JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 23, 2003

1055

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.))

Mr. Tony Cannavino (President, Canadian Professional Police Association)

1100

Mr. David Griffin (Executive Officer, Canadian Professional Police Association)

1105

Mr. Tony Cannavino

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Tamra Thomson (Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association)

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey (Past Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association)

1110

1115

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Cherry Kingsley (Special Advisor, International Centre to Combat Exploitation of Children)

1120

1125

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Steve Sullivan (President, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime)

1130

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

1135

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Cherry Kingsley

1140

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Tony Cannavino

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

1145

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

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. David Griffin

1150

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Cherry Kingsley

1155

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

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

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1200

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. David Griffin

1205

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Vic Toews

1210

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Vic Toews

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Cherry Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

1215

Mr. Steve Sullivan

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Steve Sullivan

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Cherry Kingsley

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. David Griffin

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. David Griffin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

1220

Mr. Tony Cannavino

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Cherry Kingsley

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

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

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Cherry Kingsley

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

1225

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. David Griffin

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. David Griffin

Mr. Vic Toews

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

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

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

1230

Mr. David Griffin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Cherry Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

1235

Ms. Cherry Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Tony Cannavino

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Cherry Kingsley

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. David Griffin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

1240

Ms. Cherry Kingsley

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Tony Cannavino

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

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

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

1250

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Diane Diotte)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 074

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 23, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

À (1055)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)): I will call the meeting to order. We're going to try something novel and actually get started a little early.

We have an outstanding panel. I'm hoping we can use these two hours quite fruitfully.

So unless there is an agreement among the witnesses, I'll call the witnesses in order of appearance on the orders of the day. First we will have the Canadian Professional Police Association, then the Canadian Bar Association, the International Centre to Combat Exploitation of Children, and then the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. I think I see all of the panellists.

May I call upon the Canadian Professional Police Association first, please.

All of you have been here before, so you know what the drill is. I don't have to explain it.

Thank you.

Mr. Tony Cannavino (President, Canadian Professional Police Association): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This morning I am here with our executive officer, Mr. David Griffin.

The Canadian Professional Police Association welcomes the opportunity to appear today before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The CPPA is the national voice for 54,000 police personnel serving across Canada. Through our 225 member associations, CPPA membership includes police personnel serving in police services from Canada's smallest towns and villages as well as those working in our largest municipal cities, provincial police services, and members of the RCMP.

[Translation]

The Canadian Professional Police Association is pleased to have this opportunity to testify today before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are happy to have the opportunity to comment on the provisions set out in Bill C-20.

Children are the most vulnerable group in society and need protection against those who would prey on them. The growth of the Internet has appreciably increased the availability of child pornography. The Canadian Professional Police Association demands a national strategic response by the government to the growing problem of child exploitation through the Internet.

Although Bill C-15 made considerable progress on this question, much work remains to be done. We need a national sex offender registry in order to track all convicted sex offenders who have been released into the community. We also need laws that protect our children from exploitation by older persons and we must use technology to a greater degree to counter criminal acts committed against children.

With regard to a young person's consent to sexual activity, there is currently a certain degree of inconsistency between various Criminal Code provisions respecting the age of consent. For example, the age of consent to sexual relations with older persons is currently lower than the age of consent that applies to juvenile prostitution and child pornography. In a 2001 resolution, the provincial justice ministers urged the federal minister to raise the age at which youths under 18 but over 14 could validly consent to sexual activity with an adult.

Although the Minister of Justice has tried to resolve this problem in Bill C-20, his complex solution causes confusion and is open to interpretation. The federal government must simplify the question, not over-legislate.

The CPPA advocates raising the age at which children can consent to sexual relations with older persons to at least 16. In virtually all the U.S. states, in Great Britain and in Australia, the age of consent is 16 years of age. It is easy to raise the age of consent to 16. If we're reluctant to do so for consensual relations between young people, we can remedy that by providing for an exemption permitting an age difference of two years or less.

As for penalties, we're not surprised to see that, once again, Justice Department officials have avoided taking a serious look at the incommensurable practices of the Canadian judiciary with regard to the imposition of penalties. Although Bill C-20 extends maximum penalties for a number of offences provided for, in actual practice, the courts often impose light sentences, including open custody, for sex offences committed against children. If the Justice Minister seriously intends to fight crimes against children and other vulnerable persons, he must be prepared to attack the systemic bias against minimum penalties.

We gained a modest victory regarding impaired driving laws in Canada through provisions for minimum penalties. Surely sexual exploitation crimes committed against children and other vulnerable persons deserve much harsher measures than those provided for in Bill C-20, don't they?

As for the prohibited activities set out in the proposed section 161, Bill C-20 lengthens the list of offences for which convicted offenders can be prohibited from frequenting certain places, that is to say schools, playgrounds and so on, or from seeking paid or unpaid employment in an environment where they would work with children.

We recommend that this clause be amended to apply to victims up to the age of 18, instead of 14, and to provide for the offence of voyeurism.

In addition, the Crown should be empowered to seek such a prohibition not only at sentencing, but also when a convicted offender is released into the community.

Á (1100)

[English]

Mr. David Griffin (Executive Officer, Canadian Professional Police Association): In response to a 2002 resolution by provincial and territorial justice ministers, Bill C-20 creates a new offence of voyeurism. This provision makes it a crime to secretly observe or record another person who is in circumstances that would give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as sexual activity or nudity. The bill provides an exemption to peace officers who are carrying out activities authorized by a warrant.

Voyeurism is a serious invasion of personal privacy. Modern technology can be exploited for voyeuristic purposes, enabling offenders to secretly record and monitor the activities of others. Many persons who commit voyeuristic crimes graduate to more serious sexual offences. We believe these provisions of Bill C-20 are appropriate and required.

With respect to the definition and defences for child pornography, we are pleased that the Minister of Justice is taking steps to tighten the definitions of child pornography to address recent court challenges, thereby broadening the application of the law and limiting available defences.

Written material will no longer have to advocate or counsel illegal sexual activity to be considered child pornography. The defences of artistic merit or educational or scientific purposes have been eliminated, and acts or material that serve the public good and do not extend beyond what serves the public good will be permitted.

It is difficult to anticipate how the courts will apply the common law principle of public good to child pornography, particularly when the Supreme Court of Canada has already demonstrated a high tolerance for artistic merit in the case of vile and disturbing portrayals of young children. Notwithstanding this uncertainty, we welcome the changes proposed in Bill C-20.

Police officers understand first-hand the trauma and frustration that is experienced by victims and witnesses in relation to our criminal justice system, particularly in the situations involving children as victims and witnesses. We are often left to explain to victims and witnesses why the system has failed to acknowledge their rights in favour of the accused.

Bill C-20 introduces amendments to provide greater protection to victims and witnesses. We would like to see these protections expanded and support the recommendations submitted by the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, requiring judges to consider an application from a victim for the exclusion of the public; allowing judges to have the discretion to use video recordings for victims and witnesses of any age, in any proceedings; adding subsection 486.5(7) to include the views of the victim in the list of items a judge must consider in considering a publication ban.

There should also be amendments to ensure that victims can apply to have the bans lifted and that this process not be onerous, and to amend subsection 486.3(1), which deals with the accused not having the right to cross-examine witnesses under 18 years of age. We submit this should include victims and witnesses with a mental or physical disability.

Á (1105)

Mr. Tony Cannavino: In conclusion, Bill C-20 addresses a number of concerns that have been raised by police organizations with respect to child pornography and child exploitation. However, there are aspects of the bill that require strengthening and there are other items still to be addressed.

The Canadian Professional Police Association is calling for a national strategy, combining additional tools and resources necessary to address child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children to include: (a) amending Bill C-23 to include all convicted offenders, not just future offenders, and to expand the search and descriptor capabilities; (b) creation of a national “cyber-tip” hotline; (c) establishing a national child pornography photo image database and expanding the scope of offences established under the Criminal Code of Canada to enable effective and efficient utilization of forensic DNA analysis.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): We'll go to the Canadian Bar Association for 10 minutes.

