)  

    The Chair: Let's do one at a time.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The first one asks the committee to review the proposed Firearms Act regulations, which are currently before both Houses of Parliament.

    For those of you who are not completely familiar with what's happening here, there are 44 pages of proposed regulations, which should be reviewed by this committee. They will become law on October 27, with all the errors, the lack of logic, and the problems in drafting, unless this committee is willing to review them. I feel that we have a responsibility to get the law right.

    We know, just by looking at the experience of the last couple of years, that the bureaucrats who have been running the system have not been doing a stellar job. We trusted them back in 1995. We have a huge mess now, and these regulations don't really improve on that.

    We should especially hear from the commissioner, Mr. Bill Baker. He had some consultations with all of the stakeholders, and we need to hear what they said about these proposed regulations. We also need to hear the results of the consultations he had over the Internet.

    I happen to know that there are some very serious problems with these regulations, and I think the committee should dig into this and find out what they are.

    I'll give you a couple of examples. The firearms marking regulations require the stamping of CA and the year of importation on an estimated 85,000 firearms that get imported into Canada every year. This is going to drive a lot of firearms importers out of business. In fact, those import laws are so complex that the experts say it can only lead to attempts to circumvent the system. In other words, read my lips: the illegal trade in firearms is going to increase as a direct result of this. We have already been warned by the police and others about this. So the opposite of what the regulations intend to cure is going to happen. There are witnesses who are willing to come before the committee to talk about this.

    It's going to drive up the cost of a new gun in Canada by $100 or $200. This cost alone will drive hunters and recreational shooters out of the sport. That's going to have repercussions for wildlife and the environment, and it will damage the economy.

    Another example is that the regulations call for the maintaining of two classes of a firearms licence, a possession and acquisition licence and a possession only licence. There are about 1.3 million holders of the possession only licence, and they have already proven that they're competent to own and acquire firearms because they've done so safely for a year. So what possible public purpose is served by maintaining these two classes?

    The transfer fees, licence fees, and registration fees should be eliminated. They adversely affect public cooperation with the firearms control system. These will provide a constitutional challenge based on the Supreme Court of Canada decision. So we're going to run into trouble there.

    Another example is the proposed fee increase for American hunters and sport shooters. It will force more of these tourists to stay home. This is going to kill aboriginal guiding and outfitting jobs and businesses in Canada.

    The system for admitting foreign hunters and sport shooting competitors is also offensive. It's unfair to Canadians. Canadians have to jump through a lot of hoops. Foreigners can come in. They're trusted to a large extent. By just simply paying money, they can bring their firearms in. So the playing field needs to be levelled in some way.

    In conclusion, the proposed regulations don't address many of the recommendations made by the minister's own user group or the Hession report. Before the Auditor General reports that the gun registry has cost $2 billion, I think that we need to review the regulations in this matter.

    I've put this forward, and I think the committee should do its job and take a look at this.

    The Chair: The committee should be aware that we would have to do this between now and Monday.

    Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: As Mr. Breitkreuz mentioned, the Firearms Centre is in fact holding consultations on these regulations. My understanding is that the consultations are continuing through next week and that the officials welcome the committee's input and are more than ready to come this week or next before the committee if it's the committee's wish.

    Given that committee time is pretty much set for this week, perhaps Thursday afternoon of this week would be good. I would certainly be available. I'm sure we could arrange--

    The Chair: The idea is to call Mr. Baker Thursday of this week, is that it?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Baker and the other department.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Well, there are many other witnesses as well, I'm sure.

    The Chair: We probably won't be able to entertain too many before Monday. October 27 is the deadline.

    Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Chairman, this is one of those instances when it would be great to have the capability of having subcommittee mechanisms available. This is more like a briefing session. I do not see the need to bring out the whole 16 or 25 member committee on this, but there are undoubtedly a number of members who have an interest in this, and there may be public interest issues, which we should take up. I would like to suggest something more like a briefing session or subcommittee that could meet once and not get off quickly.

