JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 18, 1999

• 0911

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): I'd like to convene the meeting, please.

From the John Howard Society of Alberta, we'd like to welcome again Christine Leonard. Christine, do you have a presentation to make? I understand it's in just one of the official languages. It's in English only.

Ms. Christine Leonard (Executive Director, John Howard Society of Alberta): Yes.

The Chair: Is there consensus amongst the group that we would circulate her presentation, with the English version to be translated into French subsequently?

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Chair, I wonder if I might address this issue for a couple of minutes.

The Chair: Certainly. Go ahead.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chair, as you know, you and I had a discussion yesterday or the day before about the fact that my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-284, which we are dealing with today, is exceptionally close to Bill C-69, which the Solicitor General tabled in the House on Monday, I believe. My colleague and I have both had informal discussions with the minister, and my colleague Mr. Lowther has offered the minister a letter dated yesterday. What we would like to do, because we believe there's a tremendous amount of goodwill amongst all parties in this House and we would like to continue in that spirit, is make the point that we would appreciate it very much if the minister was to find a way, and the government was to find a way, to pull these things together so that we can expedite this process. We are already past second reading of Bill C-284.

I've spoken to my colleagues from the NDP and from the Progressive Conservatives. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to speak to the Bloc yet. But the three parties I've mentioned as included would be prepared to see the minister's bill go through second reading just with one speaker so that we could expedite this process. Our main concern is that we don't see any necessity for the testimony that will be taken on Bill C-284 to be duplicated if and when Bill C-69 comes to the House.

We're making that offer in a spirit of goodwill and cooperation, believing that all members of the House would like to see this type of legislation go forward, and because of the fact that Bill C-284 and Bill C-69 are so close, we would like to see the blending of the two of them together.

The Chair: Thank you for your comments. Of course, the agenda of the House is actually not within our jurisdiction, but what you're indicating makes good sense.

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): On this point, I would like to simply say that I believe there is a lot of merit in trying to speed up the process. From the very beginning of the presentation of the bill, the differences were not on the intent of the bill but on the way it was going to be applied. With that in mind, I think it makes eminent sense for us cooperate together to try to see if we can make it faster. I would concur not necessarily with the details, because they're beyond my control, but with the spirit of what Mr. Abbott just said.

• 0915

The Chairman: Okay. Are you going to circulate that letter, just for information's sake?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes.

The Chairman: At this time, Ms. Leonard, perhaps you could proceed with your presentation.

Ms. Christine Leonard: Good morning. The John Howard Society of Alberta is a voluntary organization nationwide with a presence in 65 communities. We are concerned with crime in our communities and we respond to this concern by offering services that include school-based education, parole supervision, young offender open-custody facilities, prison visiting, victim-offender reconciliation programs, halfway houses, employment readiness programs, literacy programming, and counselling. Because of our lengthy history working on crime and prevention issues in our communities, we are also active in the areas of research and reform to the justice system.

I'm grateful to be here to discuss Bill C-284 with you. I submitted my brief to the clerk today in English only, and I apologize for this, but time did not allow me to have it translated. I am the executive director of the John Howard Society of Alberta, but I am here before you today responding on behalf of the John Howard Society of Canada.

Pardons were created to serve a purpose for Canadians. They're seen to be proof of rehabilitation, maturation and correction of behaviour. Three million people in Canada have criminal records, approximately 10% of the population. We do not need to fear them all and we need not punish them all forever for their past deeds. Pardons are an acknowledgement of people's ability to change and rehabilitate. They have meaning to the thousands of Canadians who seek them each year.

Pardons are also costly for Canadians to obtain. The process of applying is lengthy and onerous in the number of documents required. The processing time after an application is received by the National Parole Board is also lengthy.

The police have the authority to do investigations into the conduct and behaviour of anyone who has applied for a pardon. This should help us to have assurance that anyone who has received a pardon has indeed changed their behaviour and is worthy of the pardon. The seven John Howard Society offices in Alberta alone receive requests for pardon information and assistance an average of 100 times per week. We are very familiar with the burden that is felt when a person's past may damage their future.

My point in going through all of this is to point out the unlikelihood that an offender who is still active would put themselves through this process. Once a pardon is granted, we can be fairly certain that not only has the person been crime free for a number of years, but that the person will probably remain crime free in the future. Of course there is no guarantee of this, as evidenced by the fact that a small percentage of pardons are revoked each year. The pardon revocation rate remains very low, at 2.6% in 1997-98, which demonstrates that most people remain crime free after the receipt of a pardon.

According to government statistics, there were an average of 444 pardons per year granted to sex offenders for the years 1994 to 1997. In this four-year period, 46 offenders were convicted of a new sexual offence, an average of 12 per year over the four-year period. It is important to note that these revocations were not necessarily for sex offences against children, which is the target of Bill C-284. There is also no evidence that these 12 offenders had been in a position of trust with children that we could have prohibited had this bill been enacted. We must ask whether the measures in Bill C-284 would have impacted any of these 12 cases of revocations per year.

There has been phenomenal growth in agencies and clubs seeking security checks for new staff and volunteers. I would suggest this is a fairly well-known fact. We have examples in Canada of abuse of children from persons in positions of trust, but many were not people who had prior known histories that would have been revealed through measures such as this bill. Groups and agencies working with children have a responsibility to conduct comprehensive and thorough screenings that consist of at least ten components, including such things as personal interviews, reference checks, and ongoing supervision and evaluation. Even the head of Volunteer Canada, who helped establish the security clearance or screening program for staff and volunteers who work with children, argues that it is dangerous to fall into the trap of relying on simply checking a record system.

The protection of our children is accomplished through thorough intake, monitoring and evaluation of staff and volunteers. This is particularly important, given what the John Howard Society has witnessed with the security clearance issue. It is important for the committee to be aware of the inconsistencies in this screening system. There are inconsistencies in who approaches the police to obtain the record, either the agency or the applicant; and who approaches can make a difference in the information provided. There are differences in the records the police check in a security clearance, what information the police give to the agency, and how the agency interprets the information they receive.

• 0920

In addition, we have worked with many clients who have multiple convictions, but local police records show only a few, RCMP records show a different few, and some convictions show up on neither of these checks. We must be aware that records may not be complete and that record checks alone are not sufficient in screening staff or volunteers.

In recent discussions with the National Parole Board, they indicated that it is not uncommon for the board to reject a pardon application of a sex offender until 10 to 12 years have passed since sentence completion. In fact, the backgrounder accompanying the government bill on this issue states that on average applicants requesting a pardon have been crime free for 11 years.

The bill seeks to deal with a problem that, if it exists, may not even be impacted by the measures in this particular bill, as we understand them. Having read Bill C-284 many times, I am still not clear about the mechanism that the bill contemplates to achieve its goal. It appears to make the release of the pardon records automatic rather than a decision of the Solicitor General, as it is now, and there is no apparent mechanism for a pardoned person to agree to their release.

Governments, universities and treatment centres have conducted extensive research into sex offender recidivism and risk. Private members' bills such as Bill C-284 rarely acknowledge the lengthy research that has been conducted about where the risks are from child sex offenders and what can be done to manage the risk. In 1997 the federal-provincial-territorial working group on high-risk offenders released a report called Information Systems on Sex Offenders Against Children and Other Vulnerable Groups. The document contained a comprehensive set of options and recommendations on how to manage the risk posed by child sex offenders. These suggestions were developed by the government's own staff, with the input and participation of all provinces and territories. Lengthy, comprehensive, researched and co-developed work such as this should not be dismissed or ignored because a private member's bill jumps the queue.

The standing committee would be wise to reject Bill C-284 in favour of reviewing Bill C-69, introduced by the Solicitor General on Monday. As I understand it, the government's bill incorporates the recommendations made by the federal-provincial-territorial working group and, more importantly, would allow the pardoned person to decide whether they want their record revealed to the agency. Failure on the applicant's part to agree to either the verification of the flag or the disclosure of the record would be a signal to the agency that they might want to reconsider this person for the position.

The other advantage of the government's bill is that it would allow the minister discretion to release the record. It allows the acknowledgement that past records may not, and need not always, have a bearing on a person's current level of safety or trust in the community.

We have grave concerns about Bill C-284 signalling the beginning of the erosion of pardons. Seeing the increase in the number of justice-related private members' bills, it's a realistic question to ask when we will be here again discussing the next bill that would seek to make sealed information automatically available about other sex offenders, then violent offenders and drug offenders and so on. We have repeatedly witnessed a series of legislation that continually expands the scope of offences subject to particular measures. Witness the ever-expanding lists of schedule 1 offences in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the expanding list of presumptive transfer offences for youths.

Private members' bills appear likely to follow one another with each expanding on the previous. Changes to the Criminal Records Act, begun with Bill C-284, will predictably lead to other changes that will combine to weaken the efficacy of a pardon. The bill is particularly troublesome because it does not allow the pardoned person to choose to end their application, nor does it allow ministerial discretion about whether the sealed information is in fact relevant to the circumstances of the day.

The bill does not allow us to consider each individual case record to assess its relevancy for release. Bill C-284 proposes to implement a very arbitrary and automatic process that will impact a great number of pardoned individuals for the sake of revealing a few who may have ill intentions. It proposes a very onerous measure to deal with what is a very small number of cases.

• 0925

The federal-provincial-territorial working group agreed in their report that public protection is offered through a flagging system and discretional release by the Solicitor General. They also recognized all of the other measures put in place over the past few years to protect society from sex offenders, including not only the national screening system but also the long-term offender provisions, community notification practices, and section 810.

We can never eliminate all of the risk, but we must seek solutions that help us reduce risk in a way that does not have a greater impact than needed or intended. The impact of Bill C-284 on the meaning of a pardon outweighs its benefits, particularly when there are other options that would not signal the erosion of the meaning of a pardon.

The John Howard Society encourages the committee to reject Bill C-284.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Leonard.

We'll now have a seven-minute round, starting with Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Obviously there's a difference of opinion between us, which is fine. On page 2, for example, you say “My point in going through all of this is to point out the unlikelihood that an offender who is still active would put themselves through this process”. Of course, we see that quite to the contrary. It's our belief that the offenders we're speaking about here are very devious and will do anything they possibly can—and this would be a perfect way—to be able to cover their tracks.

On page 6, near the conclusion of your presentation, you referred to the federal-provincial-territorial working group. I'd like to refer to the same group. In 1998 they produced a document that indicated there had been over 700 new sex crime victims from individuals who had received a pardon and later had their pardons revoked. That is the source of my information, the same group you quoted.

Ms. Christine Leonard: Could you tell me what page number that is?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Your page number—

Ms. Christine Leonard: No, in the federal-provincial—

Mr. Jim Abbott: I was referring to your page 6.

Ms Christine Leonard: In the other document?

Mr. Jim Abbott: No, in your speaking notes, page 6—

Ms. Christine Leonard: We're comparing numbers, though. Can you tell me where you're getting the number 700 from, please?

Mr. Jim Abbott: From the report to federal, provincial, and territorial ministers entitled Information Systems on Sex Offenders Against Children and Other Vulnerable Groups.

Ms. Christine Leonard: And the page number you're referring to?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Page 19.

Ms. Christine Leonard: Thank you.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Just let me repeat that the 1998 document indicated there had been over 700 new sex crime victims from individuals who had received a pardon and later had their pardons revoked. This paper states:

- of the 5,380 revocations during that time, 845 (15.7%) would have a prior sex offence on record;

- of the 845 revocations with a prior sex offence, 704 (83.3%) would be for the commission of a new sex offence;

My understanding is that of that 704, fully 456 were for sex offences against children.

