Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 14 - Evidence - November 2, 2009
OTTAWA, Monday, November 2, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 2:07 p.m. to examine the issue of sexual exploitation of children in Canada, with a particular emphasis on understanding the scope and prevalence of the problem of the sexual exploitation of children across the country and in particularly affected communities; and to monitor the implementation of recommendations contained in the committee's report entitled Children: The Silenced Citizens: Effective Implementation of Canada's International Obligations with Respect to the Rights of Children, tabled in the Senate on April 25, 2007.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights is convened to examine the issue of the sexual exploitation of children in Canada, with a particular emphasis on understanding the scope and prevalence of sexual exploitation of children across the country and in particularly affected communities.
We have for this session, from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Steve Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; and Joanne Taché, Director. Mr. Sullivan will be making the opening remarks.
As you know, we are studying the sexual exploitation of children in Canada and attempting to find the scope and prevalence. We have had witnesses talk to us about those who have been charged and may have come before the courts, but we also know that is a small percentage. We are trying to get at the issue of sexual exploitation in the communities to see whether there is anything we can add to the debate, but also to some solutions, both at the federal and the provincial level. We are looking to your wisdom today to give us a little insight on the issues, and then we will go to questions.
Steve Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime: Thank you. Hopefully our wisdom, as you put it, will assist the committee in its work.
[Translation]
We are so pleased to be here today. Child abuse has been a priority for me and our office since it was created in 2007.
I am encouraged and delighted that the committee has chosen to also make our children a priority and I congratulate you on undertaking this important work.
Given our time constraints today, I will be focusing my remarks on one aspect of child exploitation in Canada that my office has explored extensively: Internet-facilitated child sexual exploitation. Or "online child pornography" as it is most commonly called.
If it pleases the committee, I would like to start by giving you an overview of the scope of the problem and then, rather than speaking in generalities, get into the real details with you about where we need to make positive change and our recommendations for how to make that change happen.
I do not think it will be news to any of you that the problem of online child sexual abuse images and videos is growing. It is increasing both in terms of the volume of what is available, and the number of people who are searching for, and accessing, this material.
[English]
According to the United Nations in a recent report, there are at any one time over 700,000 predators online looking for images of children. The volume of serious child abuse material has quadrupled since 2003. At the same time, law enforcement reports that the trends are that the images are getting more violent and the children are getting younger.
The vast majority of children in these images are now younger than 12 years old. Many of them are under 5, and about 20 per cent are under 3. Over 80 per cent of the images include penetration. Furthermore, the United Nations Children's Fund estimates there are more than 4 million websites featuring victims who are young minors, including children under the age of 2.
It is for these reasons and more that my office began exploring the issue in more detail. After discussions with service providers, police officers, Crown attorneys and others, it was clear there were significant problems. More importantly, it became clear there were feasible, achievable solutions to some of the problems they were encountering.
I chose to bring forward those solutions in the form of recommendations to the ministers of justice and public safety. The result was our report, Every Image, Every Child, which was issued in June. It makes a total of nine recommendations to the ministers.
Our recommendations were developed and shared with a number of important stakeholders, such as non-government offices, Crown attorneys and police officers. We have been fortunate to have a tremendous amount of support from these groups for the recommendations and the report itself.
The issues and, consequently, the recommendations are multi-pronged and must take into consideration a number of aspects that drove our involvement in this issue. The first is to catch the offenders. When I say that, I want to emphasize it is not just about catching the bad guys, because many of these bad guys who are "just looking at pictures" are also abusing children.
Identifying and rescuing the children was our driving force, along with helping the children heal, which is a very difficult issue, and ensuring their privacy is protected. As we discuss the Internet, privacy is always a big issue, but often the overlooked aspect — the interests of children — is not considered. Trying to stem the flow of the material, if possible, is also important.
I will not have time today to go into great detail about each of the recommendations, but you have a copy of the report, and I am happy to answer questions on any of those. I do want to expand on a couple as we go through them. If you have questions, I will try to answer them and will, if necessary, provide clarification to you in the future.
With respect to finding the offender, it is essential that authorities have the tools necessary to remove any obstacles in their path to identifying offenders. As I mentioned, the research shows that many of those involved in just looking at pictures are also involved in sexually abusing children.
You will not be surprised to learn that most of the individuals involved in posting images on the Internet and involved in the sexual abuse of children are known to the children — members of their families, step-parents, boyfriends, people close to the family, et cetera. Often finding the offender means finding a child.
In the age of the Internet, technology can make its easier for offenders to share this material, and they do share it. It can also give law enforcement the opportunity to track and to catch these offenders. As we talk about the images, which are horrific and awful, and the impact on children of having these images put on the Internet, which is even more horrific, it is important to recognize that when offenders take pictures and put them on the Internet — not all offenders do that — they give law enforcement a window into abuse happening that police would never have known about otherwise.
The Internet did not invent sexual abuse. People have been abusing children as long as we can go back. Now some are putting the pictures on the Internet. Sometimes that gives law enforcement the clues they need to find these children. Otherwise, we would never know the abuse is happening. Most kids will never tell anyone.
One technique used to catch offenders is to identify the Internet Protocol or IP address linked to a computer with known child abuse material. The address is a series of numbers and letters that does not give law enforcement any information. Like the license plate of a car, an IP address does not necessarily identify the driver; it identifies the car and the address it is registered to, which helps police begin their investigation.
Once they have an IP address, law enforcement can approach the service provider and ask for the customer name and address associated with that IP address, and then they can begin the investigation. Simply knowing which computer has material does not tell you who was sitting in front of the computer at the time the material was accessed.
Currently, in Canada, ISPs are allowed, but not obligated, to provide a customer name and address without a warrant. ISPs can and do refuse to cooperate with law enforcement. The good news is that the majority of ISPs, particularly the larger ISPs, will cooperate with law enforcement, but not all do. According to the RCMP, 30 per cent to 40 per cent of their requests were still being denied.
We recommended to government that ISPs be required to provide customer name and address information to law enforcement. I want to stress that the Supreme Court of Canada has commented in different environments that a person's name and address is not considered private information. It is not the biographical core information of a person. It is only tombstone data. There is no expectation of privacy in one's name and address.
The good news is that since we issued our report, the government has proposed new legislation that will compel ISPs to produce, upon request, customer name and address information for IP addresses that have been sending and receiving known child pornography images. I want to stress that this is only the name and address. This does not give law enforcement warrantless access to your emails, websites you have been visiting or traffic on the Internet. It is only your name and address so they can begin an investigation.
We are encouraged the government has taken this step, but there are still more obstacles to overcome. Once law enforcement is given permission to investigate personal property, they must be able to access the files that could be used as evidence. Two common obstacles get in the way of this: the inability to review the contents of a suspect's computer because it is password-protected or encrypted; and the ability to retrieve and review a suspect's Internet surfing history.
On password protection or encryption, we recommended to the government that it should be a criminal offence to deny law enforcement your password or encryption code after a warrant has been obtained from a judicial authority. I was at a conference over the weekend where a speaker talked about how in the next five to ten years this will be a real problem for law enforcement as encryption tools become more common. I do not pretend to be a computer wizard. I understand the new Windows 7 has encryption equipment built in. This is comparable to the provisions regarding refusal to give a breathalyser sample where you can be charged with a criminal offence. These provisions are after the warrant has been obtained to look into the person's computer.
Regarding surfing history, it is important to understand that Canada's ISPs are not required to keep customer Internet surfing records for any period of time. Often, law enforcement will go to ISPs with warrants to get the information and it has already been purged from the system. Those records take up much room on servers, and ISPs purge them regularly. We have recommended that the government introduce legislation to require ISPs to retain customer name, address, traffic and content data for two to five years.
[Translation]
I would like to move on now to identifying and rescuing children. Identifying and rescuing the children in this material is a crucial part of this process that is often overlooked in the discussion. We can forget that each image or video is a crime scene, and that the children in these images are victims who need our help.
In Canada, we can take pride that we have some of the world's best image analysts. Because we know that most children will not disclose sexual abuse, these images present a unique opportunity to law enforcement to help a child. Thousands of children worldwide have been rescued through image analysis. In Canada, police officers have found 80 children. Analyzing these images for clues and investigating the whereabouts of these children requires major resources, both in time and manpower. We need more of this great work and so have recommended that the government develop a national strategy to identify victims found in child sexual abuse images, which includes an expansion of the RCMP's National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre's National Victim Identification Unit.
[English]
The conference I attended on the weekend had a speaker from the national centre who said their image database is now up and running. They are also working with Interpol to expand the international database, which has led to the identification of children around the world.
The committee is focusing on the scope of the problem. That is an important issue, but I would not want the committee to lose sight of what we do with these children when we find out about the abuse. Most of these children will never tell anyone, but when they take that leap of faith in us, it is our responsibility to care for them. One officer who has been part of rescuing children through the Internet said finding children is the easy part. The hard part is what to do when we find them. We may feel wonderful when we rescue a child from an abusive parent, but it is still their dad — I will use "dad" because most often the abusers are fathers or males — we are taking away in handcuffs. It may make us feel good because the abuse has stopped, but these children grew up in a home where that was normal. Dad may have done things at night that they did not like, but he is also the guy who takes them to the baseball game, buys them presents and all those other things that dads are supposed to do.