Ms. Tamra Thomson (Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association): The Canadian Bar Association is very pleased to accept the invitation of the committee to appear on Bill C-20.

We are a national organization representing over 38,000 jurists across Canada, and the submission you have before you today was prepared by the criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association.

I might add that the criminal justice section counts amongst its members both crown and defence attorneys. So they have brought their varying points of view together into a consensus on their critique of this bill. The Canadian Bar Association objectives include improvement of the law and defence of the rule of law, and it is in this rubric that we have made the comments that I will ask Ms. Perkins-McVey to expand on today.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey (Past Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association): Good morning.

I can say at the outset that in principle the Canadian Bar Association supports the passage of Bill C-20. The amendments before this committee...and the bill before the House, of course, is a very wide-ranging bill and covers many different areas. In principle, we support the preamble and the issues that this bill are meant to protect; however, we do have some serious concerns about some of the specific drafting and provisions that are set out in Bill C-20, and we would not be in a position to support the bill unless some of those changes are made. But at the outset I can say that we can't begin to overemphasize how important we feel it is to protect this most vulnerable group of persons in society, that being our children.

Looking at the bill itself--and I don't intend to go through it on a clause-by-clause basis in this 10 minutes we have--I can indicate that contrary to my friend's submission a moment ago, we don't support the imposition of minimum penalties as it pertains to the offences of sexual interference and some of those other offences that are listed in the bill; however, we do support the fact that there is a change such that sexual interference now becomes a “super-summary” offence and therefore the available penalty is increased from 6 months' to 18 months' imprisonment. We support the change as it allows prosecutors and sentencing judges to have that necessary flexibility and discretion to deal with each case on its own merits.

As pertains to clause 3 of the bill, the amendments to section 153 of the Criminal Code, that is, the exploitive relationship addition, we have concerns. While on the one hand we believe it's warranted to add this fourth category of prohibited sexual relationships, this position of the exploitive relationship we believe is a warranted addition; however, we believe there are some inconsistencies and vagueness that are going to cause difficulties.

The problem is that the definition of “exploitive relationship” is somewhat vague and imprecise and doesn't really address the concerns that were raised by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Audet decision; therefore, you could have an adult who could enter into a relationship who has entered into this forbidden territory of exploitive relationship and may be unaware that they are committing the offence.

The bill does not really address some of the existing concerns that exist in law over the imprecision and the lack of definition for some of these terms, such as “position of trust” and “relationship of dependency”.

Moving on to the criminal voyeurism section of the bill, clause 6 of the bill does create this new offence of criminal voyeurism, and we do support the creation of such an offence. We believe that indeed is warranted. However, in spite of our general support, we do have some serious concerns specifically about one section, and that is subsection 162(7).

We recognize that the sections dealing with whether the act serves the public good and making motives of the accused irrelevant do resemble the current obscenity section, section 163, subsections (4) and (5); however, the obscenity section does not contain a requirement that the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose. Our concern is that if there is a requirement of proof that the surreptitious observation or visual recording is for a sexual purpose, then, arguably, motives must be relevant to a defence, and in that way we believe the bill could be subject to attack if, on the one hand, the “for a sexual purpose” is part of the proof and yet you're taking away the issue and the right of an accused to bring out “issue of motive”.

We're also concerned about the wording of paragraph 162(7)(a), and that has to do with when certain things are questions of law and when certain things are questions of fact.

Á (1110)

Now, for any lawyer it is always difficult to separate those concepts. I suggest that when one reads new proposed paragraph 162(7)(a) it becomes very confusing, and indeed it is almost impossible to easily separate those two concepts.

What effect that new proposed section has is to limit the right of appeal for both the Crown and the defence. In our group both the crown attorneys and the defence lawyers felt there was really nothing to be gained by limiting rights of appeal in this area of the law.

Looking at clause 7 of the bill, and that of course is the child pornography amendment, we appreciate the intent of the amendment and we appreciate that this amendment is made in response to the public outcry over the acquittal of Mr. Sharpe. We are concerned, however, that the amendment as drafted may not achieve the goal.

The issue is one of how the courts are going to interpret for a public good. This is not an easy concept, and it is one that does incorporate the community standard that the court rejected in their interpretation of “artistic merit” in Sharpe, but there's a real issue of whether or not it's indeed going to solve the problem.

Some of our other concerns, similar to those in the voyeurism clause, also apply to the amendment under proposed subsection 163(1) as it pertains to the fact that it has to be for a sexual purpose and yet motive becomes irrelevant. So the same concerns and arguments apply. Our concern regarding the limitation on appeals, as we raised it in the context of the voyeurism clause, also applies as it pertains to the child pornography clause.

In terms of clauses 11 and 12, on the increase of penalties for failing to provide for the necessaries of life and abandonment, we think it's commendable that there's a desire to send a message that this kind of conduct won't be tolerated. However, we see that the symbolic increase in the penalties may not have any significant effect. Usually these cases involve parents who are suffering from poverty, unemployment, alcoholism, or a lack of education, and that kind of increase in penalty is not going to solve the problem, nor is it going to reduce the problem.

When I look at some of the other clauses of the bill as it pertains to exclusion orders, to witness support persons, many of our concerns are that the bill is overly expansive, inasmuch as it pertains to all witnesses rather than just complainants. Our concern is that many portions of this bill may be overly expansive, to the point where it may severely limit the right of an accused to make full answer in defence and they may therefore be subject to further attack and litigation.

Some of the concerns about the right of cross-examination by an accused person are properly raised and are commendable. Of course, it doesn't address some of the other practical questions that arise, such as who's going to pay for the lawyer, how long does the lawyer have to sit in on the case, and will this kind of bifurcated matter curtail the right of a fair trial.

I think I can answer any other questions as they arise.

Á (1115)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

From the International Centre to Combat Exploitation of Children, we have Ms. Kingsley.

Ms. Cherry Kingsley (Special Advisor, International Centre to Combat Exploitation of Children): The centre welcomes the opportunity to present before the justice and human rights committee. I'd like to add that I provide an experiential perspective as well, as somebody who grew up in the sex trade from the age of 14 to 22. I'll try to provide that perspective as well because I think that perspective is often overlooked. As we talk about the issue, rarely do we hear from the young people who have experienced exploitation firsthand.

The first point I want to talk about is the age of consent. I get a little frustrated when I hear consent being discussed in relationship to exploitation because often there is the appearance of consent from young people, particularly those who are involved in prostitution. Consent, from my perspective, is a non-issue, because whether or not there is the appearance of consent from the young person, the culpability should always lie with the adults who choose to exploit, the ones who have the resources, the ones who exchange money, food, or shelter with a young person for sex.

You can hardly say that the young person has made some kind of a career choice. Often what they're negotiating is their survival. So consent, from my perspective, is not an issue. It's a myth, is what I'd like to say. Regardless of the circumstance this child has used, whether it's pornography, trafficking, or prostitution, I think we always have to assume that the culpability lies not only with the adults but also with the surrounding community as well.

There's a perception that the people who profit are stereotypical pimps. As somebody who grew up in the sex trade, I can tell you that the people who profit are the nightclubs, restaurants, taxi companies, hotels, and so on that facilitate and profit from the buying and selling of children in our communities. If we're going to target in law those who would profit or procure, I would hope we would also target the community businesses that continue today to facilitate and profit from the buying and selling of children.

Age of consent is tricky, because when you're talking about creating laws that govern the bodies of young people, what I would hope is that we would understand that exploitation is a complete lack of rights. Instead of trying to further govern the rights and bodies of young people, I would hope we would expand their rights, expand their choices, and expand the opportunities where they have choice. So I would say that the age of consent is not necessarily the issue, but it's the lack of the ability to consent and it's the lack of having things like food and shelter that leads us to being vulnerable and to being exploited just to negotiate our survival. It's not the behaviours of the child that we need to challenge. I would hope we would challenge the behaviours of adults.

In terms of some of the pornography issues, most of the controversy had to do with articles and illustrations or acts of imagination. I would say that any article or illustration that promotes exploitation, violation, and violence against a targeted segment of the population, which in this case is children, should be likened to any other kind of hate literature. I would hope we would deal with it as seriously as we would deal with any kinds of articles or publications that target a segment of the population for violence and exploitation. And it is a hate crime.