So quoting the same source you were quoting, albeit from different parts of the report, it strikes me that we have clearly a very strong indication that indeed, for people who have received pardons and who would fall into the category we are trying to get at with this legislation, the evidence would seem to go quite in the face of your presentation, wouldn't it?

Ms. Christine Leonard: If I can disagree, please, if you read carefully the numbers—and I did read this report and look at those numbers very carefully—the 500, 700, and 845 numbers you just recited are not actual cases. They are extrapolations from a sample. What the research project did was take a sample of 170 pardons, 104 denials, and 115 revocations for a certain period of time, 1988 to 1991, and extrapolate based on those numbers what the sex offence numbers and the revocations would be.

We chose not to to look at this information for two reasons. First of all, the sample was taken from 1988 to 1991. That is before we put in the national screening system, before we had long-term offender legislation, before we had community notification, and before we had section 810. Therefore, with regard to whether those numbers apply in today's circumstances, we felt they may not.

• 0930

The second reason we chose not to use these numbers is that when we looked at the sample of 170 granted pardons, 104 denials, and 115 revocations, we saw that the number of grants to revocations is two-thirds. Those numbers do not reflect the reality of the number of grants and the number of revocations. The percentage of cases they looked at were not proportionate to reality. Therefore, I felt that their extrapolated sample was not realistic.

The cases I've cited are actual revocations.

Mr. Jim Abbott: So it's the position of the John Howard Society, then, as I understand your presentation, that people who are in charge of organizations that have children entrusted to them by their parents, such as Big Brothers, the scouts, and for soccer, don't have any right to know about.... Is that—

Ms. Christine Leonard: That is not at all what I said, sir. What I indicated is that I felt that the bill the government introduced was a more measured and reasonable approach to making sure that agencies have the information they need, not information they might not need. We don't need to release the past criminal history of all sex offenders. Some of them may have changed. The offence may have taken place 30 or 40 years ago, and they may be okay now.

I'm in favour of the government bill because it allows the person to know that their record is going to be checked and revealed and to stop their application for that position. It also allows ministerial discretion to say this record is not relevant in this case.

Mr. Jim Abbott: So to be precise, because we are hoping in goodwill to bring the two things together, the John Howard Society, then, would be in favour of the minister's bill. Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Christine Leonard: We would be in favour of the minister's bill over the private member's bill should Parliament decide there is a need to address this issue. We don't feel that either of these bills will impact a huge number of cases. There aren't—

Mr. Jim Abbott: With the greatest respect, I don't care how many it is. One is too many.

Ms. Christine Leonard: Fair enough. If the will is to implement a bill that will reveal certain pardoned sex offence records, then I believe the government's bill is a more reasoned approach to it. It's fairer to people who have received pardons because they have the option to withdraw their application for that employment or volunteer position and to protect their own privacy in that case.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I want to stay away from badgering here. I just want to get this really crystal clear in my mind. Is the John Howard Society saying that Bill C-69 as presently constituted would be acceptable? Is that what you're saying? You're saying that you reject the private member's bill, and then you're indicating that the other would be more favourable. But are you saying that you would accept it?

Ms. Christine Leonard: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you very much for your presentation.

I know you outlined some of the concerns you have with the private member's bill, but are there some major concerns you also have with the bill that was introduced by the minister?

Ms. Christine Leonard: I have to be cautious in how I respond to that. I did receive the information before coming here today. Unfortunately, because I received it yesterday, I have not had time to discuss it with the rest of my colleagues in John Howard. The initial impressions are that it is fairer. We don't necessarily believe either of the bills is necessary. However, given the likelihood of some kind of bill being approved, we prefer the government bill. We don't have major concerns with it. Again, I haven't had lots of time to discuss the impact of it.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: In your experience, do most sex offenders who have received a pardon—maybe this is a difficult question for you to answer—offer the information just the same that they have a criminal record?

Ms. Christine Leonard: I can't answer that, I'm sorry.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Would that be done by your society through another service when you interview?

Ms. Christine Leonard: I know that when the Edmonton John Howard Society does screening for its staff, criminal record checks, it's up to them to decide. They're going to get a piece of paper that says either there is a record or there isn't a record. Then they ask that person what the record is, and in certain circumstances they may require that person to produce the actual record.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: If they're screening for someone who will be working with children and they don't know the content of that pardon, would they normally check the background and the criminal record?

• 0935

Ms. Christine Leonard: In fact, we wouldn't know whether there was a pardon.

The John Howard Society of Alberta, in particular, has been looking at the issue of records and pardons for about six months now, and we have just applied for funding to do some research into this very issue. So we haven't done the work yet.

We have some concerns about what information is provided depending on who does the check. For example, if the John Howard Society does a criminal records check on a potential new employee or volunteer, the information we'll get back from the local police service that we have a contract with to do the records check will say “may or may not have a criminal record”. We don't get a second piece of paper. Then it's up to us to talk to that person about what that record was, or submit fingerprints to be sure about the record.

My children are in a day home, so I've spoken at great length to my day home agency about their screening and how they interpret these records checks. Because they're a children's agency, when they do the records check they get “may or may not have a record,” and they'll get a second sheet with the record attached.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: There's no consistency, though. That's what you're saying.

Ms. Christine Leonard: There is no consistency.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: It depends on the agency.

Ms. Christine Leonard: In that case, because it's a children-serving agency, it makes sense to me that they get more information. That's the whole point of this kind of measure.

The difficulty is that what our agency gets and what that day home gets from our local police is different from what we get or what that day home gets from the RCMP, outside the city.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: If I understood you well, from your presentation also, you don't believe in automatically providing those records to whatever agency, be it agencies that work with children or without children?

Ms. Christine Leonard: No, I don't. We don't believe in that.

In some cases, pardons apply to offences that go back many years; the person has lived an exemplary life, they're known in the community for their good service, and we will have an impact on those people by automatically releasing a record that we need not have.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I would think, wouldn't that person want to give that information if in fact they have become law-abiding citizens?

Ms. Christine Leonard: And they could.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

Ms. Christine Leonard: You're welcome.

The Chair: We'll have three-minute rounds.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

All of these things unfortunately do become very personal. You've raised the issue of your own children. I have grandchildren.

Would it be your position, on behalf of your organization, that there indeed are situations where there should be a revelation of past sexual offences, criminal sexual offences?

Ms. Christine Leonard: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Taking a look at the fact that, my understanding is, very little is going to change under Bill C-69, that when the police see the flag they will not in fact be able to reveal that information to your day home or the home of the people who are looking after my grandchildren, isn't that a concern to you?

Ms. Christine Leonard: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question, mostly because I don't understand the mechanism of the bill proposed.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay, my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, is that although the person's name and the fact that they have received a pardon will be red-flagged—I think that is the terminology—the police then are not at liberty to even say that it has been red-flagged, but they have to refer directly to the Solicitor General's department. That is substantively correct.

Ms. Christine Leonard: In the private member's bill?

Mr. Jim Abbott: No, this is in the minister's bill.

Ms. Christine Leonard: In the government's bill, yes, sure.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I believe what we're proposing in the alternative is, in a form prescribed by the minister, the person making application to the home, or whatever, would have to give release that any such information would be made available.

Ms. Christine Leonard: That's correct. As I understand the government's bill, there are—

Mr. Jim Abbott: No, that's the private member's bill.

Ms. Christine Leonard: Okay, I did not see that in the private member's bill.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay. Well, it is in the private member's bill, and therein lies the difference. In other words, under Bill C-69, there is still a high probability that indeed the information will not get to the agency.

• 0940

Is that a concern to you? This is really unfair, but as I say, you've raised the issue of your children and I've raised the issue of my grandchildren.

Ms. Christine Leonard: Yes, that's fine.

There are two ways that the information wouldn't get to the agency. One would be that the person refuses either the verification of the flag or the release of the information to the agency. The other reason the agency wouldn't get it is if the minister decides that it's not relevant to the circumstances of the day. That's how I understand the bill.

Either of those would be fine. If the minister decides that the sex offence was 30 years ago, the person has done all these things in the community, they're working, and everything looks fine, then why should the agency get that information? The risk appears to be small. If the person decides not to reveal their record, that's a signal to the agency that they might want to reconsider that person.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I think that the government's bill has an advantage over the private member's bill, in that it gives more responsibility to the applicant. First of all, he has the possibility of withdrawing his application if he prefers not to release his criminal records. He must therefore make a decision at that time.

If he decides to maintain his application—and this will perhaps answer Mr. Abbott's concern—, the relevant records are released.

Moreover, and I think this is extremely important, not for the sentence but rather for the empowerment, once all this is over, it is up to the applicant to convince his potential employer that, in spite of its records, his application is acceptable.

Those are mechanisms that complement each other to ensure the highest level of security.

As I said at the beginning, before your presentation, considering the purpose of both bills, it is necessary to have a bill on that issue, if I might disagree a little with you. It is necessary for two reasons. First of all, as my colleague said, if we can prevent a case from happening thanks to a legislative provision, it is a positive provision. Secondly, I don't see that as being damaging to the applicant. On the contrary, it is rather positive since it forces him to take responsibility and face his potential employer to show him that he can, in spite of his records, accomplish the work that goes with the position he is applying for. In the general process of pardon, one would hope it would be so.

I am going to ask you a very difficult question. Do you think that there are reasons to keep doubting the integrity of a process where the Solicitor General has discretion to release the record?

[English]

Ms. Christine Leonard: In the general policy of the John Howard Society, we always prefer discretion over mandatory decisions. There may be cause for nervousness, depending on your level of trust of who has that discretion, but in any circumstance, we would prefer that somebody has the ability to waive that decision, to look at the case, to make a decision on an individual case basis rather than automatically because of some piece of legislation that requires them to make a certain decision.

Mr. Jacques Saada: It's something I would like to have said myself, but I wanted to hear you say it.

Ms. Christine Leonard: I'm glad I did.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Lowther.

• 0945

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate that person's perspective. But if I understood your comments, Ms. Leonard, you are more comfortable with the Solicitor General or somebody in the department making the determination on the care of even perhaps your own children being in the hands of someone who had previously had a sexual offence against children. I find that a bit surprising. Rather than being able to say whether you were comfortable or not with that, you would defer that to somebody in the Solicitor General's department to say yes, she can know, or no, she can't know about this person's history. Can you explain your rationale behind that? It just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Ms. Christine Leonard: With all due respect, we do that every day in our lives. We don't get to pick who our kids' teachers are. We trust that the school board has reviewed those people and feels they're adequate for the job. I don't get to pick my kid's coach. I'm not the person who does all that interviewing, screening, background check and monitoring. I'm just a person who sends her child to gymnastics.

With respect to allowing the Solicitor General, in this case, to review the record, having worked for John Howard as long as I have, I have great respect for the experience of the people at the Solicitor General's department in knowing how to assess and manage risk, and for their ability to look at cases with a view to risk and likelihood of reoffence.

Even if the Solicitor General didn't have that discretion and the record were released automatically, it wouldn't come to me as the parent of the day home; it would go to the day home agency to interpret. That wouldn't make me feel any better either, because people don't know how to interpret those records and they don't know what to do with them. They don't know what the risk is.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So when you put your children in that day home and ask whether they have done the appropriate checks and they tell you they have done all the appropriate checks, but of course they cannot get access to pardoned records of sexual offences against children because the Solicitor General has decided not to honour their request because he sees something there he doesn't want them to know, you're comfortable with that. You're comfortable with not having access to that information and putting your children into that situation.

Ms. Christine Leonard: If the day home agency learned there was a flagged record—I'm not sure whether they would even learn that—they did not have access to, they would have a point of decision there.

Mr. Eric Lowther: But they wouldn't be able to learn that under the one bill. Under what we're putting forward, they would be able to understand if there were a flag, and there would be no discretion. But in the route you're endorsing, the department would hold the decision, not the day home or the parent putting them in that situation. I'm surprised you would be more comfortable with the department determining the safety of your children than the day home and yourself being able to have access to the information.