It is important that we not simply feel good about arresting the bad guys but that we take care of these children when we find out about the abuse. When we are lucky enough to find and rescue a child, we must provide the proper supports so healing can begin.
Victims of Internet-facilitated child sexual abuse suffer a unique horror on top of the sexual abuse. In our report, we have a quote from one young woman who said the distribution of the images of her abuse was worse than the sexual abuse itself. The sexual abuse stopped, but the images never will. The evidence of their abuse is shared over and over. It goes around the world literally in minutes. The images can never be totally erased. Victims must live knowing these images are still being used by collectors and can surface at any time. One young person in the report is quoted saying that she walks down the street wondering if that guy saw her pictures.
Thus far, we have little research on the impact of Internet-facilitated child sexual abuse. We know the impacts of sexual abuse. The committee has discussed these with other witnesses. We do not know much about what the Internet does. For example, we do not know how to help children live with the fact that their images will be out there forever and will be used by collectors to facilitate the abuse of other children. We do not have enough victims yet to research that issue. We recommend the government do more research in this area.
Another aspect of our report focuses on the need to ensure that services exist to help these children. Child advocacy centres, CACs, follow a model developed in the United States that makes children their priority. Other witnesses have talked about CACs, particularly the Zebra Child Protection Centre. These centres bring together in one location a variety of professionals, such as police officers, counsellors, psychologists and other resources. This is of significant benefit for children who in some communities can visit up to 10 different people to tell their story and get the services they deserve and need. In addition, they make life easier on the child and are more cost-effective. Research in the U.S. shows that investigations in a jurisdiction with a CAC are up to 45 per cent cheaper.
There is also research from Edmonton's Zebra Centre, which is the longest running centre in Canada, showing an increase in charges laid. Judges feel there is better-quality evidence resulting in more guilty pleas and higher conviction rates with more appropriate sentences. It is also important that families are more willing to access the services if they are on site.
Only a handful of such centres exist across Canada, although there are more than 900 in the United States. Ms. Taché and I had the pleasure last week of visiting the Centre d'expertise Marie-Vincent in Montreal, which is a child advocacy centre that has the unique aspect of doing a lot of research. Both the Zebra Child Protection Centre in Edmonton and the Child Advocacy Centre Niagara in the Niagara Region provide state-of-the-art services. They are all a little different. Victoria, Toronto and Winnipeg are trying to set up centres as well. I would recommend that the committee invite representatives from these centres to appear.
We recommend that the government develop a national strategy to expand the network of CACs in communities across the country. Every child who takes that leap of faith and tells someone should have a CAC to go to. We asked the Minister of Finance to dedicate funds in the last budget to jurisdictions trying to get a centre up and running but having financial issues. Unfortunately, that fund was not included in the budget, but we continue to push for such funding. I have spoken to the Minister of Justice a number of times, and I understand that the Prime Minister recently met with people from the Montreal centre to discuss the work they do.
[Translation]
I would have many more things to tell you, but since our time is limited and you have other witnesses, I will stop here.
Thank you for examining the issue. I will be happy to answer the questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: I understand that Ms. Taché is here to assist with any specific questions in her area. I will begin with a couple of clarifications.
Mr. Sullivan, you said the majority of abusers are known to the child, yet you talked about the Internet and media images. Do you have any information or specific data to show that when the abuse involves a family member, the abuser is utilizing the Internet for the purposes of dissemination? How do we get at that issue? We have been told frequently that those who come before the courts constitute a small portion, because a child will not come forward easily in that environment. We are trying to get at those who do not come forward through the courts. You said the images are being utilized by those same family members that we have been discussing.
Mr. Sullivan: The people who commit the abuse, take photos and put them on the Internet are members of the family or someone close to the victim. We have the statistics in our report, and I will find the specific reference for the committee. The greatest distribution of these images is not commercial and is between individuals, although there is a large commercial aspect to this. Some estimates put the figure at more than $1 billion. This is more a case of a family member abusing his child, taking photos and, through the links provided on the Internet, trading the images with other people. As well, there are collectors who, although they might not be abusing a child, collect these images. With the aid of new technology, law enforcement officers are finding collections of more than a million images. The one who abuses a child is most likely known to the child and is often a family member.
The Chair: The sexual exploitation by passing on the images is not only commercial.
Mr. Sullivan: No. Most of the images in that Internet traffic have been produced in the home or wherever the abuser has access to the child. It is homegrown.
The Chair: The statistics are all shocking because they involve children, but in particular you said that 20 per cent of children who are abused sexually are under the age of 3 years. Or did I misunderstand you?
Mr. Sullivan: Nineteen per cent of the images that are found involve children under the age of 3 years.
The Chair: I find that unbelievable. I was in a family court situation and found that I could count the individual cases because they were so rare. Yet, today, you said that it sits at 19 per cent.
Mr. Sullivan: Yes. Law enforcement is telling us that the images are becoming more violent and the children are getting younger. I believe this is a trend internationally. As is often the case with something new, the demand drives what is available. Perhaps it is easier to find pictures of older kids, so demand is driving the age down. I know that in 2005 a member of the Ontario Provincial Police testified on finding images of babies, which was unusual then. Although it is not common to see that today, they are seeing more and more images of very young children.
The Chair: For those unfamiliar with the acronym, ISP stands for Internet service provider.
Mr. Sullivan: Yes.
The Chair: You have been focused on Canadian ISPs. To what extent is Internet-facilitated abuse an international problem?
Mr. Sullivan: Certainly, it varies. Canada is very fortunate in that our legislation on child pornography is highly effective within the definition of "child pornography." The United States takes it further, while some countries do not even have a definition of "child pornography." The United States, Britain and Australia have passed legislation that creates expectations on their Internet service providers as far as retaining data and committing to a level of cooperation. Canada is fortunate in that most of our big ISPs cooperate, but they all have to cooperate. We have been told by law enforcement that if they do not get the information, it is not always possible to get a warrant, because they have only a series of numbers. Therefore, investigations can sometimes be dropped. The big ISPs cooperate, but unless they all do, we have a big problem. Other countries have moved a little more quickly than we have in that area.
Senator Munson: It is almost difficult to say thank you for your remarks, given how disturbing the information is. You talked about the statistics and your research. You said that Internet-facilitated child abuse is increasing rapidly — that it has grown more than 800 per cent between 1998 and 2003. Do you have more recent statistics?
Mr. Sullivan: That statistic is on charges laid, which is not surprising given that the Internet in the courts is a relatively new phenomenon. I can check to see whether there are more recent statistics.
Senator Munson: In the conversation you alluded to the fact that these statistics did not decrease between 2003 and 2009. Do you have enough resources to do your job?
Mr. Sullivan: We are still a relatively new office, just going into our third year. We have been fairly busy responding to calls. As mentioned earlier, we deal with victims of abuse from across the country, not only child victims. There is always more we would like to do, but we have been highly effective in responding to calls from Canadians who have been victims of crime.
Senator Munson: Do you have an advertising campaign? Do people know how to contact you? Are people paying attention to the campaign?
Joanne Taché, Director, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime: We are working on this, and we have done some outreach. We are a very small office, and it is difficult to reach the clients. There are many victim services out there, so it can be confusing when we give the victim information. We are an office of last resort for victims of crime, and a victim might receive the information right after the crime occurs when he or she might be in a traumatized state. The papers given to them are often just put aside.
Mr. Sullivan: Our counterpart is the Correctional Investigator of Canada, who is the ombudsman for federal inmates. No pun intended, but his clients are a captive audience. He knows where they are, so he can simply send a brochure on their services to them. Our clients are across the country, and there is no one group of them. We are a federal office, so we help victims with federal issues. If they have issues with the Toronto police, for example, or if the Crown did not lay charges, those are local issues.
We recognize that we have a lot of work to do to ensure that Canadians are aware we exist.
Senator Munson: Besides the awareness, you mentioned taking care of the child. You talked about the idea that a dad could be the guy who takes his son to a hockey game, yet, at the same time — at night — something horrible happens. How do you take care of that child? What is the process in the ombudsman's office for taking care of that child?
Mr. Sullivan: We would not provide direct services to that child, unless, for example, the offender was sentenced to a federal correctional facility and the family wanted to follow that offender's progress. We certainly would not be involved in providing direct services. That would be done at the local level, through the police, the child welfare agency in that jurisdiction and the Crown.
With this report, we are trying to raise awareness. The legislative recommendations are obvious, but the child advocacy centres are not a federal jurisdiction but a local issue. We want the federal government to recognize it has a role to play in facilitating the creation of these centres. As the U.S. has seen, they are the best we can offer these kids. We hear a lot about jurisdictions and government limitations, and there is legitimate discussion about that. However, when it comes to these children, we need to put those aside and see how we work together. I think the federal government has a role in helping those kids, and that is what the report is intended to state.
Senator Munson: In Recommendation 6, you talk about expanding the network of child advocacy centres. There are centres in place now. How would they connect? I agree with you on a national strategy for this. It is the only way this will work. How do we make those centres connect with the data that you would have and data that other organizations would have?