The population I represent are people who have grown up exploited. It's frustrating for us to hear a public dialogue where people are sitting there discussing this as legitimate literature and as a benefit to the community. Well, it's not a benefit. It's not a benefit to the young people who are exploited every day.

We feel that the people who would abuse us, the people who would buy and sell us, the people who would traffic us, and the people who would use us in pornography have now been given this stature as legitimate writers or artists. What it does is it targets children and youth for sexual exploitation.

So we're glad to see Bill C-20 deal with it as seriously as possible, but I think enforcement and courts have to take your lead as well.

Á (1120)

As well, the government has to ensure that there is international cooperation on pornography, particularly with the Internet, and that tangible resources are allocated towards international cooperation in investigation and beyond investigation, beyond the identification of perpetrators into arresting them and convicting them. There is this perception that those who use pornography are not as bad as the ones who make it, but if they're using pornography, we have to get to that mental shift to understand that those are real children being abused and that it's not entertainment.

We also have to engage the private sector. We have to hold those accountable who provide these public forums for child pornography. We have to challenge them, and they have to take some kind of responsibility for the forums they have created.

As to protection, punishment, and enforcement, still today we are arresting and targeting children, particularly those in prostitution and pornography. We're still targeting them as criminals, whether we charge them with solicitation or we catch them on breaches or drug offences or loitering or whatever. We're still constantly targeting children and youth engaged in prostitution and those who have been trafficked into our countries as criminals. That we have to challenge. Although Bill C-20 identifies young people as victims of exploitation, the Criminal Code still criminalizes them. If we recognize in Bill C-20 that they're being victimized, then we have to reflect that in the services we provide to them. For too long enforcement and arrest have been used as forms of intervention, and criminalizing young people has been used as a form of shelter, food, detox, and treatment for young people who would in any other circumstance be looked at solely as victims. So in the implementation and in an enforcement strategy we would hope the young people involved in prostitution would get the same kinds of protection as those offered to young people who are exploited in their own homes.

I'm not going to talk for a long time, but I also wanted to push for Canada to ratify the optionalprotocol on the sale of children as a statement to the world of where it stands on an issue like commercial sexual exploitation of children. We've ratified ILO 182, but we've done nothing to implement it. I think ILO 182 would be a good protocol to challenge hotels, restaurants, bars, night clubs, bath houses, massage parlours, escort agencies, and taxi companies to provide environments that are free of exploitation, because currently in the commercial sector, exploitation of children and youth is a multi-billion dollar industry that includes a large portion of society. There's no sex trade in the world that can survive, let alone thrive, unless the community allows it to. Right now it thrives in Canada, with the age of young people involved getting lower and lower. As a government, we have to begin to challenge that.

I'm glad to be sitting here with the police, because enforcement strategies have to include those who facilitate and profit, and we have to stop criminalizing our young people. We have to stop using arrest and detainment of young people as a form of intervention and protection.

Thank you.

Á (1125)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

Mr. Sullivan, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.

Mr. Steve Sullivan (President, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll keep my comments brief, because I think most of the issues the committee will want to ask questions on have been talked about. I've been following the testimony before the committee, and I think the two big areas will be the child pornography issues and the age of consent.

We're among those groups who were concerned with respect to the Sharpe decision, both at the Supreme Court and with respect to the later decision, when he was acquitted of possessing certain material that was, I guess, deemed to have artistic merit. I've read comments from people about whether there is any public good when it comes to possessing child pornography, and I think the real answer is, sometimes there is. I think it's a public good when law enforcement possesses child pornography and they're trying to prosecute, with crown attorneys and lawyers who are defending people. I think there's some public good when Correctional Service of Canada researchers and sex offender treatment professionals have to assess the offenders who come into their institutions; they do so sometimes using images of child pornography. There has to be some kind of defence, but I'm not a lawyer or an expert, so I can't really pronounce whether the public good defence is the right one. I know there are concerns on both sides of the argument. Some say it's opening it up, others say it's restricting it. We certainly hope the courts interpret the public good defence according to the preamble of Bill C-20, but we certainly do have concerns about the courts interpreting the public good defence, given the interpretations we've had so far with regard to child pornography.

We do support the expansion of the written material. As you know, the actual reason Sharpe was acquitted wasn't the artistic merit defence, but it was that it did not advocate or counsel sexual activity with children. The court, I think, referred to the fact that the material was titillating. I have unfortunately seen some images from it, and it really is absolutely disgusting. There is no public good in that kind of material. So I think the expansion of those provisions would have caught the kind of material Sharpe had. I don't accept the arguments made by some that it would capture books like Lolita or other works of fiction. I think the provisions are adequately focused.

The age of consent is, I think, for many a very simple issue, and we've recommended raising the age of consent to 16. I do recognize that the new provisions the government has introduced would provide protection for not only those up to 16, but those up to 18, which I think is a beneficial thing, but the concern, as expressed by others, is over what it really means. It may be an overly complicated provision, and I'm not sure it will really accomplish what the government seeks.

There hasn't been much discussion today at the committee about the protection for witnesses, but we feel those are among the most important provisions in the bill. We submitted our recommendations in a brief this summer, so I won't go into detail. They really focused on bringing some consistency into those protections. Some provisions allow victims to bring applications for those protections, other provisions don't. Victims will be the ones sitting in a courtroom discussing their most private details; they will be the ones facing cross-examination from accused people or their lawyers. We believe they should have a right to bring their concerns to the judge to consider. These aren't blanket provisions such that if they're asked for, they're given. There are matters for judges to consider before granting them, and we feel those are proper to protect an accused's right to a fair trial. Those provisions aren't used all that much now, but I think in particular the protections for people not to be cross-examined by accused are very important.

We saw earlier this year a case on the east coast where a complainant in a sexual assault case had to undergo six hours of cross-examination by the individual, who later got himself a lawyer. We wrote to the government many years ago, and every time we've seen a case like that we have written to the government. I know there was a private member's bill at one point from, I believe, a member of the Bloc to address that issue.

Á (1130)

I do wonder why the provisions for complainants in regard to criminal harassment are singled out, but those for sexual assault, for example, are not. I certainly understand the need to protect witnesses from criminal harassment--those are awful crimes--but for that to be given more protection than a woman, for example, who's alleging that a sexual assault took place doesn't seem to be logical.

With respect to publication bans, there was a recent case from Saskatchewan involving CBC, where the victim in fact wanted to have her identity known. We believe publication bans serve an important purpose, we believe many victims do benefit from them, but other victims choose not to, and we should have a system that gives the flexibility, I think, for victims to make those choices for themselves and empower themselves.

The voyeurism issues I won't go into. We supported the creation of that offence when the government did its consultation, and we're glad to see it in Bill C-20.

I'll end there.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

Mr. Toews, seven minutes.

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

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming here and giving us their perspective. I want to especially thank the police and the child advocacy organizations, which have been in what I consider the forefront of protecting the constitutional rights of children for security of the person. A number of decisions over the last number of years seemed to forget how vulnerable children are in our society, and I want to commend these child advocacy organizations. We've heard many of them in the past and again here today that keep on reminding us about this important failure of our society to deal effectively with the rights of children and the security of the person of children.

It's clear that Parliament needs to send a message to the courts, in its proper role as setting out the laws, embodying what we consider to be important values in this country. Quite frankly, I think we have failed in the last number of years. I'm not so sure Bill C-20 brings us any further. I'm concerned about some of the contradictions.

We see what I consider good things, speaking as a former crown attorney. With the protection of witnesses under the age of 18, we know and police and child advocacy organizations know how vulnerable these witnesses are, how frightened they are when they come to court, and how much time is spent with them reassuring them that justice will be served if they come forward and explain their positions. Yet in so many cases we walk away disappointed because we know, through the failures of the law, through the failures of the system, justice has not been served. So we see now the added protection given here to witnesses.