Ms. Christine Leonard: I disagree with that assessment. I don't believe simply knowing about a criminal record makes my children or any children either safe or unsafe. There are many other things that need to be done in any screening of a volunteer or staff working with children, and that's a point I made in the brief.

Volunteer Canada is recommending this ten-step national screening system for ongoing monitoring and evaluation, and parents have a responsibility to know the people their children are involved with. There are all kinds of other steps and mechanisms to get to know the people who are working with your children, beyond simply relying on a criminal record from five, ten or fifteen years ago.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Maybe I'm missing something here. You obviously have some experience working with these pardoned people through the John Howard Society, which I don't have. Can you think of an example where it might be a good idea for the Solicitor General not to reveal information about a pardoned sexual offender against children to an organization where he or she is looking to work?

Ms. Christine Leonard: I can't think of a specific case of that and give you a name and a location, if that's what you're asking for.

• 0950

Mr. Eric Lowther: No, I just mean a—

Ms. Christine Leonard: Sex offenders have different types of risk of recidivism. We know that incest offenders have a very low risk of recidivism. So if you have an offender who had an incest offence 10, 20 or 30 years ago, their risk of recidivism overall is very low, and the risk of recidivism as years go by gets lower. If he were a young parent at the time and now he's 60 and wants to be a soccer coach, that may be a case where we need not reveal that record.

Mr. Eric Lowther: But you don't feel the hiring organization should have the opportunity to make that assessment; that should be left with the Solicitor General. Why wouldn't you want that hiring organization...what's the harm in their being aware—

Ms. Christine Leonard: I don't think the hiring organizations have a lot of information, such as the Solicitor General has, about risk of recidivism, risk assessment and risk management of criminal offences, and that kind of experience. They have all the other tools available to them in terms of interviewing, monitoring, checking references, and all kinds of other tools beyond simply relying on past records.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. John McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry I missed your presentation, but I'm reading and listening at the same time.

The working presumption of Mr. Lowther's initiative here is that in the area of sexual matters against children, there is really no recovery. There is no healing process that ever takes place, and therefore a person who is convicted of an offence of this kind will likely reoffend, even if it doesn't necessarily engender criminal sanctions.

Intuitively that sounds correct, but sometimes things are counterintuitive. So I wonder if you could inform me if it's a valid working assumption that people convicted of sexual offences involving children are in fact likely to reoffend.

Ms. Christine Leonard: Let me just read from a briefing note John Howard prepared on sex offender recidivism

The public tends to believe that sex offenders, particularly child molesters, are at a very high risk of re-offending.... However, the likelihood of a rapist or child molester committing a new sexual offence is actually quite low (18% & 13% respectively)....

—That's data from 1996—

In addition, long-term follow-up studies (10 - 15 years) of child molesters have shown that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders....

As I said earlier, we know that incest offenders have a lower rate.

Mr. John McKay: Can you break me out the 18% and 13%? I don't know whether that's half full or half empty. If I take a pool of 100 people who have been convicted of these kinds of offences, do I understand from your information that between 13% and 18% of that pool of people will likely reoffend? Is that how I interpret what you just said?

Ms. Christine Leonard: I'm sorry, I just don't have the information on how the study was done and I can't respond. Sometimes it's dangerous to give statistics you can't entirely explain. I'm sorry, this is too short a briefing to explain that.

Overall we know that child sex offenders may be more at risk to reoffend than other types of offenders. However, we have to—

Mr. John McKay: Didn't you just contradict yourself? Didn't you say the rate was lower than for other kinds of offences?

Ms. Christine Leonard: Sorry, you're correct. The rate is lower over a 10- to 15-year period. That is what is in front of me.

The point I would like to make is that it's somewhat interesting that society has this notion that once a pedophile always a pedophile; they can never be cured and are always a risk to us. Yet we're saying a sex offender can complete their sentence successfully. They can go through the mandatory waiting period for a pardon, which is five years. They can go through the extended waiting period that the parole board says they're actually applying, which is 10 to 12 years post-sentence completion. They can make it through the police investigation of them. They can receive their pardon. They can control their behaviour through all of that period of time, simply planning to get a position of trust with children so they can reoffend?

• 0955

That's somewhat contradictory. They either can control their behaviour or they can't.

The other fact is that we can do a lot of things to reduce risk of sex offenders, and we have. We have long-term offender, community notification, and section 810. We can never eliminate all of the risk. Even if we make it so that people with sex offence histories never get formal positions of trust with children, children are everywhere.

Mr. John McKay: Yes. I don't dispute your view, but for us as legislators, the question here really is, does Mr. Lowther's initiative assist society in reducing the element of risk? Either increasing public safety or reducing risk, however it is you want to say that, are we actually increasing the ability for Canadians to feel safe in society by adopting Mr. Lowther's initiative?

Ms. Christine Leonard: I think the measures we've taken in society to protect ourselves from sex offenders have come a long way. I disagree with Mr. Lowther's bill because it makes it automatic and it starts to diminish the meaning of a pardon. I think the government's proposed bill is a more meaningful approach to managing this kind of risk. I think it's a very small risk.

Mr. John McKay: We're not sure what the risk is, though.

Ms. Christine Leonard: Well, the number—

Mr. John McKay: Okay, I'm sorry. Yes, I'm using my time.

The Chair: Is that okay on this side?

Mr. Saada, you seemed to indicate you had one last question.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Actually, it's more than a question. It's really some details that I would like to make sure we don't lose sight of.

First of all, to answer Mr. Lowther's question, Mr. Lowther, a moment ago you referred to a case where the minister would not find it pertinent to unseal the record. Let's not forget that this government bill is much broader than simply child sexual offences. I believe it includes 26 offences, versus the 14 that are listed for children.

Let's say, for instance, that someone who has committed an offence against an adult 30 years ago applies for a position with kids. The Solicitor General might find it's totally inappropriate, because there is no connection between the crime committed at the time and the potential of recidivism. It may not be the best example, but I'm just trying to think out loud after you have posed this question.

The second thing I would like to say, which to me is quite important, is that I don't think we can establish a system of justice on the basis of bad faith. We must assume that the Solicitor General, whatever party he comes from, is also devoted to preserving the safety of the public. I mean, whoever he is, wherever he comes from, whatever party, a Solicitor General is unlikely to not be concerned first and foremost with public safety.

So doubting the judgment that he can exercise makes me feel uncomfortable in this regard. I'm told that so far under the present dispositions of the code, two-thirds of the requests for unsealing have been honoured. In other words, two-thirds of the requests have been acceded to, along the lines of the criteria that have been set for him to have a good understanding of what should be taken into account before he makes his decision. And I understand these criteria would be part of the regulations that are going to govern the application of this bill.

• 1000

So I think before we go off too much on this, and here I'm going to repeat very briefly what Ms. Leonard was saying, I'm always leery about things that are very automatic. Automatic means blindness. Blindness and fairness and justice and efficiency do not necessarily go hand in hand. I would really prefer to have a very solid system to guarantee as much as possible that the decisions are correct.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Saada.

Thank you, Ms. Leonard, for being with us today. We appreciate your comments.

We'll take a five-minute break and then the next panel of witnesses will come forward.

• 1001

• 1007

The Chairman: Could we reconvene the meeting, please.

We have with us this morning, representing the Ontario Association of the Chiefs of Police, Chief Julian Fantino, and from the Canadian Police Association, Mr. David Griffin and Jon Netelenbos. Welcome.

I understand, Chief Fantino, that you have a brief that is in English only. The policy of our committee is not to accept briefs unless they're in both official languages. Your brief would have be translated into French unless there's consensus to accept the brief in English only.

Mr. Jacques Saada: We have consensus today, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Saada. There is consensus. I wonder if we could distribute Chief Fantino's brief, then.

Chief Fantino, would you like to commence?

Chief Julian Fantino (Chief, York Regional Police, Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police): Yes, at the outset, Mr. Chairman and members, I apologize for not providing to the committee a French version. Time did not permit, nor resources. However, I thank you for allowing the document to go forward in its English state.

It seems almost trite to say in this day and age that protection of children, our most vulnerable and valuable asset, should be a priority for all of us. After all, we have learned much over the last decade about the exploitive and predatorial nature of the pedophile. We know that through both formal and informal networks, those who prey on our children are able to exchange information and seek out victims. Unfortunately, the societal concern with individual privacy rights has at times created systemic barriers to the police and other service providers who hope to optimize the protection of our children and other vulnerable members of our societies.

One such barrier would be at least partially dismantled and the interests of public safety greatly served should Parliament pass into law Bill C-284. The stated purpose of this legislation is to provide for a specific instance where the public interest in a limited disclosure of a record of a conviction that has been pardoned supersedes the right to privacy of the pardoned person. This instance is where the conviction was for a sexual offence against a child and the person convicted applies for a position of trust with respect to a child or children. This is indeed a laudable goal. Moreover, there are protections built into this proposed legislation to prevent unauthorized or improper disclosure of this very critical information.

To take several steps back, allow me to express the reasons why the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police believes there is an urgent need for legislation of this nature. In 1997, at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, one of the resolutions passed and forwarded to the federal government was resolution one, regarding a sex offender registry. A copy of this resolution is attached to this presentation. I also allude to two other resolutions that are accompanying my presentation, one on sexual exploitation of children, again passed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in 1997, and a further one dealing with the sex offender registry, again passed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and adopted by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

• 1010

Within the context of these resolutions, the CACP expresses concerns that sexual predators have demonstrated time and again their ability to move from community to community in order to carry out their crimes, and that one systemic problem that has expedited these criminal activities is the Criminal Records Act, which prohibits the exchange of information among police agencies after a pardon has been granted or after a set period of time following a conditional or absolute discharge. Accordingly, the resolution requested that the Minister of Justice amend the Criminal Records Act, allowing the police to retain the record of an offence where the charge involves sexual misconduct and to freely share that information with other police agencies, whether or not the person has been granted a pardon or discharge.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police is in total agreement with the position taken by the CACP in this regard. The minister of justice of the day responded to this suggestion in the following words, “Responsibility for the Criminal Records Act rests with the Solicitor General.”

The concern of the police community is not so much with which branch of government draft legislation and changes are made. It is simply that the changes are done. The private member's bill we are addressing at this time will accomplish at least in part what resolution one sought.

In 1995 a safety net conference was hosted in Hamilton by CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination. The conference was entitled “A National Conference on Crime Prevention, Public Safety and Justice Reform”. Present at that particular conference were members of the judiciary, intimately involved lawmakers, law enforcement officers, politicians, and a broad range of other groups. This conference addressed the issue of accountability for organizations and individuals hiring convicted sex offenders or who failed to carry out proper background checks, including criminal convictions.

It was recommended during the course of the conference that criminal records of convicted sex offenders not be removed from CPIC, the Canadian police information network, with the granting of a pardon. This is entirely consistent with the view taken by the police community. Indeed, the pardon application booklet produced by the federal government sets out the advantages of a pardon, including the protection afforded recipients pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act, whereby information cannot be disclosed without the permission of the Solicitor General of Canada, nor can the information be used for the purposes of employment screening.

It is critical in analysing this proposed legislation to understand that there are safeguards to protect information from improper use. As proposed, a record may only be disclosed to a requester after a pardon has been granted if the requester is responsible for or represents an individual, organization, or group responsible for the welfare of children. The record is in connection with the review of an application for the position in which the applicant would be placed in a position of trust involving children, and the minister has received and undertaken in writing from the requester that the record will be used only in connection with the review previously referred to and will not be disclosed to anyone else. The minister must give notice of the disclosure to the involved subject. Anyone disclosing or using a record in breach of the subsection is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. This should more than alleviate any concerns held by civil libertarians with respect to this issue.