Mr. Sullivan: There are a small number, and some of them may not meet the technical definition of "advocacy centre" in the U.S. in terms of different services. When we did our report, we did not know about the Centre d'expertise Marie-Vincent in Montreal. None of the other centres in Canada knew about them, either. There is work to be done there. We have been able to facilitate some growth there. There are only three or four centres right now in the country.
Senator Munson: Where are they?
Mr. Sullivan: They are in Edmonton, Regina — the Regina Children's Justice Centre — Montreal, and the Niagara Region. The Niagara Region spent 10 years as a community getting this. They have no government funding. There are other communities, such as Victoria, in British Columbia. Toronto has been working for a long time. Winnipeg is working to get these centres.
A number of communities are on their way. Funding is a big issue, as you can imagine. In this current environment, it is an even bigger issue. That is the role the federal government can play to help facilitate this.
Senator Munson: I have just one other question. What can you tell us about the children who are being abused as part of child pornography or being lured over the Internet? I am talking about demographics here. We assume sometimes there is a certain demographic, but is there a cross-section, or does it cross everybody?
Mr. Sullivan: I think it crosses every boundary, every race and every economic status. I was at a conference last week, in Niagara Falls, with the centre there. People asked how to spot an offender. What do they look like? A retired police officer said, "It could be the guy next door who is a lawyer. It could be a police officer, a teacher or the garbage man."
I do not think there is any one particular look. When children come forward, and those people are respected members of the community, it makes it harder for us, as members of the community, to believe. It would be easy if they all looked like dirty old men hiding in the park. That would make it easier on us. However, they cross every boundary that exists, and there is no one demographic. Certainly, there are communities at more risk in Canada. We know that, but it touches every community.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you for coming.
You have inferred that the abusers are male and that the victims are usually female. Can you give us a statistical breakdown? Of those charged, for what percentage is that true?
Mr. Sullivan: I will look through our reports. In this area, over 90 per cent of those charged would be male. That is not to say that females cannot be involved or have not been involved or arrested, but it is overwhelmingly a male crime.
In terms of the statistics regarding the gender of the victim, at younger ages, you would be looking at females. I will check the report. I do not know the details offhand. If I cannot find it in the report, we will send it along to the committee.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That would be great.
Can you tell me why you used gender-neutral language in your report? What is its purpose?
Mr. Sullivan: To be honest, I do not know there was a conscious decision about that, other than as a style of writing. There is so much we do not know yet about the Internet, and we talk about the statistics. There is a largely unseen area of the Internet we do not know much about. With victims, and this is a personal note, whether it is half girls or one third boys, I tend to prefer using the non-gendered term. For offenders, I do not have an answer as to why we use a gender-neutral term. It is clearly a male-dominated area of abuse.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Your recommendations around the Criminal Code are often around the child section of it. I do not know anything about the Criminal Code. However, my assumption is that Canada does have policies and laws that protect all those who are harmed by pornography. Please correct me if I am wrong. Is that not the case, or is it just children?
Mr. Sullivan: Adult pornography is legal. If two consenting adults take pictures of themselves, that is legal. There is nothing illegal about that. Where the child is under the age of 18, it becomes child pornography.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If it is snuff pornography?
Mr. Sullivan: There are the obscenity provisions of the code. I believe the Butler case talked about that issue. If there is extreme violence in the pornography, there can be limitations on it. However, for the most part, there is nothing illegal with what we would consider to be acceptable or traditional pornography.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Have these sections of the Criminal Code been built particularly to protect this segment of Canadian society only?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That is interesting.
Mr. Sullivan: It is largely because children cannot consent to sexual activity.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Up to what age?
Mr. Sullivan: It is 16, except for certain sections. For example, for people involved in the sex trade, I believe it is 18. There are different categories, but in general, it is 16.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Are there other groups who work with victims of crime that you work with or share information with, or are you by yourself?
Mr. Sullivan: We work with federal departments that work with victims of crime. We also have a lot of partners in the NGO world: service providers; the CACs I mentioned; other centres that work with kids; Boost in Toronto, which provides services to kids who went through the courts. We try to partner with as many as we can.
Senator Brazeau: Good afternoon to both of you. It is a pleasure to have you here this afternoon.
To build on Senator Nancy Ruth's question regarding the agencies you work with, do you have a working relationship with any Aboriginal agencies across the country?
Mr. Sullivan: We have worked considerably with the Native Women's Association of Canada, specifically with their Sisters in Spirit campaign, but also on broader issues. We have also built bridges in the territories. The Department of Justice put on a conference to look at victim services in those territories, which, as you know, are largely Aboriginal communities. They were examining the challenges.
Returning to Senator Munson's question, we had not had very many calls from the territories for services. It would be fewer than five. It was important for us to build bridges with those victim services providing communities. I think we have. Our calls are up, anyway.
Certainly we have tried to build relationships with the various organizations. I do not want to pretend we have done that with all of them. Our major partner in that area would be the Native Women's Association.
Senator Brazeau: Some previous Aboriginal representatives who are front-line workers in this field have said there is an overrepresentation of Aboriginal children who fall victim to sexual exploitation. At the same time they also said there is an under-representation of people coming forward with their stories. How do you reconcile those types of statements? Does that mean cases with Aboriginal children would skyrocket?
Mr. Sullivan: I do not base this on research at all but on my own experience. As hard as it is for a child in downtown Ottawa, for example, who is abused and comes forward, it can be harder in remote and Aboriginal communities. At the conference we attended a couple of weeks ago, Judge Morin, who does circuit court in Northern Saskatchewan, told us a story about a young Aboriginal girl who was before him for sentencing. She was there originally for second-degree murder. It was pleaded down to manslaughter and then to infanticide. She had given birth to her baby on an isolated dirt road and left her baby to die. In court for her sentencing, she was there all by herself except for her victim support worker. She had been abused by an adult member of her family, an uncle or a cousin who lived in the same home with them. A couple of months later, he was there for sentencing. She would never have told anyone had she not given birth to this child. The court was full with the elders of the community and with the community itself, the family, everyone. They were there to support him and were asking the judge not to send him to prison. The judge talked about seeing that more than once in remote communities; that is, the victim having no support to report. When they do report, there is pressure often to let it go and not report to the authorities.
That occurs across all communities, but it might explain why there are fewer Aboriginal children coming forward. We know that the rates of abuse are higher. You know as well as I do that the abuses in some communities are very high. In Nunavut, I think the rates of sexual assault are eight times higher than in the rest of Canada. We know those numbers, yet few kids come forward. I do not think that is the full answer, but it might help explain some of it.
Senator Brazeau: With respect to individuals and in particular children coming out with their stories and reporting their own individual circumstances and issues, that is obviously a personal choice with all victims. I would like to hear from you about how we can create the conditions for individuals to feel an increased level of comfort — more than they might feel today — so that they can come out and so that, at the end of the day, they feel that justice is served and their abusers are put away or something will be done about it.
Mr. Sullivan: I do not want to sidestep your question, because I think it is excellent. The truth is that I do not know. I have worked in the victim movement for over 15 years. We hoped that we would get victims' rights and do impact statements and protections when they are testifying in court and that then we would see more victims come forward and report. That has not happened. The levels of reporting are as low now as they were 10, 15 or 20 years ago. I wonder sometimes if we have failed. We have a lot more work to do.
One challenge is that even though we have changed many laws — and there are protections for kids who want to testify in court, such screens and closed-circuit television, and we have more supports now in the court process — it is still an ugly place for a child to report, to go into a courtroom, a room full of strangers, and tell what dad or Uncle Bill did. Until we can make it a friendlier place — while still respecting the accused's right to a fair trial, of course — I do not know that we will see those numbers change. I am always cautious about over-promising. I do not want to promise a bunch of kids that it will be better if they go to the court process now, because it might not be. It is still not a nice place.
I do not have an answer to that. If the committee has that wisdom, I would be more than happy to look at that after. It is a very difficult question.
Senator Demers: Even before I became senator in August, this is something that has meant a lot to me. I have met with different people regarding this situation. One thing they have reported strongly is a lack of money. You need 50 people to do a job, but there are only 10 to do it. Somewhere, somehow, there will be a shortfall. That is the biggest frustration I have heard. Children are sent back home to the same situation that they were in previously. There is no protection for them. There is no money and no support for these people who fight for the rights of kids. We will be here 10 years from now talking about the same thing.
I respect what you are trying to do. I am not questioning you and the government in this case, but we will be back here in 10 years. We keep saying that we will do something, but the problem is getting bigger. We have made tremendous strides, but, meanwhile, kids are suffering and going right back to their stepfathers and fathers. It is frustrating to see that we talk about it, but how much is really being done?
I went to a school at Christmas. There were 77 kids there. I was told, "You cannot take a picture on the TV camera with 11 of those kids." I asked why and was told the Christmas holidays were coming they were sending those kids back. We are putting these kids back in the same environment.
You talked about money. You talked about the $5 million you requested. You will not go anywhere with that. That is like a drop in the bucket. I am certainly not an expert like you, and trust me, I am not trying to be. I respect what you are trying to do. I bet you get frustrated.