I fully support the government's initiative in that respect. What I can't understand is the failure of the government and the minister to take very simple steps to clarify the law so there's a clear message to those who would exploit our children that it's not acceptable. They keep on bringing up phrases like “the public good”. We talked about the hate literature context. We don't talk about the public good in the context of brutalizing racial minorities and that, and yet somehow, in the context of child pornography, we're entitled to brutalize children if it's in the public good. The most vulnerable minority in our country is not protected by what should be the most obvious step.

Then we see terms like “exploitive relationships”. A field day for lawyers, that's all it's going to be, rather than taking the direction of other countries that have clearly made the age of sexual consent at least 16. It's a simple thing to do. I note the police association's comments about not criminalizing consensual relationships between young people, and I agree with that, but we've been through this in other countries, we can do it here, and yet our government simply refuses to do it. So in fact, by our law today, sexual consent can be given at age 14, and if the accused thinks the child might be 14, while in fact he or she is only 12, that child is deemed to give consent. We saw a recent case of that in Saskatchewan, where a child 12 years old was brutalized and the individuals in law acquitted. It's disgusting, and yet our government has done nothing. This term “exploitive relationships” is meaningless here, because these were essentially strangers who picked up this young, vulnerable 12-year-old native girl, and she was brutally raped.

I don't know what else to say other than that I'm ashamed of where our legal system is, and I commend the police and the child advocacy groups that have been bringing this matter to our attention continually, even though Parliament doesn't seem to be listening. Can perhaps the police organization or the child advocacy groups explain or try to justify the government's distinction in protecting children in court to age 18, yet where they're most vulnerable, on the street, not giving them real protection until they're 14, sometimes only 12?

Á (1135)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Who wants to respond to that question?

Ms. Cherry Kingsley: It's an emotional issue for a lot of people, particularly for those who are parents and who have children and who don't want their child exploited. The reality is, in terms of how exploitation is defined, whether or not there's shelter, food, money, or something exchanged for sex, consent or not consent isn't the issue. The culpability always rests with the adults.

What I get concerned about is this. If we understand exploitation as an absence of rights or choice for the young person, I'm not interested in promoting the further taking away of a young person's rights or choice over their bodies. Particularly with the potential for the serious criminalization of adolescents in their ordinary, everyday life, I am interested in challenging the behaviour of adults and in challenging the commercial sexual exploitation of children that exists in all of our communities.

It's becoming mainstream. It's visible to us. In every city there are children being bought and sold, whether it's on the Internet, on the street, or in bars, restaurants, hotels, or whatever. I think that's what we have to focus on. We have to challenge the behaviours of adults.

The consent or non-consent of children or the behaviours of children should not be what we discuss. I think we get into tricky territory when we start to try to legislate the behaviours or the bodies of young people. We risk not only further stripping them of rights over their bodies, but we also risk criminalizing a large portion of the adolescent population that is already potentially active or experimental.

What I want is not necessarily to criminalize more young people. I want young people to have rights. I want them to have serious rights and choice over their bodies and not to have to exchange sex in order to have food, in order to have shelter, in order to be protected, in order to have money. I want that to be challenged. I want whole communities, not just individuals, to be culpable, because it has become financially profitable.

Á (1140)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Okay, thank you. We'll have to come back.

Do the police want to respond as well?

[Translation]

Mr. Tony Cannavino: Yes, with your permission.

Ms. Kingsley's comments give us an idea of how our police officers feel when they deal with juvenile prostitution cases. These children are highly vulnerable. Most of us have children, and we know how much they can be influenced when they're 14 years of age. In addition, with the violence common in certain families, many of these young persons find themselves in the street with little in the way of resources, it goes without saying. Our police officers are vulnerable as well. How can they intervene, except by arresting them? Their purpose isn't to give them a criminal record, but to put them somewhere so that they can be protected.

Ms. Kingsley talks about changing adult behaviour, and I think that's the cornerstone of this entire question. When you talk about law, you have to have witnessed court trials to realize how devastating cross-examinations are. It is incredibly difficult simply to prepare minors to undergo hours of cross-examination by a defence counsel. When they are required to testify, they experience a full range of emotions, and then they're completely devastated. This is another important aspect of the question.

I also think it's clear that a society in which adults sexually exploit minors is not the kind of living environment we want to have. I often refer to the term “sex offender”. Don't you think it makes one think of a minor or trivial offence, whereas we're talking about a national register in which we think it fundamentally important to enter not only those who are convicted, but also all those who have previously been convicted?

This fact is all the more important since some offenders currently serving sentences will soon be released. I don't think these people are sex offenders: they're sexual predators. I'm not the one who says so, but it's a recognized fact that these people don't get cured. They have to take drugs for the rest of their lives. If one day they decided not to take them, the predator in them would still be there. It seems to me unthinkable that we should establish a national registry that would not contain the Paul Bernardos, Karla Homolkas and Olsons of this world. We must seriously attack this problem. We're talking about our young people here, about people who are probably among the most vulnerable in our society. It seems to me we have to go beyond mere legal talk and take the necessary measures to protect them.

We're seeking minimum sentences because we can easily anticipate judges' interpretations. Sentences rarely correspond to the offence. We realize over the months and years that sentences are always very minor.

If we really want to deal with the problem, to protect our young people and to prevent these adults from abusing them, we have to get tough and impose minimum sentences that will set examples across Canada. When people understand that they can't get away with a minimum prison term, the message will definitely get through. We have to emphasize the fact that juvenile pornography is unacceptable.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau, you have seven minutes.

[English]

Could I remind members and witnesses it's seven minutes for questions and answers? Thank you.

Á (1145)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't take it for granted that you made that remark because it's now my turn to speak.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming here this morning to present us their point of view. First I'll speak to Mr. Cannavino.

You just referred to a minimum penalty. However, you didn't say how long you think it should be. Can you tell us your view on the subject?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: We're obviously talking about minimum penalties. We didn't elaborate on that; we said that work should still be done. That's part of our presentation. It seems to me that a committee should examine the question, a committee that has resources and that could recommend a minimum penalty for various offences.

A minimum penalty isn't the panacea for all offences. On this part, I agree with the representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, who said that the penalty should nevertheless be adapted to the offence. I would say that there should be a minimum penalty for each offence.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Cannavino, we're working on Bill C-20, and there are some who want it to be passed quite quickly. You're telling us what you would like. Could you think about it together with your committee and send us a letter in a few days?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: I'd have no problem making certain recommendations to you. However, I see a problem in the fact that you want to pass an act so quickly. I'm not opposed to Parliament reacting, to a sound act being introduced and passed. Obviously no one's perfect, and, when more minds are working on it, ways can be found to improve the bill and to remove its Achilles' heel. That's the idea behind our approach.

Mr. Richard Marceau: As to speed of passage, I quite agree with you, and no one around this table will disagree with you. We're working like dogs, given the number of bills being submitted to us.

Mr. Cannavino or Mr. Griffin, I was somewhat surprised by what you say in your brief on child pornography:

Apart from this uncertainty, we welcome the amendments proposed in Bill C-20.

In the previous paragraph, you say that the Supreme Court shows a generous tolerance toward “artistic merit”. So you're saying that the Supreme Court has been too generous with respect to artistic merit and that, in your opinion, it can also be with respect to the public good, but that's not serious.

I'm all the more surprised since, a short time ago, one of your colleagues from the Toronto police department came to see us and told us that it made no sense for an ordinary police officer to have to decide whether the document he has constitutes child pornography and whether or not he should prosecute the case.

How can an ordinary cop, as your colleague calls himself, say whether that serves the public good or not? In his opinion, this doesn't give him enough criteria or information to know whether he should continue. I discussed this with friends and my wife was a Crown counsel until quite recently. They told me that it made no sense. How can a front-line officer say whether this serves the public good? Isn't it too broad?

Mr. David Griffin: Excuse me, but it's easier for me to answer in English.