With respect to the proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which forms part of this bill, it is the position of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police that it would be an affront to rational Canadians everywhere if a pardoned sexual offender were able to claim the protection of this act in order to obtain employment in a position of trust over children. The amendment to the act, which would provide that discriminating against such an individual is not a discriminatory practice within the meaning of the act, is simply good common sense.

This legislation is very good as far as it goes, with the caveat that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police would urge that it be further amended to allow a free exchange of information among police agencies as well, whether or not a pardon has been granted and whether or not the individual is seeking a position involving a position of trust with children.

• 1015

Currently the system in place does not allow the police to ascertain whether or not a pardoned sexual offender has been convicted and sentenced for his crime. It seems rather ironic that in this information age, while the worldwide pedophilia network is able to freely exchange information via the Internet and other contemporary media over which there are no controls, we the police are handcuffed in our ability to provide intelligence amongst ourselves for the protection of society. It is our submission that the provisions of the Police Services Act, our oath of office, and the oath of secrecy, which all police officers take upon appointment to their position, should fulfil the need of protecting privacy interests while at the same time allowing us to do our duty of protecting society's most vulnerable members.

This further step would necessitate a revision of the current policy, which necessitates purging and hiding the existence of records following a pardon. We are not suggesting that these matters should become public documents, simply that they be available to legitimate police agencies pursuant to the CPIC checks. The record of a convicted sex offender should remain available for bona fide law enforcement purposes, notwithstanding the granting of a pardon.

In summary, it is the position of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police that this legislation is logical and supportable. We would simply ask that consideration be given to broadening its effect beyond the suggested parameters. Let us not be preoccupied with protecting the privacy interests of convicted pedophiles; rather, let us focus on their future victims and ask what we can do to protect them.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Chief Fantino.

Mr. Griffin.

Mr. David Griffin (Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association): Thank you. My name is David Griffin. I'm the executive officer with the Canadian Police Association. With me today is Jon Netelenbos. Jon is a vice-president with the Canadian Police Association. He is also the president of the Alberta Federation of Police Officers, a vice-president of the Calgary Police Association, and a sergeant with the Calgary Police Service.

Our format today is that I'm going to give some general remarks to the committee and, after that, Jon will deal with some of the principles of the legislation. We would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you this morning and bring the views of the Canadian Police Association, which represent over 35,000 front-line police officers across this country.

First, we would like to applaud Mr. Strahl and Mr. Lowther for their efforts to bring this issue to the forefront. Our association is on record as supporting Bill C-284.

I don't think we need to reinforce that this is a legitimate public safety concern for those who are unable to protect themselves from predators, in particular, our children, our elderly, and our infirm. The reality in this society is that pardons are automatic; only 1% of people who apply for a pardon are denied. Recidivism statistics are based on conviction, not on the necessity that somebody has been accused of reoffending.

I would like to refer to a few statistics that have been gathered by Mr. Lowther's office with respect to this bill. The first—and it's a startling statistic—is that there's a 77% recidivism rate for sexual offenders who target young boys.

Secondly, there's a 42% reconviction rate for sexual and/or violent crimes. The greater the time horizon, the further we look—when we look at 15 or 20 or 30 years—the greater chance there is of a reconviction. That would then generate a recidivism statistic. The difficulty in this situation, as I think you will hear from some of the experts later this morning, is that prosecution and conviction are often difficult in these cases. We're dealing sometimes with the uncorroborated evidence of children and the inability to convict offenders on the basis of simply a child's allegation.

A report that was prepared in 1990, entitled Managing the Treatment of Sexual Offenders: A Canadian Perspective, by Correctional Services Canada and the Solicitor General's own ministry, said that there was a substantial increase in the risk for previous sexual offenders. Sex offenders with a prior history were more than twice as likely to commit further sexual offences and more likely to violate release conditions.

• 1020

That same report went on to say that the highest-risk offenders, in this case the pedophiles, are most likely to commit further sexual offences. Pedophiles tend to display an attitudinal system that supports their deviance; i.e., they believe that sex with children is not harmful to the children and that it may be beneficial.

A similar report in 1996, entitled Sex Offender Assessment, Treatment and Recidivism: A Literature Review, by Correctional Services Canada, stated: “Does sex offender treatment work? We are still uncertain. There is a disagreement even amongst the most prolific and knowledge researchers in this area”.

In our view, there has been widespread support, including all parties in this House of Commons and your colleagues, when this bill was presented for second reading, along with unanimous recommendations to the joint federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers, that there needs to be a system to maintain information on sexual predators and to ensure that if those persons apply for positions of trust with respect to children, that information is accessible to those agencies.

In fact, this week Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay has gone on record, with the introduction of Bill C-69, as supporting this very principle. We would like to applaud Mr. MacAulay for responding to a legitimate public safety issue in a proactive manner. Our concern, however, is that if this committee or the House of Commons itself becomes embroiled in the debate over the merits of one bill over the other and some of the partisan issues that can arise in that type of discussion, this entire issue will die on the order paper before the law in fact can be passed.

We would, therefore, encourage the committee to use your collective wisdom and influence to encourage an all-party effort to examine the combined merits of Bills C-69 and C-284 with a view to fast-tracking a final piece of legislation to the House for third reading before the next recess. We believe that your recent report, Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto, dealing with victims of crime, has demonstrated that this committee has the ability to demonstrate such leadership. We understand as well from speaking with Mr. Lowther, and from his comments in the House on Tuesday, that he is receptive to including amendments to Bill C-284 to combine the efforts of both pieces of legislation.

One concern we have, which we would like to point out to this committee, is that both pieces of legislation rely on an aging and failing Canadian Police Information Centre system, which is in desperate need of repair. In our annual lobby day last week, we raised this with the members of the House, and we would encourage this committee to take forward a recommendation that the government adopt, as a priority, a strategy and corresponding budget allocation that will ensure that the CPIC system can meet the policing and law enforcement requirements of the 21st century. We do not have confidence on today's date that this system is capable of meeting those needs.

There are a number of issues we would like to address. We would like to point out that in the legislation that has been presented in the form of Bill C-284, there is no discretion for officials to determine whether or not the information will be released. We believe that principle has merit. We're concerned that Bill C-69 introduces too much discretion at all levels of the application process, and that the public itself does not have confidence in these institutions to exercise that discretion appropriately. We support the principle in Bill C-284 that release of this information should be mandatory.

We are also supportive of the amendment under Bill C-284 to the Canadian Human Rights Act. We're concerned that Bill C-69 does not include such an amendment, and while we have all agreed that the principles of both pieces of legislation need to be enshrined in legislation, we're concerned that the absence of that type of amendment in Bill C-69 may present issues in the courts at a later date as to whether or not the release of this information has in fact violated the rights of an offender. We would therefore recommend that the committee examine that issue in further detail with its legal advisers to ensure that the final legislation is immune to challenge.

• 1025

Our final concern with respect to Bill C-69 is that it does not in fact designate the offences that will be included under the bill. We have been informed—and indeed the communications materials that have been issued by the minister's office would indicate—that the scope of Bill C-69 is intended to be far greater than that of Bill C-284, and we in fact applaud that effort. We believe it's important, however, that those offences be enumerated in the legislation and not left to regulation.

Before I turn it over to my colleague Mr. Netelenbos, I'd just like to say on a personal basis that I'm the parent of a 10-year-old boy and a one-year-old boy. Because of my experience as a police officer, and because of my awareness that the conviction data do not in fact reflect the entire picture with respect to this illness in our society, as a parent I have no confidence in our ability to protect our children and therefore I do not place my sons in a position of risk. I will not allow my son to go unescorted, without either me or his mother, for a sleepover. I would not allow my son to go to a day camp where I or my spouse was not present. It's an absence of trust in our agencies and our ability to weed out these offenders under the current system that causes me to harbour that type of paranoia.

I think it's important that we demonstrate through this legislation that it's not just the rights of the offenders we have to be concerned about; we have to be concerned about the rights of the vulnerable, and that includes our children.

Thank you.

Jon.

Sergeant Jon Netelenbos (Vice-President, Canadian Police Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm into my twenty-ninth year of policing—I still have to catch up to Chief Fantino—and I am employed by the Calgary Police Service as a team sergeant. The bulk of my police career has been devoted to street policing, which has given me a first-hand look at criminal behaviour. That behaviour includes sex offenders and, more specifically, pedophiles.

I've interviewed a number of pedophiles, and none stands out more than a 40-year-old man whom I suspected of fondling a young boy in a mobile home park playground. Although he vehemently denied touching the victim, he made little effort to disguise his predilection: young boys, not too young and not too old. Yet paradoxically, while telling me these things, he continually emphasized that he would never touch them, that he would never harm them. So within these sprinklings of truths and lies, I asked him the next question: “Where do you find these young boys?” His narrow lips slowly parted, and he avoided eye contact with me, and he replied, “I go where I have to go”.

Now, while I don't recall the precise details of the conversation thereafter, I knew what he meant, and this committee knows what he meant. He would find his victims at all the places children love to be at, places they shouldn't be fearful of: the public parks, tot lots, school grounds, playgrounds, swimming pools. “I go where I have to go.”

Bill C-284 will not deter pedophiles from frequenting the places I just mentioned, but thanks to the efforts of victims organizations and law enforcement education programs, our playground supervisors, teachers, sports coaches, camp councillors, and lifeguards are better trained to keep a vigilant eye on the sexual predator standing on the outside looking at the inside, watching potential victims. But what if that predator isn't standing on the outside looking in? What if that person is on the inside? What if that person is the playground supervisor, the teacher, the camp counsellor, the soccer coach, or the lifeguard? Remember, he said he goes where he has to go.

• 1030

Mr. Lowther's Bill C-284 makes a great deal of sense to me as a veteran police officer. I support it also as a member of the Canadian Police Association.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate the testimony. May I also just reiterate some comments that Mr. Griffin put forward, which we circulated to the committee—albeit, with my apologies, the French version was a bit late—in a letter of appeal to the minister that if there's any possible way we can work together on these two bills to come up with a hybrid that incorporates the best of both, we are really keen to do that and make use of the position C-284 is at in the parliamentary process, rather than restarting the engine. Whatever it takes to do that, we'd love to see that go ahead. So that letter is in front of all the members of the committee.

I guess one of the questions we had, or one of the issues that came forward in the previous testimony—some of these gentlemen have touched on it—is that we hear people say because the reconviction rates are so low, maybe the pardon and rehabilitation approaches are actually working. I ask you gentlemen who are on the front lines with this how much the reconviction rates are a reflection of what is actually happening out there. I heard some—and I don't have anything I can quote—anecdotal commentary that says often a number of acts have occurred before there is actually a conviction.

Can you speak to that issue? I don't know who to ask.

Chief Julian Fantino: Through you, Mr. Chairman, one of the problems we have is that if we focus solely on the reconviction aspect, not everyone gets caught and not everyone is reconvicted. I think we're all lulled into a false sense of public safety here when we hang our hats on statistical data that may or may not be the appropriate outcome in any given, even judicial proceeding. Let me just very quickly refer you to the fact that very often there are deals made, if you will, there are resolutions undertaken at the courthouse door that render outcomes that in no way reflect, for whatever reason, the significance of the offence as alleged. I think it was alluded to earlier that we have failed memory—we have very young children, oftentimes obviously the victims. There is also the very secretive nature of this particular crime.

The numbers of victims that one pedophile can rack up is extraordinary. We've talked to pedophiles who are now incarcerated who have disclosed abusing hundreds upon hundreds of children, but may have been caught for only one or two. So I just want to put that on the record, that we are all lulled into a very false sense of public safety if we are to believe strictly the statistical data that we are able to capture on any information system.