Centre d'expertise Marie-Vincent approached me to do some work for them. They are frustrated, for example, at what happens when someone is charged and then gets out of jail. The person is told that he cannot be 500 metres from the park or half a mile from the school, but then he goes somewhere else. You do not have enough people, and kids are suffering tremendously.
Senator Munson brought up some great points, as did Senator Nancy Ruth and Senator Brazeau. We cannot keep talking about it. We have to do something about it.
Mr. Sullivan: I agree. Regarding the $5 million, I am under no illusions about where the money will go. We hoped, given the speed with which that money came forward and given the economic times, that we could help some communities start a centre. I do not know the answer to the senator's question about how to get more kids to come forward. A lot more work needs to be done. For those kids who do come forward, or for someone who comes forward on their behalf, or for those whose images we find, we need to do much better for them. We know what happens when we do not: the rates of young people who are sexually abused, those involved in the sex trade, the levels of teenage pregnancy, sexual promiscuity, alcohol abuse and runaways. We know the costs of that in Canada are in the billions of dollars.
We believe the CACs can provide a huge benefit for kids who come forward and can save their lives in some ways, by changing their path. The traditional process is not victim-friendly. We have wonderful people working in the system — wonderful police officers, Crowns and judges — but it is still not a victim-friendly process. We need to provide supports around that. The CACs in Edmonton, for example, have a series of volunteers who work with the parents. If mom is taking their child home, his dad's been arrested and she is feeling stressed and has no one to talk to, volunteers at the centre will support her. We know that if we send the child home with a mother who is stressed out, it will not help the child. We need to do more for the entire family. Senators play a role in that.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in both before and after the court case. Others also talked about that. Much of our debate about crime now is about being soft on crime or hard on crime, which completely and utterly distracts us from solving crime to the extent it can be solved. If we want to get tough on crime, we should get tough on poverty and on child sexual abuse. Many of those victims who do not become survivors end up becoming criminals, as you have suggested. We could probably have a huge impact, quite apart from having an obligation to help those children and young people.
The government has cut the National Crime Prevention Centre from about $60 million to $19 million; it has cut it by two thirds. That is crime prevention. Are you aware of that program and other programs that have been cut?
Mr. Sullivan: I am certainly aware of the program. I was not aware that it had been cut.
Senator Mitchell: That is crime prevention. That is really disconcerting. I want to emphasize that.
Have you got specific crime prevention programs that in a perfect world, if you were prime minister, you would implement tomorrow?
Mr. Sullivan: I would not want to pass us off as crime prevention experts. I am certainly familiar with the work of the National Crime Prevention Centre. I know Dr. Irvin Waller, whom you may know from this community, who has done a lot of work on what works internationally, a number of programs, but I would not want to pretend I have any special knowledge. Unfortunately, most of my work has come at the back end of the system. In this area, Cybertip.ca, run through the Canadian Center for Child Protection in Manitoba, has a wealth of information available on its website for families and parents on how to protect and how to talk to your kids about these things. Much good work is being done.
The RCMP has a section that tries to engage youth in some of these discussions. A lot of good work is being done, but I would not want to pretend to be an expert on it.
Senator Mitchell: On the other side, which is what happens to a child after they have been abused or exploited, I just met with Glori Meldrum from Little Warriors, quite a remarkable person who has developed a remarkable program, privately and without a great deal of help. She makes the point that it is almost impossible to find real programs, once a court case is over. We have been talking around that. You have been mentioning these community groups, CACs. Are there any other programs that you would implement if you were prime minister?
Mr. Sullivan: There are some individual programs — for example, the Boost centre in Toronto. You will forgive me; I do not remember the acronym. I can certainly provide that to you. The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto has SCAN, the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Program, which has done good work. In a different aspect of child exploitation, you might have heard from the witnesses about the Little Sisters program in Winnipeg that runs a shelter for young Aboriginal women involved in the sex trade.
A number of great programs are being run across the country. There is no network of them. There is not much dialogue between them. For example, in the victim services world, one of the biggest challenges is making sure victims know what services exist when they need them. That is about our office, about police-based victim services and certainly about child abuse. If you make it hard for people to access services, they will give up. That is why these CACs can work with the children. I learned about Little Warriors through the Zebra Centre in Edmonton. They know of each other and have created a network so that there is a seamless delivery of services. Certainly, it is a big challenge to find services for any victim after a court process.
The Chair: I have one follow-up question. Your evidence goes to the known victim going through a process and getting services there. Have you given any thought or do you have any statistics on what I call front-end loading, finding the victims at an earlier point by using schools, health services, hospitals, family associations or whatever, or are your services basically at the point of public awareness by virtue of a charge?
Mr. Sullivan: For the services we offer to victims, any victim at any stage of the process can come. Sometimes victims are looking for information or a service in their community. For example, for most of the victim compensation programs, there does not have to be a conviction. We can help victims at any stage find those services.
When I was in Niagara, we had an event for the local CAC there. From the college, the dental hygienists class had come because they had just heard from a forensic dental expert who is teaching them to identify signs of abuse in children, which is something I had never really thought of.
A young lady came to us who had been sexually abused by a neighbour when she was younger. The only reason she came forward was that the next day they had a talk about it in their health sex education class to the effect that if you are a victim you should do this. There are many opportunities for the schools and the medical profession to help identify these kids much sooner.
Our system is not very victim-friendly, but if there are opportunities to prevent the abuse at a much sooner point, these are excellent initiatives to follow.
The Chair: Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Taché, thank you for coming and providing us with this information. You said there were some other things you wanted to review. Please forward those to the clerk.
As these proceedings are likely to be televised, I trust this occasion will give the Canadian public some opportunity to know about the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and provide a forum for you to let your services be known more broadly across Canada.
Senators, our next witnesses are Professor Benjamin Perrin, who comes to us from British Columbia by video conference and who is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of British Columbia; and, with us in the room, Michael Maidment, Area Director, Public Relations and Development, Federal Government Liaison Officer, Salvation Army.
Benjamin Perrin, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, as an individual: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to join you via video conference. Given the short notice to attend, this is the best way to make it happen. I appreciate your indulgence.
My primary point of discussion today will relate to a particular form of child sexual exploitation, now known as human trafficking or trafficking of persons. This is my primary area of research. I am currently completing a national study on Canada's involvement in human trafficking that includes both adult and child victims. Today I will be focusing on some of my serious concerns as a result of completing this research study.
The study will be released in October 2010 as a book entitled Journey of Injustice: Canada's Underground World of Human Trafficking. The study is based on over 60 interviews with individuals in eight cities across Canada. These include police officers on the front lines, social service workers and others who have direct first-hand knowledge of cases of human trafficking in Canada. Many of the witnesses that you have called are people with whom I have met personally. I have visited their safe houses, shelters and police stations in order to come to a better knowledge of this problem. Additionally, Access to Information requests form a key part of the study.
I will start by referring the committee to the August 2008 report of Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, CISC, entitled Organized Crime and Domestic Trafficking in Persons in Canada. The findings in the document are overwhelmingly supported by our research study and paint a very bleak and alarming picture. The study released by CISC is, in my view, equivalent to a 911 call to law enforcement agencies across the country.
Among other things, this very alarming strategic intelligence brief states that girls as young as 12 are being actively recruited and subjected to sexual exploitation. Human trafficking in the federal policy world has been understood to largely affect foreign nationals. This 2008 report by CISC is one of the first national recognitions of domestic sex trafficking, that is, with Canadian victims. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women of the House of Commons also identified this as a concern in its 2007 report, Turning Outrage into Action to Address Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation in Canada. While some steps have been taken to prevent the problem of child sex trafficking in Canada, unfortunately much more is needed. You heard from Steve Sullivan a moment ago, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. I am very supportive of the recommendations in his important report.
Before turning the floor over to the other speaker and questions, I will focus on the three Ps, which is the traditional framework under international law under which we consider the problem of sex trafficking.
First, with respect to the prosecution of traffickers, based on our findings, which we frequently update with law enforcement across the country, there have been five convictions for the offence of human trafficking under the Criminal Code; that offence came into force in November of 2005. Two notable cases that involved child trafficking are that of Imani Nakpangi, the first convicted human trafficker in Canada, and Michael Lennox Mark from the Montreal area.
I understand that Bill C-268 is not part of the committee's study, but I will briefly mention it. It has been approved by the House of Commons and will provide for mandatory minimum sentences for child trafficking. This bill is desperately needed to ensure traffickers of children are held accountable in Canada.
In the most egregious example I can provide you to demonstrate the need, Michael Lennox Marc was convicted in Montreal on a guilty plea for sex trafficking and forced prostitution of a 17-year-old Canadian girl. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment. Because of two-for-one credit for pretrial custody, his sentence disappeared and he was released from detention within one week of being convicted. It does not surprise me at all to hear that his 17-year-old victim was uninterested in giving a victim impact statement in court after such an egregious sentence was handed down.
The need for children to be protected from those who would prey upon them is by far our most important and pressing need. If traffickers are not convicted, they are at liberty to continue preying on vulnerable children.