[English]

We're concerned as to how the court will interpret the concept of public good, but if we look at the types of investigations our members are doing, they don't have the resources to do all the investigations that could be done on the complaints they receive. We don't see this as an issue that is going to surface very often, because the type of material they're seizing is very graphic, very explicit, and we don't see a great deal of concern that this type of material would be classified by anybody other than the people who trade in it as having any public good. If we look at the type of material that was accepted in the Sharpe case, what concerned us was that the current law permitted exemptions for written materials, works of the imagination, where there was deemed to be some artistic merit, albeit very slim, for publications such as Boiled Baby, which depicted in cartoon fashion a child being brutalized, and having sex with a baby. Those types of things were seen to be having some faint artistic merit. From our perspective, if we remove that argument, we can't see anybody finding any public good in that type of situation.

Á (1150)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Once again I'm addressing the police officers. We're also told that, in view of the horrible nature of what can be seized in the way of child pornography, you can go completely crazy looking at the hundreds, even thousands of images of tortured babies that someone may have on his computer. We all know what that is or know roughly. So we're told that it wouldn't be a bad thing to have the opportunity to present a sample of pictures instead of the 200,000 pictures that a guy might have on his computer. Is that something you'd like? Then I'd like to hear the Bar on this question. First, is that legally possible? Would it be better for the police officers? When you seize a tonne of coke, for example, you don't put it all on the desk; you take a few bags, a few samples.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: We do it for one simple reason: a tonne of coke is uniform. Whether you take a gram or 500 pounds, the product is the same. It's different when it comes to photographs. I know it's not easy for our police officers who have to experience this. I had to experience it myself in an investigation, and it really wasn't easy. To evaluate the pictures, you have to present them all. Obviously you go through these files with the Crown counsel, and it's not any more interesting for him, but you mustn't trivialize the extent of the matter.

When you say 200,000, that's a number. When you have piles of pictures in front of you, you begin to realize the scope and seriousness of the situation. This is always done with the agreement of Crown counsel. It's an agreement we have in preparing for trial.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ms. Perkins-McVey.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: The real issue is that each gram of coke looks the same; each picture doesn't. Obviously, when you're looking at a definition of child pornography and whether or not a particular image fits within the section of the code or fits within an exemption, each image has to be looked at separately. To alleviate the problem you've raised, it's discretionary for each crown attorney and each police force to determine the nature and the extent of the charges. If somebody wishes to prosecute somebody for possessing 200 or 200,000 pictures, that's the cost of litigation. Very often crown attorneys do make decisions for pragmatic reasons, choosing, for example, the most horrific of the pictures and using those to frame the particulars of their case. I think that's a discretionary matter, but in a situation such as this, you can't simply say this is a sampling, because each document and each image is going to be slightly different and may cause different considerations to be raised. All of that would have to be disclosed to the defence, if that was part of the parameter of the charge, so that it could be analysed for the purpose of defence.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ms. Kingsley, very briefly.

Ms. Cherry Kingsley: Although it would be disturbing for the police or for the crown or defence, I would still hope the images would be in some way viewed, because each of those images is of real children. If there's any opportunity to identify those children or intervene in some way, protect them, get them treatment or services, for that alone we should, regardless of how traumatic it is, try to view the images and, if possible, identify those children and intervene, maybe not for the purposes of the prosecution, but certainly for the purpose of protecting those children.

Á (1155)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ms. Jennings, seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First I would like to congratulate the Canadian Professional Police Association, which was created this summer. Congratulations to you and to all the Association's members. I have a few very brief questions.

You referred to the registry and Bill C-23, and you recommend that this bill be amended so that not only future offenders, but all offenders convicted of sex offences be concerned. Did you follow the media reports on the last meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers, where there was unanimous agreement that the bill should be amended so that all convicted offenders still serving sentences, either in the penitentiary or in public, be concerned by the bill? Do you think that's a good thing?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: First of all, I'd like to thank you for your congratulations regarding the Association.

Yes, we monitored that matter because we were at the meeting as observers. We also had the opportunity to talk to the various ministers.

Of course the names of persons who are currently serving sentences, and who have thus been convicted, would be entered in the registry. We're pleased about that because that's what was requested.

However, we want things to go further. Some offenders have already served their sentences and are now in the community. We want them to be included as well. One step has already been taken, and we thank the minister for that. Moreover, when I had the opportunity to meet him, I discussed this possibility with him and asked him to include these people. Some people might like to invoke the Charter on this point, but I think that Canadians as a whole would agree and would support the government if it decided to go beyond those currently serving sentences.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: But you know there's no consensus among the ministers about including all offenders convicted of sex offences who have served their sentences at the time the registry enters into effect.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: You're correct. Some provinces don't accept that part.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Do you believe that, with the unanimous consent that exists and the amendments that will be made, this will nevertheless be a quite effective police tool?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: I can tell you that adding offenders who are currently serving sentences to those who will be serving them in the future is already an improvement.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

When you made this recommendation, did you review the other tools provided for in the Criminal Code, such as the provisions on dangerous offenders and long-term offenders, 90 percent of whom have been convicted of sex offences? Did you take that into account when you recommended that the registry include all convicted offenders?

Second, you recommended that the proposed section 161 be amended to provide that the Crown is empowered to seek a prohibition where a convicted offender is to be released into the community rather than at sentencing. That's quite a recommendation. I'd like to understand the reasoning behind that recommendation.

Do I still have time?

Â (1200)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): You still have three and a half minutes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You recommend that a minimum penalty be provided for in Bill C-20. You're pleased that the maximum penalties have been increased, but you recommend that there also be a minimum penalty. One of my colleagues has previously introduced a bill, which I supported, so that penalties would be concurrent in the case of certain offences. However, the judge would have had discretion to deviate from that general rule subject to stating his grounds for doing so. Unfortunately, the bill was defeated in the House. When you refer to a minimum penalty, do you foresee that the judge would have the option of overriding that, subject to the circumstances of the offence? The judges say they need this flexibility to adapt the penalty to the circumstances of the victim and the accused.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: I missed part of your question on people who are convicted.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You recommended amending section 161...

Mr. Tony Cannavino: That's the second question; the first concerned the people...

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Did you foresee applying other tools?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: We addressed the problem as a whole. Many thoughts and comments were expressed by various groups. However, doctors and psychiatrists feel that these people can't be cured. Only medication can prevent them from feeling these impulses. If we think that the measure should apply retroactively to all those who have been convicted, it's precisely because they're incurable. It's that view that particularly drew our attention. The problem of these individuals can be latent for 10, 12, 15 or 16 years because of medication. But the day they think they're cured, they can very well stop taking the drugs. The impulses then come back and we find ourselves with a predator who's attacking a child or an individual.

I'll let my assistant answer your second question. As for penalties, I don't know whether you were referring to concurrent or consecutive sentences.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I made a mistake. I meant consecutive sentences.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: That's what I thought; concurrent sentences do absolutely nothing for us, whereas consecutive sentences would add something.

I imagine that judges might need to exercise their override authority to enjoy the necessary flexibility in exceptional cases. We aren't opposed to that idea, provided that opening doesn't look like a wide-open garage door and no reference can be made to a term or highly philosophical principles that give rise to a host of interpretations.

In short, we think that, in exceptional cases, judges could exercise their override authority, but that the necessary parameters should be established in order for them to do so.

[English]

Mr. David Griffin: As to section 161, our concern is that when the person is sentenced, the judge makes the decision based on the facts at that point in time, but we see situations in our penal system where people are being released into the community and people can see that there should be additional conditions put on them, perhaps based on their conduct while in prison. What we would like to see is that there is an ability to reconsider section 161 at the time of release, not just the time of sentencing.

Â (1205)

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: I think we're starting to lose a bit of focus. We're not talking about all persons who are charged or even convicted of these offences. Not all of them are sexual predators. If you had one of our experts in Ottawa or some other expert from around the country, they would tell you that there are very different classes of offenders and persons who are convicted of these types of offences. There are some persons who may not be curable and who may fall into that worst case category, and that is why we have the dangerous offender legislation. Persons who can be rehabilitated--and the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Johnson just dealt with this issue--may be subject to further restrictions in the community through the long-term offender legislation. Let's not lose sight of the fact that we do have those tools, and there are very rigid requirements for judges to examine, much of which also requires there to be a medical assessment done by a sexual behaviour expert to determine how that is done. It is not done on the basis of a simple sit-down conversation; it is done with many different diagnostic tools that have been well accepted. So some persons are at the high end of the scale and some people are at the lower end of the scale, which is the very reason we can't have minimum sentences.