I just want to make one further comment along these lines. There's so much talk about the discretionary authority given to the Solicitor General as to whether or not a file is to be opened and under what circumstances, but as a working front-line police officer, I must first know I have data there that I need to go forward and have opened. Right now—and I've checked this out myself, personally—we have a horrendous stack of convictions, very serious criminal convictions that have been logged over a long period of time in many, many jurisdictions by people who have received pardons. I'd like to tell you that when I check those out, I get out of the computer: “no record on file”. So why would I go to the Solicitor General with anything? I have no way of knowing.

• 1035

What about the mobility of the criminal element, especially pedophiles, the multijurisdictional nature of all of these issues? You'll note that one resolution I tendered with my presentation speaks to police information sharing enhancements, dated 1994, passed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

We can only make good, rational, appropriate decisions if we have the information available to us. In keeping with my mandate, my core functions as a law enforcement officer whose primary mandate is public safety, I am really operating in a vacuum. I don't have this data, so to me, statistics don't mean a whole lot, other than what I can grab and analyse and action.

The Chair: Mr. John McKay.

Mr. John McKay: My question is directed to Mr. Griffin, but I'm open to others responding.

It's really, if you will, a conflict of philosophies between Bills C-69 and C-284.

Bill C-284 proposes that the minister shall disclose a record of sexual offence against a child in respect of a pardon, and then amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to fix up any concept of a discriminatory practice. In a dummy-down version, that's it.

The minister goes at it in a different way. If the board proposes to refuse to grant a pardon, it shall notify the applicant in writing and set up a hearing process.

Mr. Lowther has proposed that if there is some way to merge those two, he's more in favour of those ideas.

My quick reaction is that these are irreconcilable bills. They come from a different mindset, if you will, but the minister is clearly worried that if he doesn't set up some sort of review process, a quasi-judicial process where you have an exchange of why I should be entitled to my pardon versus not, then that will create, in turn, a whole bunch of applications under the Canadian Human Rights Act. On the face of it, the minister has a legitimate concern.

I'd be interested if you could reflect on the two philosophies. We're working on the presumption that they're both driving towards the same goal, to eliminate this sort of thing. Can you see where there is some ability to meld those two philosophies?

Mr. David Griffin: I think the difficulty for us is that we don't have the benefit of knowing why Bill C-69 has introduced this discretion. There's a discretion on the part of the police service in determining whether or not they'll make application, and then there's discretion on the part of the Solicitor General's ministry to determine whether or not that information is released.

The difficulty for me, to answer your question, is that I don't know with certainty why that discretion has been introduced. I think we can speculate why the ministry has put that into the legislation.

What I do know from speaking with Mr. Lowther is that when his bill was presented to the...I don't know the appropriate term, but the legislative people who assist in drafting private members' bills. They pointed out that this amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act was in fact required. So it was on the basis of that legal advice that this introduction was made to Bill C-284.

Mr. John McKay: His bill takes discretion right out of the equation—“The Minister shall...”.

Mr. David Griffin: That's right. I would want to ask the rhetorical question, why do we need discretion? Should not these agencies that have the care of our children, the care of our elderly, the care of our infirm, have the ability to make an informed decision on the basis of all of the information, and not rely on somebody who is not party to all of the facts to decide whether or not that information is indeed appropriate?

Certainly our bias would favour complete disclosure, but I'd also like to think if the principals who are involved in this discussion sat in one room and discussed these.... You're all reasonable people. Mr. MacAulay is a reasonable person. Mr. Lowther is a reasonable person. Work it out.

• 1040

I think there's the opportunity there for some consensus, and, as we've asked, fast track this before the House prorogues and this dies on the order paper and goes down the legislative agenda.

Mr. John McKay: The previous witness talked about this to be the signalling of the beginning of the erosion of the pardon system. I take it you wouldn't adopt that view. Yet, on the other hand, the pardon system is the final step in the course of an offender where they are fully, if you will, symbolically reintegrated into society. How do you respond to that previous testimony?

Mr. David Griffin: From my perspective personally, and I would certainly encourage my colleagues to chip in on this one, we're dealing with the type of offence—and I think you'll hear more evidence later this morning—where, as I said earlier, there is an open debate on whether or not this behaviour can ever be cured.

So whether it's the fact that the person has managed to go undetected, the fact of whether their victims have been close family members, the fact of whether or not prosecutions have been considered but have not been able to go forward.... It's a very difficult offence on which to bring a successful prosecution forward and convict. In our view, the reliance on conviction in determining a pardon is not sufficient to suggest that the person is in fact fully rehabilitated and presents no risk of reoffending.

Sgt Jon Netelenbos: Mr. McKay, if I may add a further comment to that, I think there's the risk factor. If I owned a business concern and I was concerned about people with theft convictions, I'd be willing to perhaps take that risk if I knew there was a pardon. If I were running a youth centre, I think I'd be less inclined to take that risk for someone with a pardon for a sex offence involving a child.

Mr. John McKay: Again, I'm thinking out loud here. If the minister amended his legislation to a presumption to say that a person convicted of this will have, say, either a balance of probabilities or a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt presumption that they will not be granted a pardon but that presumption can be rebutted on evidence at a hearing, does that move you closer to your concern?

Mr. David Griffin: I would argue quite the opposite. Why has this person applied for a position where they want to have trust over children or the elderly? They are the ones who have initiated the application; they're the ones who should be prepared to put their personal record on the table and allow the agency to make an informed decision.

I know Chief Fantino has some comments on that as well.

Chief Julian Fantino: Thank you.

I think we have to also shift focus here. Look at the dilemma that is faced now by those who are engaging volunteers and who are employing people in these high-risk areas. There is an awful lot of work that has been done, for example, the final report of the National Education Campaign On Screening Volunteers and Employees in Positions of Trust with Children and other Vulnerable People. They talk about the numbers of voluntary sector charities, non-profit organizations, and on it goes. The potential is really great for people to infiltrate these places; in fact, that's what they do. That's how they seek out to get close to opportunities or engage themselves in opportunities.

The point I want to make as well is that there has to be more discretion left to the police, the law enforcement people at the front end of this. My colleagues here have talked about a national information system that is competent and capable and able to provide information so that we can make good decisions at the front end.

We're all in this together. We're all people of like minds trying to protect the public. But my concern is that even though we are called upon to provide information with respect to what is known about an applicant, oftentimes we can't disclose that information for a whole lot of different reasons, including limitations placed on us, the Canadian Human Rights Act itself, freedom of information legislation, and also the sensitivity of certain information that we have in our files. We may even be in a position in which we cannot disclose information that should go forward before a pardon situation is considered. What we have to do is divest ourselves of this great concern that everyone is going to abuse power and discretion. There will be exceptions to that, yes. But the greater risk is what is now happening to our children and our vulnerable people in our society.

• 1045

I have to put this on the record:

Over the past three years, the voluntary sector in Canada has been reeling as more and more stories emerge about abuse perpetrated by employees and volunteers with social agencies, sports groups, day cares, schools, a myriad of programs that work with children, the disabled and seniors.

I would also like this committee to consider the vulnerability of seniors who are targeted and victimized by those who do nothing but seek out opportunities. Why would we want to have pardoned those people responsible for home repair frauds and all of those? They have a long criminal record; then they don't offend for awhile. They apply for a pardon, they get that pardon, and then they're off and running again. That is the reality.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are a couple of points I wanted to touch on here. I'm not sure which of the witnesses talked about it, but the whole issue of treatment of pedophiles was raised. I wanted to quote from a document that I have here, entitled Sex Offender Assessment, Treatment and Recidivism: A Literature Review. This is published by Correctional Service Canada, and in it, it says:

“Does sex offender treatment work?” We are still uncertain. There is disagreement even amongst the most prolific and knowledgeable researchers in the area.

Within that context, I don't have a particular question, but I would say that in some ways we do not have a way to feel confident that rehabilitation is working. It sort of underlines this kind of a crime. When a pardon is given, I think it accentuates the need to have access to these records when we know we don't have confidence in any rehabilitative technique out there. I guess we could look for some comment from you gentlemen on that. From a street perspective, what's your sense of the rehabilitation programs for this kind of crime?

Sgt Jon Netelenbos: Why would the convicted sex offender, the child molester, even in terms of self-rehabilitation, apply for a job that involves the care and trust of children? Even if someone shows the earnestness to do something to try to rehabilitate, that person would certainly go in the other direction.

Mr. David Griffin: If he was applying to become a pipefitter, this record isn't even an issue. We heard this morning all this debate about risk. The risk becomes much greater the moment that person applies for that position. That's when this additional step is required.

Chief Julian Fantino: If I may, Mr. Chairman, what we can't forget in this debate is the vulnerability of children. They're unsophisticated human beings who are preyed upon by cool, calm, collected, predatorial adults who are scheming to do nothing but abuse children sexually. So I think this is a time for responsible citizens everywhere to provide the kind of leadership that takes into account the vulnerability of children on the one hand and the cunning, tenacious, predatorial nature of the adults who seek them out to prey on them on the other hand.

I think we have to elevate and balance this issue. I have been involved in many of these front-line types of investigations and have headed some up, and I can tell you outright that, first and foremost, as a rule children don't complain. That's part of the process of victimizing children. Part of the staging process is to get close to them and be nice to them and all of that. I mean, this is a very serious, cool, calm, calculated, predatorial type of crime perpetrated on the most vulnerable components of our society. What is there about this that we can't, for instance, balance out?

We have to balance those rights against these extraordinary unconditional rights of people who are offenders, regardless of whether they've now changed and found a new way. Forgive me, but I cannot take that chance. I've researched this issue and talked to the experts, Mr. Lowther, and there's no medical data anywhere that I know of that says, one, they're sick, and, two, they're anything other than criminal perpetrators looking to victimize children. I'm not a medical doctor, but I'm going to make a statement that I've heard umpteen times from professionals: they do not rehabilitate; they just change their ways.

• 1050

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

Just on a personal note, I must say that to deal with this issue from a long way away with the legislative process is in some ways painful enough. But to be as close to it as you gentlemen are, I can only imagine what you have to deal with. I'm thankful that you're there doing it.

On another topic, if—

The Chair: Your time is spent. We'll come back to you.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are many things I would like to say. Let me begin by saying something I started to say a few minutes ago with the previous speaker. It is quite clear and undebatable that every single individual sitting around this table—for that matter, anybody running for office—is determined to act in good faith for the betterment of the public and public safety. So just to answer the reservation you had on the future of this bill, or these bills, I have trust in our system. We are determined to take some action. Therefore, I would not share your preoccupation as to the action we're going to be taking.

I have a number of things, very quickly. First of all, if I may, Mr. Griffin, you mentioned the fact that the minister has discretion over these and the ministry has discretion over these. I would like to correct you, if I may. The minister has discretion; the ministry does not have discretion.

Of course, Chief Fantino, you stated—and I'm not quoting necessarily the exact words, but correct me if I'm misrepresenting you—that there is too much discretion given to the Solicitor General. A few sentences later, you asked for more discretion for the police. In both cases, I should start from the assumption that both are as determined to serve the good of the public.

By the way, Volunteer Canada, which you referred to, was consulted before the federal-provincial meetings that led to these conclusions, which in turn led to C-69 being tabled. Chief Fantino, you referred to all the people who are also victims. I would suggest that Bill C-69 does cover these people in a much broader way than Bill C-284 would, because we do cover much broader sexual offences than only pedophiles.

Just before, we mentioned the criteria under which the Solicitor General would be able to look at the request for unsealing. I was referring to those presently existing within the system. There are criteria that have been established, and they have been established in cooperation with the RCMP. Don't you think they are a pretty good safeguard?