Another issue related to the prosecution of traffickers deals with the prosecution of what are often referred to as johns or purchasers of commercial sex acts. While the Criminal Code establishes mandatory minimum sentences for men, primarily, who would pay to sexually exploit underage girls, our experience is that there are insufficient resources to do this, and there are a very low number of convictions of men who are paying to abuse children who are exploited in the sex trade, be they victims of human trafficking or sexually exploited youths who are providing sex acts for food, shelter, clothing, drugs or other purposes.
The second major area I want to focus on is the protection of victims of child sex trafficking. There is no comprehensive network in Canada today to assist victims in child sex trafficking. The examples are few and far between of good and effective programs that are available and operating today to assist the victims of child sex trafficking.
You have been referred to the Little Sisters safe house in Winnipeg. I had the chance to visit the safe house and meet some of the young girls getting help there. It is a wonderful example of a community responding to this need, but it is also an example of a good idea not being enough. This shelter has only six beds. It is the only Aboriginal-operated First Nations shelter for sexually exploited First Nations youth in the province of Manitoba, and it has six beds. They have had to turn away over 100 children who wanted help, who wanted to be off the streets.
This summer, on the day that I arrived to participate in the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs conference on preventing child sexual exploitation, the funeral for Cherisse Houle was held. Cherisse is a young Aboriginal girl who was found face down in a ditch at a construction site. She is only one of the many murdered and missing Aboriginal women and youth who are falling prey to predators who are exploiting them, be they under the control of traffickers or not.
I want to emphasize that it is not only First Nations youth about whom we should be concerned. We have tracked cases of human trafficking that involve other vulnerable communities and groups. Particularly of concern are children, youth and women who are in the child protection system or, as they grow out of that system, in women's shelters and drop-in centres. Traffickers prey on these shelters. They know where they are, and in several cases they have literally circled the block waiting for girls and women to come out in order to recruit them into further exploitation, often using narcotics or force. In other instances, they use manipulation, portraying themselves to these people who have had no home as a boyfriend who would provide them with a new future.
The last area I will mention before concluding my remarks is prevention. The stories to be told across Canada are isolated examples of effective prevention programs that are by no means systematic. An excellent example that the committee is no doubt aware of is the program run out of Quebec referred to as "Cinderella's Silence." This program launched in 2002 is targeted at youth in the province between the ages of 12 and 18. Again, the ages here should surprise and shock us, but absolutely there is need for prevention at that age.
In the province of British Columbia, where I currently reside, the RCMP has had to send out public warnings to parents about child sexual exploitation. This is a quote from the North Vancouver RCMP that was released June 16, 2009. As schools were concluding for the summer, the RCMP put out this warning to parents:
Many of these at risk youths have been recruited by a North Vancouver ring of pimps and drug traffickers. These girls are being exploited through the use of Craigslist to advertise their sexual services that are then arranged for hotels. The pimps are using violence or the threat of violence to control the girls.
This is one example where raising awareness and education for parents and youth is necessary. The simple reason for this is that pimps and traffickers know no vulnerability that they are unwilling to exploit. We have seen girls from middle-class families who have simply run away from home or who have had problems with their parents who have been targeted by human traffickers and sold for sex on craigslist, in some cases while still living at home with their families; in other cases they have been encouraged to run away and have been subjected to ongoing sexual exploitation.
The national study we are completing raises an absolute litany of concerns. I am very encouraged to see the committee devoting efforts to this topic. It is absolutely critical.
The final point is a word of caution. The predators who prey on children know no geographical borders. Those who prey on child victims of child sexual exploitation in Canada all too frequently travel abroad. Studies done in the United States of convicted child sex tourists, or travelling sex offenders, have found that they do not leave those crimes at the border but abuse children when they return home.
I encourage the committee to consider that challenge as well. I have a lot more to add on that point if there is interest by the committee. Those are the opening comments I wanted to make to get things started off.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now go to Mr. Maidment.
Michael Maidment, Area Director, Public Relations and Development, Federal Government Liaison Officer, Salvation Army: I would first like to thank you this afternoon for the opportunity to present to you in this way on the issue of sexual exploitation of youth across Canada.
I feel strongly about making a declaration before I start. I used to be a Montreal Canadiens fan when I was a kid and I no longer am. Sitting so close to you, sir, I feel I should declare that. I live in Ottawa.
Senator Demers: Thank goodness you are not a Maple Leafs fan.
Mr. Maidment: I would not go that far.
On a serious topic, I begin by saying that the Salvation Army is committed to being part of the solution in the prevention of sexual exploitation of children in Canada. As the largest non-governmental direct social service provider in Canada, we serve vulnerable and marginalized people in 400 communities across the country. I believe The Salvation Army not only has the capacity and ability to contribute to the prevention of the sexual exploitation of children, we are uniquely positioned to do so.
One thing The Salvation Army is not is a think tank. I do not appear before you this afternoon with research or data on the issue of sexual exploitation. I am certain you have all the necessary academic studies and research data that exhibit both the depth and the complexities related to this issue. I am here this afternoon to talk to you about the solution.
Last week, I attended a meeting of the Committee against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth chaired by Senator Dallaire. I was struck by a comment that former Senator Pearson made. She said, "It is time for implementation, implementation, implementation." That comment stuck with me through the weekend as I prepared my remarks for this morning. While the research data is essential in understanding the root causes of sexual exploitation, I believe Canada needs to shift focus from understanding the issue to the implementation and prevention phase.
The Salvation Army has seen first-hand the complexities surrounding the sexual exploitation of children. In many cases, there are underlying causes that create an opportunity for sexual exploitation to occur. Poverty, homelessness and alcohol and drug abuse are common factors in motivating sexual exploitation. Sex is regularly traded for basic needs such as shelter, food and transportation.
Two years ago in the province of Manitoba, Salvation Army staff discovered a nine-year-old girl who was being sold for sex by her mother to fund her mother's alcohol and drug habit. While this is certainly an extremely shocking case of sexual exploitation, there are many other examples of sex being traded for a meal or for a place to sleep. The Salvation Army believes that appropriately addressing the issues of poverty and homelessness would have a profound impact on the prevention of sexual exploitation of children in Canada. A national poverty-reduction strategy would not only help millions of Canadians who live in poverty, it would have a direct impact on the reduction of the sexual exploitation of children.
Education is also at the root of exploitation in several different ways. First, we have seen many cases of sexual exploitation where the children involved perceive that the trading of sex for shelter, food, clothing or other commodities is an acceptable means of obtaining the items they require. Most Canadians would assume that children and youth explicitly understand that trading sex is wrong; however, this assumption is incorrect.
The education of children, parents and guardians living in marginalized and vulnerable populations is needed. While The Salvation Army has been focused on educating marginalized children and youth we assist in our programs across Canada on the issue of sexual exploitation, we can reach only a portion of the children affected.
Education initiatives such as adding the issue of sexual exploitation to school curricula may be an effective means to reach as many Canadian children as possible.
Second, on the topic of education, many children and youth choose the path of sexual exploitation because they feel they have no other choice. A 2008 study published by the University of British Columbia School of Nursing indicated that the majority of sexually exploited youth said their communities needed more education, job training and work experience programs. Education is also an integral part of reducing poverty. A national poverty-reduction strategy would most certainly contain education initiatives that could also be part of the sexual exploitation solution.
Last, legislation could also be an effective tool to combat the sexual exploitation of children and youth across Canada. Through our work in the justice and corrections systems, The Salvation Army often sees the victims of sexual exploitation criminalized through the justice system. Criminalizing the purchase of sex would place significant focus on those who sexually exploit children and youth.
Conversely, the decriminalization of the sale of sex would prevent the further victimization of children and youth who have been sexually exploited. The average age of entry into prostitution in Canada is 14 years of age. Shifting focus under Canadian law to those who exploit children and youth through the purchase of sex appears to be a prudent direction to take in the fight to end the sexual exploitation of children.
In closing, I would briefly like to reiterate the following points: It is critical that we immediately implement a strategy to prevent the sexual exploitation of children in Canada. Eliminating poverty from our communities across Canada will have a profound impact on this issue and will reduce the sexual exploitation of children.
Education on the issue of sexual exploitation is needed for all Canadians, especially for marginalized and vulnerable children and youth, and that education needs to be embedded in children's curricula. A legislative shift is needed in Canada. Criminalizing the purchase of sex rather than the selling of sex will prevent further victimization of children and youth who have been sexually exploited.
As an organization that stands with vulnerable and marginalized people in 188 countries around the world and 400 communities across Canada, The Salvation Army is already working towards the prevention of the sexual exploitation of youth, and we are not alone. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other groups working towards the same goal. What we need, however, is the cohesiveness of a national strategy that provides the resources needed to combat the sexual exploitation of children.
Referring back to that meeting last week of the Committee against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth, Senator Dallaire said implementation is the gauge of political will. That is a very wise statement. On behalf of that nine-year-old Manitoba girl I mentioned earlier who was sold by her mother for money to purchase drugs, I sincerely hope that Canadians can find the political will to prevent the destruction of our children's lives through sexual exploitation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maidment. I will now go to questions from senators.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Mr. Maidment, just to clarify, a legislative shift is needed in Canada, criminalizing the purchase of sex versus the selling of sex. I have it. Never mind. Go on.