Furthermore, my friend makes a suggestion that judges can take into account the different circumstances and even if there is a minimum sentence they can go below it under certain circumstances. No, they can't. I'm not saying it wouldn't be subject to a constitutional challenge, and it has been done where something was seen to be not an appropriate type of disposition, but you don't want to have to do that. We appoint judges because we feel they are capable of making the decisions. We have judicial accountability and we have judicial independence. We have to give judges the tools to make the decision so that the worst offenders are given the serious penalties and those who have mitigating circumstances can be given the punishment that fits the crime and the circumstances of the offence. We have to maintain that flexibility.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

Mr. Cadman or Mr. Toews--and I can count on you to be within three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

I certainly want to add my support to the police association's recommendation for some minimum sentences. What we have to remember is that all these individuals have been convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe there is some dispute about certain types of crimes that shouldn't be included. I don't think that simply increasing the maximum has been effective in any way, and anyone on the street will tell you that. If you somehow pretend that the maximum increase is going to result in an increase in sentencing, the statistics are very clear that it will not.

I certainly support the police association's position that one include these individuals, these sexual offenders, on the registry, speaking of Bill C-23. Again, all of them have been convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. There's no question that they're guilty of a crime. There's no constitutional issue. We heard the Solicitor General say there is somehow a constitutional impediment regarding double jeopardy. It was nonsense, and he has now admitted it because the provinces have agreed. Let's move on to that.

Â (1210)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Don't create misinformation.

Mr. Vic Toews: You'll have your time, Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I just did.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Do I have to use this?

Mr. Vic Toews: You certainly should bring the member into line, there's no question about that.

In respect of the issue of taking a portion of the pornographic material, that has been done in cases on an informal basis. When I was prosecuting the Butler case in the Manitoba Court of Appeal, the judges called us together in chambers and said, “These things have a tendency to be repetitive”, as I recall Mr. Justice Phelps' words; “Can you get together, define those that characterize the nature of your allegations, and allow us to review only those?”

I'm going to put it right to the bar association, because I do want to hear from them. Is there some kind of legal mechanism you can see whereby we could reduce the amount of work that needs to be done in these kinds of situations, by some kind of legal application or otherwise?

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: I'm going to address the minimum sentence portion of your comments first. Studies have certainly shown that minimum sentences do not have a deterrent value. We have to look at the purpose of sentencing. I'm not going to go into that to any great extent, but we have to realize that separation of an offender from the community does not necessarily deal with the other aspects that are perhaps more important in this kind of circumstance, which is rehabilitation. If you're looking at a deterrence issue, all of the studies show that minimum sentences do not have the deterrent value we would suggest they do.

On the second point, I think what you're asking is whether there is a way in law that we can better deal with the evidence. Is that your question?

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes, that's correct.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: As I said, in this circumstance, and I think we're looking now at child pornography, it is very difficult. Certainly in your example from the Butler decision, the Court of Appeal is dealing with a legal issue, and I think it's in a different context. If we're talking about the trial level, I think there certainly can be some marshalling of evidence. If you have 15 pictures that are of the same event, you might choose the best one. It's the same as if you were prosecuting a murder case. You don't put every picture before the jury; you choose those that are most representative. It depends how the individual was charged. If you're looking at a broad-based charge that, for example, includes, “did possess pornography in this amount during this timeframe”, obviously, the prosecutor would have the ability to choose the documents they're relying on to prove their case. Not every document is necessarily as relevant as the next. I don't think we need to legislate something like that. I think that's something that's done using common sense at the prosecution level.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ms. Kingsley, briefly.

Ms. Cherry Kingsley: I just want to make a couple of comments.

I'm hoping the emphasis with this piece of legislation won't solely be on the criminalization of the people, though that's certainly important, but also on the protection of the young people. That's what the act is called, an act to protect vulnerable persons from exploitation. With an emphasis solely on enforcement or criminalization, the children and youth who are exploited where there's a commercial element, those who are trafficked, prostituted, or used in pornography, you risk pushing further underground. Because so many of them have no advocate, no personal advocate in their life anyway, which is how they end up in prostitution and pornography or as victims of trafficking, chances are there's no one who's going to step forward to protect them. I'm hoping this act will challenge the people who purchase sex from children and prostitution or in some way are consumers of children who have been trafficked, but also those who are producing the child pornography.

Whether or not some of the materials are repetitive from the perspective of a crown attorney, from my perspective, those images are of real children, and I have to reiterate that it's worth examination if there is the potential for identification of any of those child victims and intervention. We can't just focus on the criminalization. That's important, because you're talking to the bar and you're talking to police, but children who have been exploited deserve equal attention, if not more, towards intervention, some kind of support. When we focus only on criminalization for victims of trafficking and prostitution and those children who have been used for pornography, we have to understand that the chances are that the case will rest almost entirely on their testimony and their experiences. So we have to emphasize supports for those young people, not just on the basis of their cooperation with criminalization. The act has to emphasize protection of children exploited as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

Mr. Macklin, may I hope for a three-minute question and answer?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): You can always hope.

First, I'd just like to get clarification from the witnesses. Was there a conviction, or more than one conviction, of Mr. Sharpe in the Sharpe case? People keep referring to him as not being convicted. Can I get a clarification from any one or more of the witnesses on that?

Â (1215)

Mr. Steve Sullivan: He was convicted of possessing photographs of young boys. He was acquitted on the charges of the material he produced himself.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: So our law did function and get a conviction from him with respect to the possession of pornographic material.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: On photos, yes. If he had not had the photos, though, he would have walked.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: It did sound as if possibly he wasn't convicted, and I just wanted to get the record straight on that.

Second, Ms. Kingsley makes a very impassioned plea before us today that sexual exploitation may be hitting the nail on the head, and she really does emphasize that we need to be looking at those who exploit these individuals. I would like to get a response from those of you who believe that increasing the age of sexual consent will in some way change the attitude of those who would exploit.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Are you directing that to Ms. Kingsley?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I'm putting it to the panel.

Ms. Cherry Kingsley: I think the law covers it. You cannot exploit children under 18 under Bill C-20. I support that aspect of Bill C-20. When we sit here and try to talk about behaviour or consent or the appearance of consent of the young person, again we're asking that the young person appear not to consent or behave in a certain way. I wish we could take consent out of the argument completely, because the law allows for protection of all children under the age of 18 from all forms of exploitation.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I accept that, and I'd just like to hear from those who are advocating that raising the age of consent is the answer to exploitation.

Mr. David Griffin: While I appreciate and agree with the sentiment, unfortunately, the practical consequences are that at present an adult who is in a sexual relationship with somebody who is 20 years younger and happens to be between the ages of 14 and 16 can use that child's consent as their defence, the fact that the child is 14 years old and old enough to consent. Our issue is that a child at that age shouldn't be able to give that consent and that adult shouldn't be able to use the child's consent as a defence.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Isn't that exactly what this act is trying to do, take those between age 14 and 18 and say, if there is an exploitive relationship, that consent is not valid?

Mr. David Griffin: But why doesn't it just say that?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Macklin, for your very precise questioning.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Fortunately we have the Bloc to keep things quiet here.

Mr. Cannavino or Mr. Griffin, do you think it would be appropriate to add a provision to the bill stating that, where a seized computer contains files that even police experts cannot decrypt, and the computer's owner refuses to provide the encryption key so that officers can know what his computer contains, that might be considered an offence?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: To date, thank God, our experts have always managed to get past these passwords. It's not a question we've had to deal with to date in the context of our study of this bill.

Mr. Richard Marceau: All right. It has also been suggested to us that the advertising of child pornography be prohibited. In other words, the act should prohibit not only distribution, but also advertising stating that child pornography can be found at such and such a place. That's not distribution as such, but rather a fairly strong indication of where it can be found. Some say—and perhaps I'm giving you the answer here—that it's already included in the Criminal Code; others say it would be good to add such a provision to the bill.