Chief Julian Fantino: Not in Ontario. The RCMP have primary policing jurisdiction in certain areas. In Quebec and Ontario, they're certainly not the police agency mandated to do municipal policing and whatever.

In any event, let me go back to a more relevant issue. Many things that go forward on the part of the police community are compromises—and I'm not speaking for the RCMP now. None of us ever get what we want. I can tell you honestly that even after certain things go forward, we find out that we ought to have done better, that the risks are far greater, that we can do more. We also discover how the systems, no matter what systems are in place, are beaten and defeated.

• 1055

What we're talking about, number one, is a national criminal information system that is dying. It has absolutely had the biscuit, to put it in colloquial terms. It's underfunded and underresourced, and the RCMP themselves will tell you that. We have no confidence in the ability of even the police community, if you will, to share appropriate information in regard to these issues or do appropriate threat assessments.

Mr. Chairman, I refer the member to Canadian police information sharing enhancement, a Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police resolution dated 1994—and by the way, the RCMP are part of the Association of Chiefs of Police, just as I have members of the RCMP in the association that I represent. Right in here, five years ago, the police community, the law enforcement community in this country, identified concerns and issues with respect to our ability to share information effectively, appropriately. Five years later, we're in worse shape.

The Chair: Mr. Saada, I'll have to come back to you.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, okay.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm a little concerned about a couple of misconceptions here. Number one, I believe Mr. Saada is saying that the other types of offences are included in Bill C-69. As I understood it when I read it, it only says those will be later defined in regulation, or in some site outside of the bill. It does not have a comprehensive list of the types of offences that pardoned records would have access to.

Another thing is that Bill C-284 does allow for the minister to set up the criteria or the prescribed forms that must be completed and the conditions that must be met for the pardoned record information to be given back or given to the hiring institution. So although it's not in the legislation per se, that's certainly within the context of the legislation. We're suggesting that the prescribed form could be a matter of regulation.

My concern for the police officers is a practical one. When a hiring group, be it the Boy Scouts or whoever, comes to the police and says it would like the police to do a criminal record check on an individual, the police go into CPIC. With this new legislation we're all working on here, if there's a flag there, the flag means that the person has been pardoned of a sexual offence against children in the past. When you do the check, of course, you've confirmed it is for the Boy Scouts, you have the sign-off from the person who is being checked that he's okay with it, and the flag comes up.

I don't think it's actually fair to ask you, as witnesses, to debate the nuances of the two bills. What you've really done for us is underline the importance of getting something done. But under C-69, you would not be able to tell the Boy Scouts that there is a flag there. You'd have to say you were not done yet or something, and you'd send it off into the bureaucratic abyss with the hope that something comes back someday so that you can tell them. If you did in fact tell the Boy Scouts that there was a flag there, you are subject to prosecution under the Canadian Human Rights Act for revealing it.

My concern is for the police officer who sees that flag, but who is then handcuffed and not able to share that without being charged himself. This underlines the need to have some sort of protection for the police officer when he says the flag is there. You need the freedom to inform that hiring body of the flag, so that you're not put in the squeeze in the middle, if you follow what I'm saying. You have a bit of information, but you can't share it without fear of prosecution.

I say all that, and I'd just like some comment on it, understanding that maybe you haven't had an opportunity to weigh all the nuances of the bill. Is that a concern?

Chief Julian Fantino: If I may, Mr. Chairman, the concern is definitely there. We need to know as much information as we can in order to make the appropriate assessment. The onus on us is extremely great now when the checks are requested. Not to be able to do an accurate assessment with all of the data, all of the information available to us, I think, is again a misconception about what constitutes a police check.

• 1100

I want to go one step further. I find it quite ironic actually that as a police officer I would have access to records of people who have been found not guilty of criminal offences after trial or whatever, yet I can't access a pardon record. I ask you, how does that balance out the need to ensure that we do our job in the most appropriate fashion, looking after the individual's rights?

Take, for example, the not guilty person who is found to be innocent of whatever was alleged and those who have maybe a history of very serious crime over a long period of time in many jurisdictions, but at the 11th hour have seen the light and have been crime-free for five years; they went to the candy store, literally, and got the candy. That's how pardons are literally handed out, with all due respect. You ask, you get.

How does that balance the individual's rights? How does that address the innocent person or the person who has been found not guilty who virtually is innocent? I can have access to that as a police officer, but I can't have access to this career criminal now supposedly gone straight.

Mr. David Griffin: Can I just follow up as well, Mr. Chair?

In personally representing 35,000 people out there who will be administering this, the problem is that the moment you exercise or introduce the discretion, the focus will often shift not to the information but to whether or not that individual officer or member of a police force exercised the appropriate discretion under the circumstances. We will be preoccupied with what that officer then did or did not do with the information they received, as opposed to what we're really trying to address here, which is putting the information on the table for the agency.

We think there are strengths to both bills. Where Bill C-69 has some ingredients such as the broader potential for offences, we believe it is superior to Bill C-284. What we would like you to do is take all the parts that are on the table and come up with a final product that represents the best of both.

As far as our concern over the timeframe, we know that while this debate is going on in this room, there are countless other debates elsewhere in this complex on other pieces of legislation that are just as important to other public issues. My concern is that this will fall somewhere down the order paper, or if there's an election called or if the House prorogues for the summer and this isn't done....

Mr. Jacques Saada: No elections, please.

Mr. David Griffin: We know change is slow. There is a lot of review and everything else. Our concern is that while we're debating this there are other victims out there.

As far as the minister's discretion is concerned, if the minister is designated under the act, the reality is that he will rely on his advisers and staff, and the bureaucracy underneath that, to make this decision. He will not have the benefit of the hours of review of each case. So, yes, it's the minister's discretion, but the reality is that it will be discretion taken under advisement. Our concern is that I don't think we've established why that discretion is necessary.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Saada, you have the last round in this panel.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you. First of all, let me recognize with you, without any reservation, that the CPIC issue needs to be addressed. I don't think it's a secret to anyone that indeed we are looking at it very closely.

During the debate on the creation of the databank for DNA, I was informed that if a person is found not guilty after having been accused of a crime, his or her file had to be destroyed upon request. But now, Chief Fantino, you have introduced some doubt in my mind. Would you please clarify it?

Chief Julian Fantino: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to do that. You're quite correct, it's upon request. Not everyone requests, and I'm not speaking about DNA databanks now.

Mr. Jacques Saada: No, but I was—

Chief Julian Fantino: I'm talking about the criminal...the fingerprints and all of those things. As a rule, there are different policies. I don't feel I'm compelled to destroy fingerprints or records, saving for and except when the individual makes application. There's great legal debate about whether or not we even have to do that.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Maybe a final point, because we won't have time for many more. I want to understand one thing. I want to pursue the logic you were referring to a few minutes ago.

Sorry, it's Mr. Griffin who said this, not you, Chief Fantino. He said it's difficult to convict on the basis of children's testimony, which you reinforced in a way in your intervention. Are you suggesting we should institute a register where people who have been accused but not convicted should appear?

• 1105

Chief Julian Fantino: I'll answer that.

Many countries are going to that. We feel that for suspected pedophiles very specific criteria should be in place. We feel this is very important public safety information that should be captured, analysed, and actioned, depending on circumstances, if warranted. I think you'll see that, Mr. Saada, in the appended resolution from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, resolution 1, 1997. It's attached to my brief. That actually does speak to the issue of a sex offender registry. We talk about suspected and convicted pedophiles.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Let's go far beyond the protection of children and so on. Philosophically, aren't you afraid that this would open the door to the shattering of the presumption of innocence? Far beyond what we want to try to achieve here in terms of the protection of children, aren't you afraid that we are really questioning the fundamental basis of our justice system altogether, which, by the way, we find is not good enough but which other countries look at in terms of an example?

Chief Julian Fantino: I respect your views, and that is a concern certainly, but you have to also appreciate that we deal in criminal intelligence information in order to make assessments, deliver programs, and pursue certain initiatives. We see that no differently. We're not talking about a sex offender registry that would be available to the public at large. This would be part of the protocol allowing law enforcement agencies, bona fide law enforcement agencies, to basically have this kind of information and then be able to use it to give proper assessments when and if we are required to give a threat assessment.

Right now we have a tremendous amount of movement by people. We have a serious issue dealing with information that is not available to us to enable us to make good decisions.

I am equally concerned about the individual rights; however, the reality is that our whole world is predicated on the basis of good actionable process criminal intelligence, and the activities of pedophiles I see as no different from the activities of those who are going out to victimize, rob banks, or whatever. There's a lot of information that is available to the police now that isn't as a result of a conviction or a formal record.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand I have no time left?

The Chair: No, you're beyond your time, sir.

I'd like to thank the panel this morning for their presentations and their frank responses to our questions. Thank you very much.

We'll have just a very brief adjournment while the next panel comes in. We're running a little bit behind.

• 1108

• 1113

The Chair: I'd like to reconvene the meeting.

We'd like to welcome this morning, from the Ministry of the Attorney General of British Columbia, Mr. Bruce Headridge, and from the RCMP provincial prostitution unit, Mr. Gerry Peters. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Headridge, will you proceed with your presentation, and then Mr. Peters.

Detective/Constable Bruce Headridge (Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit, Ministry of the Attorney General of British Columbia): Mr. Chair, hon. members of the justice committee, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak at the justice committee.

As was announced, my name is Detective/Constable Bruce Headridge. I'm a 26-year member of the Vancouver Police Department, currently assigned to the coordinated law enforcement unit. This is a joint forces agency made up of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, municipal police departments, Canada Customs, and a full civilian staff. My job is Internet investigations within the intelligence section.

There are a number of issues that need to be considered in relation to pardons. They are of grave concern to investigators who are involved in cases dealing with child sexual exploitation and, in my case, child pornography and child luring investigations, which comprise the majority of my caseload.

I reviewed the consultation document on the proposals to amend the Criminal Records Act and was very concerned by a number of statements, particularly regarding statistics on pardons that have been revoked. The National Parole Board appears to have complete discretion to revoke a pardon when the person who has been pardoned is convicted of a new offence. If it is a summary conviction offence, it is very unlikely that a pardon will be revoked. If the person is convicted of a dual or hybrid offence, tried for an indictable offence, it is still up to the discretion of the board to revoke the pardon.

• 1115

The parole board has distributed their statistics relating to pardons and those that have been revoked. Does the National Parole Board also keep a record of the number of persons who have been convicted of new offences and for whom they do not revoke the pardon? If they do not keep such a record, then the statistics relating to the rate of recidivism are skewed. By not keeping these records, they could appear to be manipulating the figures to make it appear that the number of persons who reoffend is much lower than it is in reality.

In the case of a conviction for an indecent act, commonly referred to as exposing, which is strictly a summary conviction offence, non-printable, at the expiration of a three-year conviction-free period, upon application, a pardon is automatically granted without review. We look at an indecent act as being a sexual offence, and it is often aimed at children. If the National Parole Board does revoke a pardon, they do not notify the agency where the new conviction has occurred. During sentencing, the previous record to be entered cannot be entered prior to sentencing if the pardon has been granted.

The board has stated that if a pardon is revoked, an appeal could be launched relating to sentencing. But if they do not notify the agency that the pardon has been revoked, I'm afraid I don't understand how this would be accomplished. This is a catch-22.

They have obviously also not considered the cost and the time in launching an appeal of sentencing. At present, if information comes to light following the decision to grant a pardon that indicates an individual should not have been granted a pardon, the pardon cannot be revoked.