The Chair: Do you not want an expansion of that?
Senator Nancy Ruth: No; I missed one word.
Senator Mitchell: I was not intending to pursue this, actually, but I do have a question that has been stimulated. I am not a lawyer. I am sure there will be some legal issue before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms since this occurred before the Charter came into effect. However, to follow up on what Senator Nancy Ruth said, why has the purchase of sex not simply been criminalized? What is the hang-up there, or is it not criminal to actually do it? It is criminal to solicit, is it not?
Mr. Perrin: The current laws related to the purchase and sale of sex are different depending on whether an adult or a child is involved. If the person is under the age of 18, the Criminal Code punishes any attempt to pay for sex with that person regardless of where the act takes place. With respect to prostituted persons over the age of 18, it is only in public places generally, and that is what the solicitation laws refer to. I will not get into the broader question about the decriminalization or legalization of the sex trade. That is another can of worms.
I do want to pick up on the concern raised that oftentimes the victims themselves, the children who are being sexually exploited, are subject to the criminal justice system. They are either charged with soliciting if they are on the street, for example, or with other related criminal offences. We really need to be attuned to the fact that these victims are often viewed under the criminal law as perpetrators and in some cases have faced detention or criminal prosecution.
Laura Emerson is a convicted trafficker from the Ottawa-Gatineau area. When she was in detention, according to media reports, she actually bumped into one of her victims who was in detention for an unrelated charge. We have to remember that those who are victims of sexual exploitation can interface with the criminal justice system in a couple of different ways.
The Chair: Mr. Maidment, do you want to add to that?
Mr. Maidment: Sure. I am not a lawyer either, and I wanted to make it clear that we are really a direct service provider. However, we constantly see through the media that, in the example of prostitution, sweeps are done. I live in the city of Ottawa, and when it is reported that a sweep happens, often a number of women are arrested. That happens more often than not. I know that is very anecdotal, but often after a weekend sweep we read a report that one john and seven women were arrested.
We offer programs throughout the country that deal with sex trade workers helping them to choose another profession, and they are often victimized. If there is a shift and they are not further victimized, they can be better assisted.
Senator Mitchell: I have another question, this one more specifically for Mr. Perrin. You mentioned the justice system and the difficulties with prosecution. I am from Alberta. This is anecdotal: I have spoken to too many prosecutors who are absolutely overwhelmed by the pressures of their job. They have 15 minutes to prepare for cases. I think it is true and it is widespread. That starts to explain why plea bargains are done, because then they can get a quick conviction and get this thing over with. That is not acceptable and does not provide the kind of punishment warranted by the crime. Is that widespread beyond Alberta? What does a federal government with the responsibility for justice do to get the provincial governments, which are responsible for delivering it, to fulfill their obligations?
Mr. Perrin: There is under-resourcing, not just among Crown prosecutors in these cases but also among the police forces that are required for the cases to come forward in the first instance. I start by dealing with that issue primarily.
To provide an example, the Peel Regional Police, which deals with the area outside of Toronto, including Brampton, Mississauga and Streetsville, also has responsibility for the Pearson International Airport in Toronto. The total population, including the air travel they are responsible for policing, is approximately 2.1 million individuals.
Their vice unit, which deals with the issues of child sexual exploitation and human trafficking, also deals with street-level prostitution, alcohol violations, gambling violations and other vices. They have just four front-line officers to deal with all of that. Therefore it is remarkable that even with that level of low resources they have led the country in bringing forward these cases.
Internationally, we see a practice emerging to ensure there are dedicated Crown prosecutors. All Crown prosecutors require additional training, but because these cases are particularly complex, where there are victims who are very susceptible to coercion and manipulation to recant their statements and so on, they need a dedicated Crown who is able to shepherd these victims through the criminal justice process.
With respect to the prosecution of victims when they are caught up in other Criminal Code offences, more generalized Crown prosecutor training is needed. The federal government has responsibility for enacting code offences, but the ability to train prosecutors really requires more support. The RCMP has started providing some training to Crown prosecutors as part of their human trafficking awareness training activities across the country. That is very slow to proceed, but the gap that exists for Crown prosecutors to get training on these new offences as well as the complex victim psychology and the victim needs is pressing.
Next week we are having the first teleconference discussion with Crown prosecutors in B.C. on this, and later this week in Ottawa I will be helping with the National Judicial Institute's training in a half-day workshop for women judges on human trafficking issues.
It is very early days, and I think more effective training and resources to implement these laws against child sexual exploitation are needed. There are concerns in some cases with the definition of the crimes, but the existing offences we have do provide us with enough to at least begin to do much more than we are currently doing.
Senator Mitchell: That raises another very important issue. Mr. Maidment alluded to this in particular, and that is that we are focused in the debate in Parliament in Canada now so much on sentencing. Yes, there are some improvements, judging by what you are saying, that are probably required, absolutely, but it distracts us from the real problem. That is just sentencing. If we do not have enough police to find them and charge them and then build the cases, and we do not have enough prosecutors adequately trained to pursue the traces, and we ultimately consider that penalties do not actually act much as a deterrent, and we do not have support for people who are victims, and we do not have support for children who are likely to become victims of this and be part of it, then we will not accomplish anything. Also, we have a government that promised 2,500 new policemen and has not delivered.
I am leading a question, which is to say it is true that we need more services as well as to address sentencing, and we need more support for prosecutors and police. It is not enough to look at it in isolation because it is good politics.
Mr. Maidment: Leading or not, that is a very true statement. It certainly is an issue. If we focus just on the sentencing, we really do nothing to prevent those children who may be affected today or tomorrow, or a month or a year from now. The victims are obviously very important. I just caught the last part of Mr. Sullivan's statement. That of course is very important. I have a close friend who worked with victims here in the city. I was great friends with his son and his daughter. I am very aware of that. However, at the same time, we need to prevent children from becoming victims. Without those resources being put into this and without the political will, we may never get to the end.
Mr. Perrin: I reject the idea that it is an either-or. From where I sit, having spoken with police and victims' groups, victims are unwilling to come forward and press charges against those who exploit them if they are not convinced those people will face jail time and will be separated from them.
The impetus for something like Bill C-268, which is a private member's bill, came from interviews that I had with law enforcement officers in the Peel Region who were seeing these ridiculously low sentences and saying that their hands were tied. If the courts will not hold traffickers of children liable with some significant imprisonment time — not more than simply time served, which is a what a lot of these cases were working out to — they will have a problem with the identification of victims and building an informant network, which they have had some success in doing, and having other victims come forward. If the victims are seeing traffickers come out a week after a conviction, they do not believe the justice system will provide them with the protection they need. They are related topics.
There is also an issue here of the chicken and the egg. I often think about this. What is the next step that is needed? The answer is all of them. We do not need to have an either-or scenario. The federal government with responsibility for the criminal law needs to do everything it can to ensure that Criminal Code offences fit the forms of exploitation that we see and have proportionate sentences. The Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography requires that penalties for child sexual exploitation be proportionate to their gravity. Unfortunately, Canada's current laws related to human trafficking do not reflect that. There is no increased gravity recognized when the victim is a child. That is what Bill C-268 will do.
Responsibility here rests with provincial governments. Just this week the Toronto Sun is continuing a series written by Tamara Cherry, calling the Government of Ontario to account for having no system in place to assist victims of human trafficking. It is a serious criticism.
Similarly, with respect to policing resources, unless we are talking about the RCMP, for most municipal police forces, the chiefs of police make the decisions about where resources are allocated. I can say with some confidence that the major cities of Canada have over the last decade largely gutted their units that would typically have dealt with this issue and are not focusing primarily on the issues that we have all been talking about.
Canada has contributed to the world in a wonderful way by cracking down on Internet child sex abuse imagery, but one of the unfortunate downsides of that otherwise positive step is that it has taken many officers off the exploitation happening in motel rooms, homes, and private residences and as advertised on craigslist. As I mentioned, we are not seeing resources put there.
I would call for a comprehensive strategy that includes stiffer penalties for traffickers and purchasers of sex acts but also does more to promote cooperation with the provinces in protecting victims of sexual exploitation and in prevention, which is, of course, always our number one goal.
Senator Mitchell: I agree, absolutely.
Senator Demers: Professor, you are very well organized and you spoke well, as did Michael Maidment. I am impressed, but I am upset, and I will tell you why. You are talking about someone who lived some of those experiences. We talk, and it seems nothing ever happens. I do not want anyone to take this personally. As we talk right now, some things are happening to kids. We know that at eleven o'clock at night something will happen, and tomorrow. We keep talking and asking and nothing happens. While some things have been done, in my opinion it is not enough. Kids are being exploited. The witnesses have done a wonderful job. We sat here with witnesses a week or so ago. I just do not like what is going on.
Kids right now are crying for help, and we are not doing enough. I do not want to hear that we do not have any money or people. We have a right to protect our kids, and we are not doing it well enough right now. We are just not doing enough.