    The Chair: I think that probably, Mr. Lee, on Thursday afternoon the subcommittee would be self-identified.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Consequently, I'm perfectly prepared to ask the clerk to arrange a meeting for Thursday afternoon.

    Ms. Jennings, I'm sure, will be helpful in arranging for the appropriate people.

    Does that dispose of your first motion, Mr. Breitkreuz?

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: So I assume that's approved.

    The Chair: Yes, as I say, if we proceed in that fashion, does that dispose of the motion?

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I'm a little unclear. What is it—a briefing session?

    The Chair: No, we're having a meeting of this committee on Thursday afternoon in response to Mr. Breitkreuz's motion.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Therefore we will need a quorum.

    The Chair: It's a briefing to hear witnesses. We're hearing witnesses. There's no--

    Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, and our quorum for witnesses is...?

    The Chair: Four.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Four. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Plus one opposition, sorry.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: As a result of that, is there a recommendation then made to the committee? Where does that go?

    The Chair: The meeting itself would decide that, but I doubt....

    Mr. Breitkreuz, to be fair, if you don't get a quorum, you're simply going to make an observation or pass along a report to the main committee. That will be after October 27, in any event.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Then what happens to the regulations that maybe aren't what they should be?

    The Chair: They come into effect next Monday.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think there are some serious problems with that whole procedure.

    The Chair: The date has been known for quite some time.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Well, since those have been tabled, I've had it before this committee.

    The Chair: We've been prepared to entertain it, any time.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay, can I go ahead with my second one?

    The Chair: Sure.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It's equally as important. It's before you there. I don't want to hold you up. I'm sure you'll approve this as well.

    The motion before you is printed there, and it states that the committee examine the reasons why the government has refused to implement the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations with respect to the firearms interest police. That's called the FIP database. The Privacy Commissioner made these recommendations public on August 29, 2001. The government is still refusing to implement them, despite the fact that the FIP database contains information that is not authorized by section 5 of the Firearms Act, including information on witnesses and the victims of crime.

    The interim Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Bob Marleau, wrote me on September 3 of this year, 2003, and stated, and I'm quoting here:

I can only hope that the new administrators of the Firearms Program within the Solicitor General's portfolio will take appropriate measures to bring the Program into compliance with the Privacy Act.

    The Privacy Commissioner and the public deserve to know why the government is refusing to act on this. There are four million Canadian citizens in this FIP database that the police maintain. The totally innocent concern me especially. They deserve to know why the police put them in this database in the first place, why they were never told about it, and why they can't correct the false information that the police have entered into that database on them.

    Since the Privacy Commissioner first reported all these problems with the firearms interest police database, the Auditor General has also reported on the problems in this FIP database. The justice minister, the Solicitor General, told Parliament. They accepted all of the Auditor General's recommendations. In April of this year, the Canada Firearms Centre's own evaluation report said “There appear to be several issues that threaten the effectiveness of FIP.”

    So I think it's up to the committee again to hear from the Privacy Commissioner, justice department officials, and the RCMP to find out what the holdup is in regard to this whole issue.

·  (1300)  

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have all the backup reports here, by the way, if anybody really wants the documentation. It's unbelievable.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I think that I need to simply try to clarify what the FIP, firearms interest police, data file is. It is important to note that the information that's contained in it is the person's name, date of birth, and the—

    The Chair: You might want to put that on the record. We didn't get Mr. Lee's comments.

    Mr. Derek Lee: The firearms interest--

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That's right, the firearms interest. Thank you, Mr. Lee. That's the first thing.

    Second, yes, the government and obviously the Canada Firearms Centre are very aware of the recommendations that were contained in the Privacy Commissioner's report. It's important to know that the Canada Firearms Centre FIP project team is continuing to work toward establishing and implementing a common police agency, extracts, standards, and procedures and will be forwarding the information to the Privacy Commissioner. But what's really important is that FIP is part of the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC. That's managed by the RCMP. In fact, it's the chiefs of police across the country who are responsible, as heads of their own individual police services, to ensure that only appropriate entries are made in FIP. These entries would include entries referring to police reports on incidents that are consistent with section 5 of the Firearms Act. Let me give you an example: a police report dealing with a case of domestic violence or threatened violence or other public safety concerns.