There was discussion in the consultation document, on page 2 relating to checks for individuals applying for a pardon, and a statement made that field checks uncovered very little information that would affect the granting of the pardon. I am aware of a number of cases in which invaluable information was obtained through field checks, and in these cases the pardon applicant had not been convicted of a new offence, but their pattern of behaviour had not changed, and this should be considered in the granting of a pardon.

Some examples. A pardon applicant was convicted of numerous offences, including three violent sexual assaults many years prior in which the victims thought they were all going to be killed. He was also convicted of other property and weapons offences. Through field checks, it was determined that neighbours were concerned by his behaviour and that he had been renting extremely violent pornographic and other videos. There were a number of other issues that also came to light. He was denied a pardon at this time, but he has the opportunity to reapply. Without the field checks, this information would not have come to light. With only 1% of applicants being denied a pardon, and the fact that he had no new convictions, the male probably would have been granted a pardon.

In another case, a member of the coordinated law enforcement unit submitted a report to the National Parole Board upon their request, and it was regarding a male who was a pardon applicant. He was a convicted child molester who had had no convictions for five years. Of concern to my agency was the fact that the male was receiving the NAMBLA bulletin, which is the North American Man-Boy Love Association bulletin. This organization advocates active sexual activity between men and boys, and lobbies for the lowering of the age of consent.

• 1120

He received one of these bulletins within one month of the enactment of the new child pornography laws, which would have made importation and possession of this bulletin illegal. The board indicated, in writing, that they were going to deny the pardon, but in fact granted that pardon without anyone's knowledge. We only became aware of the pardon after we were contacted by investigators regarding this male's involvement with a 13-year-old boy, who has since been removed from the male's home.

Without the prior knowledge of this individual by our unit, the investigators would not have known his background and his criminal history. The apprehension of a 13-year-old boy by the ministry would have been unlikely, based on criminal history checks by the investigators.

A male who had been granted a pardon for the sexual assault of a young boy in the 1970s recently pleaded guilty to numerous sexual offences involving 14 victims. Prior to his case coming to court, his pardon was revoked. This was accomplished due to the fact that his first conviction was well known in the town where it occurred and he admitted to having the pardon. The information would not have been known in any other area of Canada.

Our unit has also been involved in the investigation of a male who is a convicted child molester and who is also a pardon applicant. He has had no convictions for over five years. He came to the attention of police when he was loitering around a playground. A citizen called the police. When the male was checked in his vehicle, he had a number of items in the car. They included nude pictures of children, condoms, KY jelly, numerous pornographic magazines, nude playing cards, candies, stickers, stuffed animals, camera, film, binoculars, and a knife. He had been spending time at a nude beach body-painting nude prepubescent children.

If field checks were not done, this information would not have been available to the parole board. This type of information should affect his pardon application.

Our unit was also involved in an Internet investigation of a male who believed he was corresponding with a 13-year-old boy. He was in fact corresponding with an adult posing as a child. The suspect sent child pornography to the boy, offered him drugs, engaged in sexual conversation, and arranged to meet him in a Vancouver hotel, advising him not to tell his parents. The suspect sent the boy a picture of a prepubescent nude boy with a knife held to the boy's penis. The suspect stated this is what happens to boys who tell.

This male was a convicted child molester and stated he was applying for a pardon. He had had no convictions for over five years prior to the new conviction of distribution of child pornography.

A male, who was a refugee convicted in Vancouver of engaging in sexual intercourse with a one-and-a-half-year-old little girl after being caught in the act, applied for and was granted a pardon after 10 years of no new convictions. The statement was made that there had been no new complaints. What child of one and a half years of age can come forward and complain or disclose this type of sexual abuse? Now he can apply for citizenship because he has a pardon.

Police checks are often a computer check of police computers. This check will determine if there is a criminal warrant in effect or if the individual has a criminal record. If the agency subscribes to the RCMP PIRS system, further checks can be conducted. If a pardon has been issued, no offence information will show on any of these computers. Many municipal police departments do not subscribe to PIRS; Vancouver Police Department is one such department. Checks done by the Vancouver Police Department will not produce any information from other cities.

Fingerprint checks are also very expensive. I was recently advised by a member of my unit that a family member had to pay $50 for fingerprint checks. She was a school teacher and she was required to submit, at her own expense, a different fingerprint check in each school district she applied to. A volunteer, a lower-income person, or a non-profit society is unlikely to be able to afford the cost of fingerprinting.

• 1125

Just before attending here—and I'm sorry you don't have a copy—I was able to obtain the Vancouver Police Department list of where fingerprint checks are done for free; otherwise it is $50. There are 33 exemptions, seven of which are agencies related to the Vancouver Police Department, such as the Vancouver Pretrial Services Centre, Vancouver court and probation services, Vancouver Witness Victim Services, Crime Watch, deputy sheriffs, and Corrections. The other agencies, 25 in the city, are the only others exempt from the cost. There are a lot of non-profit societies that cannot afford this type of cost burden.

Just prior to coming here, I was able to very briefly go through Bill C-69, which was tabled on Monday. Bill C-69 does address many of my concerns.

Unfortunately the decision-making process is still left with the National Parole Board. The consultation report refers to the reduction of the volume of cases requiring decisions by the board. For example, on page 4 it refers to 76%, or 8,369, decisions per year less. Bill C-69 has led the decision-making to the board. For example, proposed subsection 6.3(1) states that “the Commissioner may make”. Proposed subsection 7.1(1) says “If the Board proposes”. Proposed section 7.2, which I am unclear of.... We discussed it with other members of my unit, and I'm sure of the meaning, because when you look at proposed section 7.1, it's giving the board the right to revoke it; it says “If the Board proposes”. And yet proposed section 7.2 says:

7.2 A pardon granted or issued to a person ceases to have effect if

(a) the person is subsequently convicted...

Now, I don't know if that means this is an automatic thing or that it goes back to the earlier proposed section, “If the Board proposes”.

Proposed paragraph 6.3(2)(b) of Bill C-69 is the part that deals with consent in writing. What if the person refuses to give consent in writing? My question would be, is this enough grounds for an agency to refuse the application? Again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.

Proposed section 9.1 says:

9.1 The Governor in Council may make regulations

(a) listing offences...

I don't see any list. But some of the questions I have are: Is child pornography, for example, going to be included in this list? Is child pornography going to be considered a sexual offence? Child pornography, after all, is a picture that allows you to witness a sexual offence in the happening. Will it consider exposing to be an indecent act, a flasher at the park who exposes to little children? Will they include this summary conviction into this list? I've not been able to see the list, so I don't know.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Headridge, perhaps I could ask you if you could wind up your presentation in a few minutes. We're over our time limit.

Det/Cst Bruce Headridge: An individual with a sexual preference for children will always be at risk to offend. The passage of time will not cure or change the preference. It would be like ordering a heterosexual 35-year-old male to only have relations, fantasies or thoughts of an overweight, balding and hairy 62-year-old man. All the laws in existence will not keep his thoughts from his true sexual preference.

• 1130

The granting of a pardon to a pedophile who will always be at risk of offending only jeopardizes the safety of victims. In these cases we increase the potential of further sexual exploitation of those whom government and society claim to earnestly be trying to protect. The granting of a pardon to such a potential threat must come under the closest scrutiny and care.

A pardon is not an entrenched right, but must be deserved by a truly rehabilitated person. For these reasons I would fully support Bill C-284. Any measure that restricts the exploitive behaviour of a sexual predator against our greatest resource, children, in my mind is worthy of support.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Headridge.

Mr. Peters.

Mr. Gerry Peters (Individual Presentation): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Gerry Peters. I am a member of the RCMP and I am here today as a private individual.

I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the invitation to speak with you today. It is my sincere hope that the information I provide will assist you in your deliberations on this very important issue.

I provided briefing notes; however, they are only supplied in English. I did not have them translated.

Let me begin by explaining my role and personal history with the RCMP. I work in the major crimes section of our British Columbia headquarters office. I am currently the sole RCMP member of a provincial prostitution unit that partners with the Vancouver Police Department, provincial crown counsel, Ministry of Children and Families, and the B.C. Attorney General's office.

Between 1991 and 1994 I worked in the criminal investigation unit, a part of the major crime section. I was involved in numerous criminal investigations and assisted various agencies, including the National Parole Board. My assistance to the National Parole Board came in the form of conducting field investigations for pardon applicants. The offences these applicants had been convicted of varied, but included sexual offences against both adults and children.

The field investigations I conducted included an interview with the applicant, community inquiries, and criminal record checks. After conducting these investigations it became clear to me that most pardon applicants could be quite optimistic that their pardons would be granted.

Between 1994 and 1998 I assumed the role of file coordinator and lead investigator for the British Columbia native Indian residential school investigation. This investigation into alleged child abuse at residential schools is still ongoing today. During those four years and the four years prior to that, I investigated hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse against children. I have personally interviewed a large number of victims of child sexual abuse and have had some success in obtaining confessions during interviews with offenders.

One interview that stands out in my mind today is that of a man already convicted of sexual abuse against several young boys. While speaking with him about the offences he committed, he admitted he was a pedophile. Despite having spent years in prison, he continued to have strong sexual urges relating to children. This man explained to me he had learned in therapy that to deal with his affliction he must avoid any situation or environment that might lead him into temptation. He explained he must try to avoid children but would probably find it impossible, as, in his words, “they are everywhere”. During my interview with him he admitted there might be more children with whom he'd had sex, but he had never before admitted it. He was worried that he couldn't remember them all.

In British Columbia, when a potential employer or volunteer agency takes on a new employee, as we know, this individual who is placed in a position of trust over children must have a criminal record check done at a local police department. The individual must then produce the results of that check to the employer before starting his or her new job.

Although this relatively new requirement is a step in the right direction, it's very important to understand that there exists a certain perception by the public and potential employers alike with respect to these criminal record checks. The perception is that an employer, presented with a document from a policy agency stating that the individual has no criminal record, also believes the individual has never had a criminal record. A negative criminal record check creates a false sense of security and leads to complacency.

It is my sincere belief that most Canadians know very little about criminal record pardons and are of the impression that pardons cannot be granted, or even applied for, for serious offences such as sexual assaults against children. Furthermore, I believe most Canadians are of the impression that after a pardon is granted, the police still have immediate or instant access to the criminal record information. As we know, this isn't so.

In the 1920s and 1930s, it is not likely there existed the kinds of screening processes there are today for people employed in areas of child care. Today, certain organizations and institutions in the business of child care go to great lengths in their selection processes to ensure they are not vulnerable to infiltration by pedophiles. This leads me to a very important distinction.

• 1135

It became evident to me while investigating what I might call institutional child sexual abuse that priests, child care workers, and staff members at these institutions, who were the subjects of our investigations and convictions, did not become pedophiles; instead, pedophiles became priests, child care workers, and staff members. This distinction is very important to understand. It illustrates the fact that pedophiles are cunning and at times sophisticated. The pedophile seeks out an environment in which to satisfy their own deviant behaviour. If a criminal record is the only thing that stands in the way of that, a pardon is a likely and often easy solution.

Of the numerous field investigations I conducted, usually the only thing to prevent a pardon being granted was evidence of ongoing criminal behaviour. In my experience, it was rare that this information ever came to light.

Although the focus of this bill is not to amend the actual granting of pardons, I must state that I am troubled by the granting of pardons for some of the applicants I interviewed. During the past eight years I have had the unique opportunity to learn and understand the dynamics of child sexual abuse. After conducting many investigations in this area, it is clear to me that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, in addition to being a form of deviant behaviour. I believe a pedophile will likely always have a sexual preference for children, the same as a heterosexual will always have a preference for a person of the opposite sex. I base this perception not on speculation or hearsay, but on my experience as an investigator, which has included countless interviews with both victims and offenders.