I am talking from experience. Someone who has never been in jail who says "I know how it is in jail" should not talk. I am not saying I have been, but someone who has come out of jail is in a position to talk about what it is like in jail. We are doing a lot of talking, but little action. I am not saying that there is no action, just very little. Kids are crying for help right now.
That was more of a statement than a question.
The Chair: Perhaps there will be reaction to it by the professor or Mr. Maidment.
Senator Demers: I did not mean to be aggressive. I have lived some of that experience.
Mr. Perrin: I completely share your frustration. It is the reason I am focused on this particular problem. I started working on this issue 10 years ago, and it has never been able to leave me, particularly when it affects children. The moral outrage I hear in your comments is something I feel strongly as well.
One of the problems is that these are children. They are vulnerable. They are targeted because they are children. They will not be able to stand up and speak for themselves. How we currently allocate things like policing resources is largely based on public complaint. If all of us living in our nice neighbourhoods see some vandalism in the back alley while we are out walking our dogs at night, and five of us call in, a patrol car will come down, the officers will take a report, and it will go into a file somewhere.
No one is calling right now to reach out to assist those children. I would respond to your point by saying we absolutely need to do more. Simply passing a law is not enough. That is why the policies around this need to be put in place.
I would recommend that the committee look to what other countries have been doing that has worked. The focus should be on proactively seeking out victims of sexual exploitation and assisting them.
In an example from the United States, the Dallas police have a group of officers who decided to proactively meet with everyone who had been a runaway either three or more times — chronic runaways. The officers took them out for coffee and said that they were not investigating a crime but simply were there to get to know where the runaways were at. The trust built into that allowed the officers to identify multiple individuals as human traffickers involved in exploiting youth in that city. The benefit of that program has been seen in Manitoba, where the provincial government has announced it will have a couple of social workers who will do something similar, proactively reach out and assist these children. It is a start, but not enough.
This is not high enough on the national agenda. People in Canada do not believe this is happening to the extent that it is. The possibility of dismissing individual cases as anomalies is a serious risk. It is why I have decided to publish my research for the book for the public and not as another academic study. That book will be launched next year with a national campaign on this issue.
I wholeheartedly agree that there has been too much talk, and I hope the committee will put more pressure on various authorities who do need to take greater action. Again, unless committees like yours do this work, this issue will only get worse over time; absolutely, it will.
Senator Demers: Thank you, professor. I am on board with you.
Mr. Maidment: It is a difficult issue to respond to from the point of view of an organization that has been working in Canada for just over 125 years, whether we are talking about exploitation in this way, or homelessness, or poverty, or abuse against women. Whatever the issue and whatever corner it is across the country that we see, we have been doing it for a long time. It is difficult to know that we cannot stop it. Relieving and treating someone is encouraging and helpful, but how do we stop it? That is obviously the most difficult issue. For our front-line workers across the country who work in these issues every day, it is difficult to continue to be motivated, knowing that tomorrow there will be another victim, and the next day and the next day. That is the perspective from an organization like ours, from the front line.
Although we keep calling for something to be done to be part of the solution, to finally end it — and I like paying my mortgage — I would love nothing more than to be out of business, for The Salvation Army not to have 1.5 million Canadians next year that we need to help or 2.1 million Canadians that we need to feed or 168 people that we have to put in a shelter in downtown Ottawa tonight. I am not sure we will get there tomorrow, but hopefully we can finally get there; we can find the will and the solution.
Senator Brazeau: For the record, my honourable colleague was talking earlier about crime prevention and about the federal government cutbacks. I will speak with him to see where my honourable colleague has gotten his data. I want to put on the record that, for example, August 18, 2009, the federal government announced $5.6 million for crime prevention in Edmonton for some much-needed resources for the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, Uncles and Aunts at Large, Creating Hope Society of Alberta, and The Society for Safe & Caring Schools & Communities, just to name a few. I want to pass that on, because the government is working hard towards crime prevention as well.
My question is specifically for the professor. You mentioned earlier the issue of the chicken and egg proposition and you said that passing a law is not enough. While I agree with you, would you not also agree with the statement that getting tough on crime is at least a good start and a good start specifically for the victims to try to seek justice, on the one hand, as well as towards an effort at discouraging any future perpetrators, especially with sexual exploitation as it affects Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal Canadians in this country?
Mr. Perrin: Absolutely. I think there is often a sense in the public debate, and particularly in the media, on this question about whether stronger sentences are required. We are talking about a very particular crime — sexual abuse of children. This is one of the only Criminal Code offences with a report associated with it, which came out several years ago. Members of the committee will no doubt be familiar with it. Some may have assisted with the report. This is the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Prostitution and its recommendations. They cited sexual abuse of children as the only Criminal Code offence they could all agree on that calls for mandatory minimum sentences. They said it definitely signals the community's abhorrence of such a crime by imposing a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Both public protection and the expression of the public revulsion require that the minimum time in a correctional system be the subject of legislative rather than judicial or administrative control.
I cited that passage in the report in the Alberta Law Review. I feel strongly about this when we are talking about predators of children. These are not isolated crimes. Typically they are systematic. They are a lifestyle and will continue happening unless the offender is brought home to a place where they have serious time to think about what they have done and where their victims are protected. The criticism against tougher sentences when we talk about child exploiters is misplaced. I completely agree with you that we need more stringent sentences. Unfortunately, the courts do not seem to get this.
I will give you a few examples. In some of the case law we have looked at, it is considered as almost a mitigating factor if the child was given drugs or food in return for the sex abuse that happens to them. This represents a total misunderstanding by the courts of what is really going on, that these are methods of preying on the vulnerability of these children and youth. Particularly when it comes to First Nation victims, the organizations I am familiar with in Manitoba, for example, and here in British Columbia are critical of what they see as a bit of a one-sided sentencing: those who are preying on and exploiting First Nation women and youth are not treated as severely as perhaps others are.
The criminal justice response to perpetrators of child sex abuse needs to be more stringent. It is not an argument about deterrence. We often get caught up in this debate. It is an argument about expressing the denunciation requirements in the Criminal Code, about separating the offender from society, about holding them accountable for their actions and about all of the other purposes of the criminal law, of which general deterrence is just one. Absolutely we need to see much more stringent penalties against child sex exploiters.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for that. As a final comment, I believe that by passing some initial legislation to get tougher on crime — while I think we all agree around this table that prevention is key — and imposing minimum sentences, we tackle the problem head on. As opposed to starting to deal with issues of poverty and education and trying to fix those problems, we are getting at the heart of the problem while we can while working diligently to address the other issues I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Perrin: You identified a risk. The root causes of child sexual abuse are so myriad that we are literally talking about the entire federal and provincial governments' mandates. Many of the causes you referred to, as you are aware, are largely within provincial jurisdiction. While prevention needs to be part of any national strategy, there are steps the government could take.
We need to deal with the cases we have in front of us as well; and again, I do not think it needs to be an either-or, but I do often hear calls for prevention that seem to be an exclusive call, and I certainly would not agree with that. If we do not take steps today to deal with people currently exploiting children, we are really missing an opportunity and failing to take up the responsibility we have to protect these children.
The Chair: Perhaps I could follow up. When we did our study on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was rather exhaustive on the convention but not on all issues of children, I recall witnesses coming forward saying it is difficult in the area of pedophilia, if not impossible, with our knowledge and resources today to treat the offenders. While we continue to do so, we were concentrating, as I think you said, on denunciation.
In this field of child sexual exploitation, are there any programs known to you that are helpful in addressing the perpetrators, or are we talking again about the fact that it seems to be difficult for the professionals to identify why this occurs? Why would a father, a stepfather or anyone else abuse a child? Is there a difference between the street activity and what goes on in the home?
I know I threw a lot at you. Perhaps we could start with Professor Perrin.
Mr. Perrin: I will speak about a few aspects of your points that I am familiar with. On the question of why do men pay for sex acts with children, taking it out of the family context, which I think raises different questions, and talking about the commercial sexual exploitation of children, what most of the research we are looking at has found — and a lot of this is not Canadian but American research, unfortunately, so take it with a grain of salt, but nevertheless it can be helpful — is that men are demanding younger and younger women to pay for sex with. That is an observable trend. In fact, the wilful blindness that goes on about someone's age is prevalent. Imani Nakpangi, the first convicted human trafficker in Canada, exploited two Canadian victims. One was a 14-year-old girl living in a group home who had fetal alcohol syndrome. The second girl he exploited was between the ages of 15 and 18 years old. These are the girls that were for sale. Hundreds of Canadian men paid to abuse these girls, to the tune of $360,000 that was paid to abuse the girl who was between 15 and 18 and about $60,000 to $80,000 for the 14-year-old girl.
When we talk about the pedophiles, which is a term I will often use as well, we are seeing something a little bit different. Men who would perhaps not otherwise be acting out in that manner are, on a much more general basis, demonstrating a willingness to pay for sex with children.
The RCMP's Integrated Child Exploitation Unit officials, with whom I have spoken as part of our study, attribute a lot of this to the prevalence of online child sexual abuse imagery. One of the officers I interviewed who works with Internet-based child abuse imagery of a sexual nature believes that this problem has made offenders where there were none before. In other words, we are seeing a decreasing age being preferred by commercial sex users.