    As I said, the FIP entry only includes a person's name, date of birth, a police case number, and a police agency identifier. Each police agency across Canada has received common police agency standards and procedures to use in identifying cases for a FIP entry. The coordinator of CFC, the Canada Firearms Centre, monitors the FIP activity and the inputs by police services to see if there are any variations—increases or decreases—that suggest a review of input practices is required. Where such variations occur, the police agency is contacted and there is a joint review of what's happening—what is being input and how that police agency is handling the data that it is inputting into FIP.

    In addition, the chief firearms officers use FIP to perform licensing application screenings, as Mr. Breitkreuz mentioned, and to provide continuous eligibility reviews when possible public safety concerns arise.

    This information is in fact generic, except for the person's name and birth, and it only permits the persons who are looking at the information to know which agency inputs the information and the police file associated with that information, so that if they need further information, they can then contact the particular police agency. The information itself that is inputted is controlled by the individual police forces.

    The Canada Firearms Centre is very aware of the Privacy Commissioner's concerns. But I'd like to point out that in the executive summary of the Privacy Commissioner's report, the Privacy Commissioner indicated that, on the whole, his review had not found any egregious violations of the Privacy Act. He had concerns about the review and auditing of this information to ensure that it does respect the Privacy Act. The Canada Firearms Centre is putting into place policies and procedures standardized to ensure that each agency that is inputting into FIP is in fact using the same procedures, the same norms, the same standards; and that there is an ongoing audit to ensure that if there are variations, there is a joint review that happens.

    In my view, I don't think that at this time we need, as a committee, to adopt the motion of Mr. Breitkreuz. At this time, we should not support that motion. Perhaps we can revisit it at a later date to determine how the Canada Firearms Centre's implementation has gone.

·  (1305)  

    The Chair: I'd like to proceed by going to Mr. Lee first, if you don't mind, Garry. Then you can close, because we'll have to get to a decision.

    Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Chairman, I think this is actually a fairly important issue. The FIP data is being added to CPIC, which is a database that records matters related to criminal activity. If I'm not mistaken, they may be using it for other things. The issue is as much the management of CPIC as it is of FIP itself. FIP is just a small piece.

    It's quite a legitimate question, especially in light of the fact that the Privacy Commissioner has indicated a concern. It's something I would never want to let go until it was properly concluded as an issue at play. I'm sure Mr. Breitkreuz will consider raising the issue when the committee meets with whoever is attending on the new regulations. There may be elements of the new regulations that pertain to privacy.

    In any event, as much as I want to support the matter in principle, we don't have a window of time yet that's said to be available for this. As one member, I'm certainly ready to work on this issue if time is available to do it. Maybe this coming meeting is a useful opportunity to at least open it with the Firearms Centre and the RCMP.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I appreciate that support. To me, if we approve the motion, then we can find time at some future point. We've been sitting on this for a couple of years already, and I think we need to act on it.

    In all fairness to what Marlene is saying, there are four million people on this FIP database, so even if they put into place some of the things you're saying, it will not address the big problems already involved in this system. These people are being treated as criminals. That's a violation of their privacy rights. Nobody is going back to correct this. Nothing is being done in regard to all this. This is a huge violation of people's....

    You've correctly identified the fact that they have their name, their address, and a few basic statistics there, and there's no indication what crime they have committed. Yet they're treated as criminals, then, because the police contact this base. You'd have to go back, then.

    Some of these were witnesses to a crime. Some of them were good Samaritans. They've been slapped into this system; they don't even know they're there.

    To me this is extremely serious. There is nothing in the new regulations, by the way, that addresses any of it. We could go around the horn here for a long time. Let's just approve this and then look at it as a committee in the near future when we get an opportunity.

·  (1310)  

    The Chair: I'm going to put the question.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: On that note, I will adjourn the meeting. I'll see everybody on Wednesday afternoon, on Bills C-45 and C-46.

    The meeting is adjourned.