Â (1220)

Mr. Tony Cannavino: That should be clarified and be more obvious because it seems to me that the promotion of child pornography is already included. I should reread the text, but there are people beside me who would be in a better position to answer that question. It seems to me, from memory, that it's already provided for in the Code.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ms. Kingsley wanted to respond.

Ms. Cherry Kingsley: This is more of a question than a comment. I would hope Bill C-20 would cover that kind of advertising. From my perspective, it still takes on the form of promoting the abuse and sexual exploitation of children if you're advertising. I know what you're talking about, under 17 or however they advertise, but isn't that still considered material that promotes sex with children?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: We'll ask our experts from the Canadian Bar Association.

[English]

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: I'm glad to be known as the legal expert.

I certainly feel that it would be contained within current legislation; it would be seen as clearly part of it. Advertising is promoting, it's distributing. I think it's covered.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: By Bill C-20 or the present Criminal Code?

[English]

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: It's in the Criminal Code already.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: All right. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

Mr. Jobin, you have three minutes.

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): I'd like to come back to the comments made by the Canadian Professional Police Association on the growth of the Internet and the increased availability of child pornography.

I'm the father of five children, including a 27-year-old daughter, a 22-year-old daughter and a 25-year-old son. To protect them from sexual abuse, we had to monitor their reading, the television programs they watched and the friends they saw. Today a father can be sitting in his living room, while his eight-year-old son is being sexually exploited on the Internet.

I'll give you an example of a situation I experienced back home. I received a sexual home page on my site and I had to hire a programmer to remove it. When I asked what link there was with the sites we had visited, we were told there were sub-links on the Internet that could not be controlled. In a country like Canada, how can you simply type the words “baby” and “sex” and find photographs of exploited children? It's available on the Internet, and the companies that host these sites do not inform on them. I respect Bill C-20, but it seems to me it doesn't attack the root of the problem. My eight-year-old son is sexually exploited when he sits in front of the computer. He doesn't ask to see these things and they show up in front of him. It seems to me there's no control over that, and that disturbs me. I feel I have no control over the sexual education of my two children who are still at home and who are 14 and eight years old. It comes from everywhere, everywhere.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Who would like to respond?

Ms. Kingsley.

Ms. Cherry Kingsley: If this parliamentary committee has the opportunity to challenge the private sector and get them here answering some of these questions, that would be good, to compel them, actually, to answer some of these questions. I know the way the Internet is structured, a young person who types in “Walt Disney” or “Pocahontas” or something like that is likely to call up more instances of child pornography or pornography that alludes to children and teenagers than they will anything to do with Walt Disney or Pocahontas. It's hard for us to try to represent the private sector, but they certainly are the ones providing the forums and who have created situations. And they profit, indirectly or directly, from this ongoing forum and dialogue on the issue. I think we need to challenge them.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: This is obviously a very significant issue, but I think there are other pieces of legislation that are going to be dealing with this. What we're talking about is not so much the definition of pornography and how we deal with offenders, but a very technical area that's going to need a lot of other adjustments to be made in the laws in regard to interception and the seizure of materials. I'm sure the police association will be here on that occasion and can address that very technical point in the lawful access legislation.

Â (1225)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you very much.

Our committee is obviously a great deal more difficult than appearing before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: What is the position of the police association regarding the taking of DNA, and what additional offences would you like to see in the Criminal Code under that?

Mr. David Griffin: Very briefly, and basically, our position is that we're underutilizing this technology. The technology exists and can be used for a whole host of other crimes. If you look at Great Britain, with a simple burglary or a simple break and enter, they have the resources and the ability to use DNA to enhance their investigations. Certainly with those areas of sexual crime where DNA is not currently permitted, we believe police officers should have the ability to use this technology to its fullest.

Mr. Vic Toews: Are you saying we should treat the gathering of DNA as we do fingerprinting, so that when someone is charged, we then have the right to collect DNA?

Mr. David Griffin: Precisely.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): That was my question. Thank you, Mr. Toews.

Mr. Lee, for a very precise question.

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

I'd like to go back to an issue that was raised by the Canadian Bar Association and try to get it clarified. It has to do with the mens rea element of the offence. In two areas of this bill it very clearly states that the motives of an accused are irrelevant, and yet in both sections it says there are elements of the offence, the voyeurism or the pornography, done for a sexual purpose. So now I'm confused, and I'm going to ask whoever of our witnesses has experience on the practitioner's side or the prosecution side how we juggle the concept of proving a sexual purpose, while having another subsection that says the motives of an accused are irrelevant. That sounds like a plane that won't fly to me, or a pig that won't oink.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: I think that plane would crash. That is indeed the problem we see. I think what the Department of Justice has done is take a concept that is in the obscenity section, 163, and adopt that wording. But I think it's very important to note that in the obscenity legislation they don't have that additional “for a sexual purpose”. That is the key difference. That is what makes irreconcilable the inability to have motive as part of the case before the court. I think that's the problem with the drafting. They've taken a concept that might be applicable to the obscenity section but is not applicable when you add those additional sections on voyeurism and pornography.

Mr. Derek Lee: As somebody familiar with the field, could you hypothesize here about what the objectives of the department were in drafting this? We around this table didn't draft it, but legal practitioners did.

So would you care to speculate on what the objective was—or just for fun I will use the word “motive”—of the drafters when they inserted the subsection that the motive is irrelevant?

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: Well, my crystal ball is out for repair right now, and I really can't begin to speculate on what was in the minds of the drafters of the legislation. But looking at the legislation, as I see it, it doesn't make sense.

Mr. Derek Lee: Parliament is capable of saying that mens rea doesn't matter in this particular offence. We could say that, though down the road we might have problems with it constitutionally. I think Parliament could try to legislate that, but does this undermine...?

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: I think the question is, can you deal with the wording “for a sexual purpose” without dealing with motive? There may be circumstances when you could slide that in, but I think it would be very difficult to separate that; it has to be part and parcel of that.

It perhaps comes down to what the definition of motive is in law.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): In the event that your crystal ball comes back repaired, maybe we could recall you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Griffin and then Ms. Kingsley.

Â (1230)

Mr. David Griffin: The only thing I would say with respect to voyeurism is that I would agree there seems to be a contradiction in the sexual purpose part, but there are other parts of voyeurism where it doesn't have to be for a sexual purpose, where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy and where a person may be engaging in private activities where I think the motives of the accused should be irrelevant.

If you were to put a video camera in somebody's bedroom or in a changing room, where a person expects privacy, whether or not the accused's motives were for some other reason, I think they should be irrelevant.

So I don't think the solution is to take it out completely, but perhaps to clarify the problem with sexual purpose.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ms. Kingsley.

Ms. Cherry Kingsley: I just wanted to say too that people can argue whatever motive they want. The result, in terms of the child or young person or person being viewed, who would all expect privacy, is one of exploitation and violation. So to me, the person arguing motive or lack of motive is irrelevant when you're looking at the experience of the person who has been violated.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ms. Perkins-McVey.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: If you look at proposed paragraphs 162(a) and (b), there's a sexual connotation to this. That's the very focus of the legislation; you can't separate the two. So looking at proposed paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), I disagree with the comments he makes that you can separate them in this legislation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Monsieur Marceau, trois minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Cannavino, I don't know whether you were here for the last presentation. Radio-Canada wants journalists who investigate on networks, for example, to be protected so that they can't be prosecuted if they possess photographs. Would you be prepared to grant such an exception in order to be sure that journalists cannot be prosecuted when they investigate this?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: We wondered whether charges had previously been laid.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I asked myself the same question.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: It seems to me there have never been charges of that kind. Why? Because there's also the concept of wrongful intent.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I assume one feels that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: I don't get the impression that the purpose of the bill is to conduct a witch hunt. We won't be going back to Salem; that's not our objective. When an individual has pornographic material in his possession, what obviously counts is the intentions of the individual who possesses it. As I told you, it's not my impression that that's previously happened, and I don't foresee the day when a journalist who's preparing a story will be charged with possession of pornographic material. His intentions are not the same as those of someone who's using it for sexual purposes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Ms. Perkins-McVey.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: Once again, I think it comes down to the definition of public good.