These problems are connected. An increased availability of child sexual abuse imagery can fuel this problem and has fuelled it in the past.
With respect to addressing perpetrators, I will briefly mention one case that is particularly of concern here in British Columbia. This is the case of Orville Frank Mader, an individual who meets the description I talked about earlier, that we should not assume alleged offenders stay in Canada to exploit or simply exploit children abroad.
Mr. Mader is wanted for arrest in Thailand on an arrest warrant from 2007 for sexually abusing children in Thailand. There are allegations he has done so in other countries, including Cambodia. He managed to escape the dragnet cast around him. He got on a plane to Vancouver International Airport in 2007. Rather than having Mr. Mader charged under Canada's child sex tourism law in section 74.1 of the Criminal Code, authorities chose instead to try to hold him under a recognizance, under section 801.01, I believe, of the Criminal Code. Just last month, Mr. Mader, rather than having a hearing to discharge the recognizance, admitted in court — and the language of the Code is clear — that there are reasonable grounds to believe he will sexually abuse children.
We have an individual now who is at large in the community here in the B.C. Lower Mainland who has admitted currently that he is a risk, that there are reasonable grounds to believe he will sexually abuse children. He is wanted for arrest in Thailand, and he is in the community on conditions.
This is a backward form of criminal justice. If there is sufficient evidence against him, he should be charged under Canada's Criminal Code offence to deal with child sex tourism. That has not happened. When we talk about offenders, unfortunately, we are not dealing with offenders in order to hold them responsible.
The only programs I am familiar with that deal with offenders on a national basis are with respect to what is often called "john schools" or first-time prostitution offender programs. I personally would not recommend those programs as appropriate for men who are paying for sex with minors. I do not think we currently have an effective system that deals with that.
Mr. Maidment: I do not believe I have anything to add above what Professor Perrin has said. I am familiar, of course, with the john-school programs. We run several of them across the country.
Another program comes to mind called Circles of Support and Accountability. Some federal funding was just extended through Public Safety to expand that program. The program works with perpetrators in sexual abuse cases, but I have no more specific information to add beyond that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Professor, you said there were three Ps, and I only got two of them — prosecution of the traffickers and protection of the victims.
The Chair: Prevention.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I understand the International Labour Organization said trafficking in women was a $128-billion business last year. What would the price be in the amounts of monies earned in the sexual exploitation of children in Canada?
Mr. Perrin: The estimates that we have in Canada are not on an aggregate basis. All we know is on an individual basis — for each individual child who is subject to commercial child sexual exploitation. These figures I will quote to you are from Criminal Intelligence Service Canada's strategic intelligence brief from August 2008.
They estimated that for a single victim, the daily profit earned by a sex trafficker is $900; a weekly profit is $5,400; and an annual profit is $280,800. That is the revenue earned for a single victim. These figures are, in my view, quite credible in terms of the more well-organized networks that are involved currently in selling children for sex in Canada.
They are also confirmed by cases like the Imani Nakpangi case, where one of the victims I mentioned was abused for two and a half years. He took every dime and he made $360,000 by sexually exploiting her. When the numbers are increased to an estimate of 40 victims, you are looking at $13.1 million. This is absolutely a big business.
Concerns have also been raised, as in the North Vancouver case that I cited and several other human trafficking cases in Canada, that there are links to other forms of criminality that are able to earn other profits. Sometimes the victims are not just involved in being sexually exploited for profit going to their trafficker; they also can be used against their will in other critical acts — things like drug couriers, drug traffickers and document fraud.
Another prevalent concern relates to the problem of phishing; that is not, of course, salmon fishing. That is taking a password and credit card fraud. That is another lucrative side crime involved in this behaviour.
There are no credible estimates that I am familiar with of the total aggregate number of profits earned from this illicit trade, but it remains a lower risk than drug trafficking and it remains highly profitable. For that reason, it is also not only a human rights concern, but a serious public safety concern.
Some of the more violent human traffickers in Canada have been implicated in weapons convictions and also alleged homicides. Some of the more extreme cases that come up involve those other grave concerns as well related to criminal networks and organized crime.
Senator Mitchell: The $5.6 million that Senator Brazeau mentioned is for crime prevention, but it is not for the prevention of trafficking or sexual abuse of children. It comes out of the national crime prevention program, which I mentioned was cut by two thirds, but not cut to zero. There was still some left over, which, to the government's credit, it put into a place where it should be put. However, it was not put into this place, and this area still lacks in crime prevention funding by the federal government.
My question is on Bill C-268. First, I am surprised, because it is an important bill, and despite the fact that it is being well sponsored by a new senator, Senator Yonah Martin, who met me on that bill, it is not a government bill.
You mentioned that you worked on this bill. First, can you tell me if you know why it is not important enough to be a government bill? Second, the minimum it specifies is five years. Certainly, the two-year example that you used is absolutely unacceptable. It is a disgusting kind of crime that absolutely needs to be punished.
If you worked on it, professor, how is it that we picked five years? Is that enough retribution? Is it enough denunciation? Is it enough to even begin to prohibit these people from thinking about doing it again? Recidivism will undoubtedly remain an issue.
Mr. Perrin: Thank you for your questions. Regarding the idea for Bill C-268, it is actually quite remarkable how quickly it has come forward. With respect to Michael Lennox Mark's case — where on conviction he spent just one more week in jail — the conviction happened in November 2008, less than one year ago. On hearing of these cases, the Peel Regional Police and others approached me with the concerns they had. They were familiar with my study since I had met with them several times. They asked what could be done.
The next month there was a conference in Manitoba that M.P. Joyce Smith hosted on human trafficking. I raised the concern there, and she immediately offered to draft a bill. It was introduced in January. It is now before the Senate. I think all senators will be aware that this is lightening speed for something to make it from a grave public policy concern into a chance of making legal reform.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government supported it wholeheartedly, as did the entire official opposition and most of the New Democratic Party. The bill is non-partisan. It had multiple sponsors from both Conservative and Liberal parties. It is helpful that it is a private member's bill. I am encouraged by that. It is the only private member's bill from the House of Commons this parliamentary session to make it to the Senate. This is an advantage. I hope the non-partisan support will continue in the Senate.
Regarding the suggested five-year mandatory minimum that appears for standard human trafficking of children in Bill C-268, we looked carefully at Supreme Court of Canada case law related to mandatory minimum sentences. The Supreme Court of Canada has both upheld and struck down, on occasion, certain mandatory minimums. We wanted to be careful that we struck the right balance.
Applying the test set out in the Ferguson decision from 2008, we used the opinion of the Chief Justice as our analytical framework to determine the right range. The Supreme Court says to look at comparable offences or similar offences in setting mandatory minimums. We looked at section 212(2.1) of the Criminal Code regarding the five-year mandatory minimum for the aggravated offence of living off the avails of prostitution of someone under the age of 18. In some cases of sexual exploitation, a human trafficking charge will make more sense. We can go into more detail later if you wish. In other cases, this section 212(2.1) would make more sense. It already sets a five-year minimum. This seemed like an appropriate level at which to establish that. The maximum available penalty for child trafficking goes much higher than that. This is what we used to determine the appropriate range for the sentence.
Finally, we looked at sentences in the United States. As the committee is no doubt aware, sentences are significantly higher across the board. We wanted to ensure we were setting our sentences proportionately in Canada. In the U.S., sex trafficking of a minor under the age of 14 carries a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. If the victim is between the ages of 14 and 18, it is a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence.
We suggest setting the upper and lower boundaries of what we believe is constitutionally acceptable and what would make sense internationally to demonstrate denunciation in Canada. Five years has to be the absolute minimum that a child sex trafficker or child labour trafficker should merit in our country.
Senator Mitchell: Would you push the sentence higher if you could?
Mr. Perrin: My own personal views are that child sex trafficking is among the greatest crimes in the Criminal Code. It merits a stiffer penalty than I have seen in any of the cases currently before the courts. Most cases will require much higher than five years. The fact that the child is being sexually exploited for profit in an organized way is arguably among the greatest crimes we have in Canada.
We have to create a balance between being outraged at this crime and setting 15- or 20-year minimum sentences and seeing that struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in the years following such an enactment. We are trying to establish a measured response. It is driven by strong denunciation, but also to protect these children. If perpetrators are not behind bars for a period of time to allow them to recover and move on, they lose the opportunity to rebuild their lives.
The Chair: Thank you. The bill is not before us, but the evidence is helpful. It is before the Senate, but not before this committee at this time. The comments made about the bill have some impact on our study. Therefore, I appreciate the comments.
Mr. Perrin, thank you for your legal and investigative knowledge in our area of study. Mr. Maidment, thank you for appearing and pointing out what it is like on the ground. We need to be reminded of that. We have had a balance in this panel.
Honourable senators, we were to go to another panel that was to be televised, but I think there was a misunderstanding. We will be meeting with the Children's Commissioner for England in an informal setting. I trust that is acceptable.
This panel is now adjourned. We will come back to an informal discussion with the committee.
(The committee continued in camera.)