I'd be interested to hear the CBC's comments about what the Supreme Court of Canada said in paragraphs 70 to 75, I think, of the Sharpe decision, where the court dealt specifically with its own interpretation of the public good. As I understand it, one of the comments the court made was “a public good defence...protects the possession of materials serving a necessary or advantageous social function.” They went on to list a number of examples.

I would think that investigating a story to expose a child pornography ring or something like that would very neatly fall into some of the examples that Justice McLaughlin gave in the Supreme Court of Canada in paragraph 70, I believe, of the decision—at least in the version of the Sharpe decision I read.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I have just a brief comment, and maybe I can get a response. With respect to the definition of public good, should we consider, as others have suggested to us, including certain listed areas within that definition, not necessarily being inclusive but rather to indicate that those are included?

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: If I were convinced that public good is the answer, I might answer differently. I'm not convinced that public good is the answer. I think when you read the Sharpe decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, they do indicate that they don't feel the use of public good is the answer. They indicate that while it may limit some of the problems with the current definition, which were raised by the government, indeed public good may also be prone to vagueness and difficulties in interpretation. They indicated that it wasn't within the ambit of the Supreme Court of Canada to begin an exhaustive definition of public good.

I also have serious reservations any time we start listing. I think that once again hampers some of the evolution of law and can actually limit and cause more problems than it's worth, in terms of dealing with that matter.

Â (1235)

Ms. Cherry Kingsley: Unless I misunderstood the question, I think public good is an excellent tool for measurement in terms of child pornography and different child pornographic materials, particularly when we include children in our definition of public and particularly when we consider the potential for harm of our children as part of our definition of public. Unless I have misunderstood the question, I think public good is an excellent tool for measuring materials and the potential for harm of our children as part of the public good.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Cannavino.

[Translation]

Mr. Tony Cannavino: I agree with the representatives of the Canadian Bar Association who say that it gets dangerous when it comes to making a list. I don't want to be simplistic, but it seems to me that, when you refer to mens rea, wrongful intent, that sums up the way in which we want to intervene and charge someone.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): I'm sorry, did I miss somebody?

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: I would just like to add that the Canadian Bar Association doesn't feel that the current state of the law should continue to exist. We feel that the Supreme Court of Canada opened the door very wide in not including community standards as part of the consideration. I just want to make it clear that while it's important that the interests of children and the protection of children be incorporated as part of a community standard, our position is really a query as to whether or not public good is the best answer, given some of the comments that have been made by the Supreme Court of Canada already about its concern about the use of that definition.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just briefly to Ms. Kingsley, and maybe some of the others might want to jump in on this, I just wonder, in your opinion, would any form of sexual relationship between a 14-year-old and somebody 20, 30, 40 years their senior be exploitive? The reason I ask that is if we're going to leave it to the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis, that suggests to me that there may be situations where that might be okay.

Ms. Cherry Kingsley: No. Within Bill C-20, because people are forced to examine the nature of the relationship and because it covers any exchange of goods or services or money or whatever, chances are you're not going to find a situation where in a relationship like that, with a 14-year-old and a 40-year-old, there isn't some element of exploitation anyway.

I just want to further comment on the last question that protection of children is in the community interest, is part of the public good--just on the whole pornographic issue, how you measure or whatever.

Children are protected under Bill C-20 regardless of whether we keep the age of consent the same or not, because I can't imagine any relationship between a 14-year-old and a 40-year-old that wouldn't have some kind of exploitive element. What it does is challenge adults to defend their behaviour, and not the child, which I think is how it should be. It challenges the behaviour and the decisions and the influence of adults in whatever relationships they have with children. That's where we need to keep the challenge.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Well, I'll just point out that I think you have a bit more faith in the courts and lawyers than I do on that one.

Mr. Griffin, did you want to comment on that? I noticed you shaking your head.

Mr. David Griffin: That's why we're here. We don't have any faith in the courts or lawyers either.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): That seems to be an entirely inappropriate point at which to end this hearing.

Are there any other questions from either side?

I don't see any indication, so on behalf of the committee....

Ms. Kingsley.

Â (1240)

Ms. Cherry Kingsley: It's not necessarily always the court, the prosecutors, or the lawyers, because what it does allow for are community intervention and police intervention. If you have a law, it doesn't always have to go through the full course of prosecution and conviction. It allows for the community and the police to begin to challenge some of these behaviours.

I think if it's an act to protect children, then emphasis has to be on protection as well as criminalizing those who abuse.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

Mr. Cannavino.

[Translation]

Mr. Tony Cannavino: On an incidental point, I'd like to discuss the comment on lawyers. My daughter is a lawyer and I'm going to come to her defence. This isn't an opinion of the CPPA. I would be inclined to inform the member of what we think about a relationship between a 40-year-old person and a 14-year-old. I think that the best guide in a case like that would have to be the parents of the 14-year-old girl, who would definitely react if their daughter introduced them to her 40-year-old boyfriend. I don't think the parents would be that open-minded.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): This committee is significantly composed of lawyers, and we all have our burdens to bear, Mr. Cannavino.

I want to thank the witness panel. You've lived up to your billing as quite outstanding, and I want, on behalf of the committee, to thank you very much for your information and your sharing.

I will suspend for a moment to re-empanel.

Thank you very much.

Â (1242)

Â (1247)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Order, please.

Colleagues, we have a motion from Mr. Breitkreuz. I'm advised by the clerk that it has been properly received and has been properly distributed. I'll call upon Mr. Breitkreuz to speak to his motion.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for hearing my motion. I'm going to argue for it at this time. I'm sure all fiscally responsible Liberals will support it.

In essence, what I'm asking is that the $10 million that was asked to be transferred from last year's budget to this year's budget for the Canada Firearms Centre be reduced to $1.

My argument is basically this. Last year, they had $78 million. They registered 2.5 million guns with $78 million, and they had $10 million left over. This year in the budget they're asking for $113 million. They have to register only about one million guns. I'm saying the $10 million would be much better spent on a DNA analysis lab and the backlog that has developed there.

I feel as a committee we need to do the responsible thing. They have done away with the RCMP forensics unit in Regina. That's something that needs to be addressed. They need only $5 million, according to RCMP Staff Sergeant Dave Hepworth, to get rid of this backlog. I think the responsible thing would be to do that. That's going to save lives. We as a committee have an obligation to review this matter, so I would like us to approve this motion and go on from there.

I don't know if you have any questions. It's very simple: $78 million last year; $10 million surplus; this year it's $113 million. Why do they need another $10 million? Last year was by far the busiest year because of the deadline at the end of the year. So I think we really should do the responsible thing and reduce the $10 million to $1.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mrs. Jennings.

Â (1250)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I always find it fascinating to hear my colleague Mr. Breitkreuz on the issue of the firearms program. As he clearly stated, it's not new money. This money was approved by Parliament and is within the fiscal framework. It's money that, as he clearly stated, was not spent last year and is being carried over to the 2003-04 budget.

Now, given that it's not new money, given that it was approved in the 2002-03 budget, given that it's within Treasury Board authority, our rules and regulations that moneys that were approved can be transferred over into the next fiscal year, and given that it's within the announced spending targets--and the fact is, the centre is on target, is implementing its action plan, and is meeting its deadline--I would ask my colleagues not to support the motion of Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: You made it clear, and I have no argument with carrying the money forward, but we need to send a message to the House that the money should be spent on real public safety priorities--more and better policing and detective work, that kind of thing.

My argument is let's spend it where it will do the most good to prevent crime, to solve crimes, and to save lives. That's our responsibility as a committee. That's the bottom line. I'd like to see us recommend that this be reduced to $1.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Are there any other interveners?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Can I get a recorded vote here?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Madam Clerk, can I call on you to do a recorded vote, please?

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Diane Diotte): The motion is on supplementary estimates (A) 2003-2004, vote 7a under Solicitor General.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 3)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you. We'll see you at 3:30 p.m.