A criminal conviction of a sexual offence against a child is a clear indication that the individual has acted out deviant pedophilic tendencies. We must recognize that there exists a potential that this individual may reoffend. It is my view that the potential is strong. But even if you disagree with the level of risk, it cannot be argued that the potential to reoffend does not exist.

The United States recognizes and takes this potential very seriously. Some American states have implemented sex offender tracking laws, so enforcement agencies are always aware of the locations of sex offenders in their communities. I'm not here today to suggest we adopt such a model in Canada. Rather I provide this example as a means to illustrate how seriously other jurisdictions take the issue of protecting children. We are all too familiar with residential schools, such as Mount Cashel Orphanage, as dark chapters in Canadian history. It is critical we learn from them.

We must ensure every effort is made to protect Canadian children from pedophiles. The amendments Bill C-284 proposes will allow us to be better able to do this.

On a final note, I'd like to address the area of recidivism. Statistically, most applicants are not convicted again for new offences after serving their sentences and receiving their pardons. Some would argue these individuals are now crime-free or law-abiding. When attempting to quantify rates of recidivism, a means of measurement is often based solely on subsequent conviction. This is an unreliable assumption. One has only to explore the vast numbers of crimes that go unsolved and unreported every year to understand why.

The criminals I have dealt with are no less intelligent than the average person. Some are probably smarter. The criminal learns, during trial and while incarcerated, where they made their mistakes and exactly how they got caught. Most people learn from their mistakes; social deviants are no different. It is a huge assumption, and a dangerous one at that, to state that a criminal is reformed, based solely on whether or not he has been caught or convicted again.

Again I'd like to thank the standing committee for hearing me today. I welcome your questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Peters.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say that was an excellent testimony and I'm glad it was recorded. I'm a little disheartened that there aren't more members of the committee here to hear the testimony you put forward today. But thankfully it has been recorded and will be in the Hansard of the proceedings.

I was looking at some of the commentary around Bill C-69 that talks about some of the additional amendments the bill proposes. One of the things it talks about is specifying in regulations factors to be considered by the Solicitor General when deciding whether to unseal a pardoned record. Now, I've never seen any of the factors, and I don't believe they're articulated in what is tied to the bill as to what the Solicitor General will use to weigh whether or not his department will release a pardoned record. There's nothing there that I can find that details what his parameters will be.

• 1140

Within your experience, and within the context of Bill C-284, or even the context of our overall discussion here of children's organizations having access to pardoned records, can you think, with all your experience, of any time, any scenario at all, where it might be justifiable not to release to the hiring organization the pardoned record, or at lease advise people that there is a pardoned record for pedophilia there, once the consent of the person applying is obtained and the organization is clearly a children's organization? Can you think of any scenario at all where it might be reasonable not to release that pardoned record?

Mr. Gerry Peters: If I could answer that first, I won't speak specifically to Bills C-69 or C-284 when answering that question. I had only a very cursory examination of Bill C-69 today.

Basically the answer is no, I don't understand how any of that information could ever be held back. I would question, if there is a risk and information is held back, what happens down the road if that individual does get the job and the information wasn't released and then he reoffends? Do we have to account later for not having released that information knowing that a risk was there? I just don't think we can place ourselves in a position of ever holding back information relating to previous pedophilic convictions.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Do you want to say anything on that, Mr. Headridge?

Det/Cst Bruce Headridge: I've spoken to two specialists in the field, a Dr. Peter Collins, and a Dr. Mary Anne Layden. Peter Collins is from what used to be the Clarke Institute and is now with the Ontario Provincial Police. Mary Anne Layden is also a psychiatrist with the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Layden has just testified before Congress on very similar issues. Dr. Peter Collins has testified in courts at all levels across the country. Both have told me or said, and I've heard in their lectures, that once a sexual preference is established, it will not change.

Dr. Laydon says that her attempt is not to cure the individual, but to control the individual. For those reasons I couldn't think of any reason why the record would not be or should not be released.

Mr. Eric Lowther: This is a bit of a moot point in the context of our discussion here today. Just for the record, and this goes back to the recidivism issue, these types of pedophilia-type crimes are different, I'm suggesting, and I'm looking for your concurrence, than a break and enter. They're different from even violent crimes per se perhaps in that maybe a case could be made for a pardoned record to be sealed in other scenarios. But because of the recidivism, because of what you've just articulated, isn't there a difference here in this type of crime as opposed to the other ones? If we just sort of broaden it and say we're going to look at all kinds of crimes and apply the same rules, do we muddy the waters a bit? Isn't there a bit of a distinction here between this type and other types of crime?

Mr. Gerry Peters: Yes, I do think there is a difference, and it comes down to risk, I think, level of risk, and I believe the risk of a reoffence for a pedophile is far greater, even though they're opportunistic. In many cases in the crimes they commit, what's driving the behaviour is part of an orientation within the person's personality. It relates to their deepest psyche, if I can use that word, as opposed to perhaps, as in your example, break and enter or theft, which might be opportunistic, to meet a certain need at a particular time.

• 1145

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to raise two points.

First of all, Mr. Lowther talked about two different aspects and it is important to give an answer to his questions. He first mentioned the criteria which are going to govern all record releases. I don't have a ready-made answer, but I suppose that if what determined the establishment of those criteria in the past was the consultation with people working in the field, including the RCMP, we don't have any reason to believe that things will be done differently. In other words, we will probably listen to the people who are active in the field to know how we could establish the best criteria we could possibly set.

Secondly, I do not want to get into a big debate on the issue, but

[English]

I don't know how to say that without slipping, and I don't want to slip. I want to shoot it straight. Sex offences are extremely serious. I don't think anybody is going to argue that or even think of arguing that. But there are some drug offences that are as life-shattering as sex offences. It seems to me that if we compare crimes, we are going to fall into a very, very muddy area. I would rather not. I would rather stick to the original intent of your bill and the intent of our bill, which has to do with sex offences.

Mr. Headridge, I appreciate your presentation, and I thank you both for your presentation. I understand your presentation as being more a case against the process of granting pardons than the actual flagging that is proposed by both bills. Would I be correct in this?

Det/Cst Bruce Headridge: The process is of concern. The flagging is a very valuable tool for law enforcement. I heard one of the speakers earlier today speak of section 810 of the Criminal Code. Without being able to do a proper background check, without being able to check a criminal history, for me as an investigator to investigate properly, to apply for a section 810 peace bond, my hands are so tied that I cannot do a thorough job.

My other concern is also in the event of a conviction on a new offence. How do we sentence someone with a pardon for possibly a very long history of criminal behaviour involving children when we don't even know that a pardon exists? My other concern comes not only as a policeman but as a father with three daughters, one of whom is mentally challenged. While my daughter is attending non-profit societies for education in living, my biggest concern is who is looking after her. Without the automatic release and the way it would appear to be set up now, it's not just the minister's release of the information; it first has to go to the parole board. They then submit it to the minister. I'm not sure if that's one hundred percent correct, since I'm not a lawyer, but when I look at the Criminal Records Act, it says in section 2.1:

The Board has exclusive jurisdiction to grant or issue or refuse to grant or issue or to revoke a pardon.

Mr. Jacques Saada: If I may, I would like to answer that, because this would be a very legitimate preoccupation, but it's not the case.

Det/Cst Bruce Headridge: Okay.

• 1150

Mr. Jacques Saada: Let me explain very briefly what the process would be. It would be the following. An applicant applies for a job. The employer asks him for background on his criminal or potential criminal record. The applicant goes back and applies to the police, who in turn go to CPIC to consult, and CPIC is or is not flagged. If it is flagged, they apply for the record to be unsealed. The Solicitor General agrees or disagrees. If the Solicitor General agrees, the applicant goes back to his employer with his record. It is not automatically granted that he's going to have the job by providing that. He also has to convince the employer that notwithstanding his background he can do the job and it's safe for him to do the job.

Now, if at the time he's asked to provide his criminal background he refuses to do so, the employer has a responsibility to determine whether or not they still want to pursue it.

My belief is, and I stand to be corrected if stats or facts show otherwise, that employers who are facing an applicant who refuses to get into the process of providing this criminal background are unlikely to hire this person. They're not going to take chances.

This is basically what the process is.

You referred to a number of “mays” and “woulds” and so on in the bill, but one of the things we've got to understand is that, and I hate to say it, but even we are not perfect. We establish the legislation and this legislation needs to be improved by way of regulations, for instance. Then, yes, we may enact further things to improve on the bill by regulations.

For instance, I was referring to this with Mr. Lowther, and we are going to pursue it together because I think it's a very important thing. I was referring to the 26 offences that are going to be listed in the regulations accompanying Bill C-69. If there is any need to add one more or to subtract one from that—and I'm just giving you this as an illustration of what I mean—then in this case, yes, we may. This is normal procedure. We're not dealing with the fundamentals of the bill; we're dealing with details and applications of the bill. So it's normal to have “mays”. It's not a subject of concern per se; it's just routine.

I also want to state something here, and in all honesty I don't know if I'm right or not because I will have to ask the National Parole Board to give me more details on that. I don't know whether the work they do before granting parole is or is not part of the record we are talking about concealing after pardons. But the parole board, which is in charge of granting pardons, doesn't grant pardons just because time has lapsed. There is a whole process associated with granting pardons, and within this process there are interviews that are conducted, not only with the applicant for the pardon, but also with other groups and organizations that have something to say or that may have information valid to the process, including the police.

So, as I said, I don't know if the results of these interviews and investigations are or are not made part of the record, and I will check it. I understand we are going to have the National Parole Board as witnesses before this very same committee. I will check that.

But I think it was important, because Mr. Peters and you, Mr. Headridge, and a number of the people sitting here as witnesses, including people sitting around the table.... How can I, how can you, how can we all together sit around this table and not think that we have kids at home and we have kids in situations where they could be threatened?

• 1155

The Chair: Mr. Saada, could I ask you to perhaps wind up?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm sorry. You told me I had plenty of time so....

Mr. John McKay: That's the wrong thing to say to a politician.

The Chair: As-tu fini?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes.

The Chair: Do you wish to comment on Mr. Saada's comment?

Det/Cst Bruce Headridge: That was only in the one case I was able to cite, which is a current investigation so I can't go into it in any great detail. That was the one where the 13-year-old boy has been removed by the ministry. All I know is that he hasn't yet disclosed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Headridge.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have just a very short question.

Mr. Headridge, in your opening remarks you made some comments that I found to be quite disturbing about how things were found out, that people were applying for pardons, and it almost seemed as if you just sort of fluked on to information because somebody saw him hanging around a schoolyard. Was this sort of thing done in the normal course of events, or was it essentially a fluke where somebody just noticed something peculiar and reported it? Otherwise, would these people have been more than likely to get their pardons?

Det/Cst Bruce Headridge: So far, in my experience, it has been a fluke. A lot of police work is a fluke. It's that we get lucky and we catch them, whether it be a sexual offender or a bank robber. We're in the right place at the right time, or a citizen just happens to be aware enough and phones the police at the right time so that the police can get there while the individual is still there.

The individual you're probably referring to was the body painter down at our local Wreck Beach, which is a nude beach, who is currently under investigation. But with regard to his pattern of behaviour, without conviction, he's still obviously interested in little children.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. John McKay: Mr. Lowther's bill has a certain attractiveness to it in terms of its simplicity where it says that the minister shall disclose, but then it has its limitations in terms of the schedule of offences, which might be open to some expansion.

Then we get into some level of discretion. The issue really becomes where should the discretion lie. Having looked at the two bills, do you think the discretion should lie with the minister, the National Parole Board, or the police, or should the discretion be completely eliminated from the entire system?

Det/Cst Bruce Headridge: In my opinion, if there has to be discretion in releasing pardon information about sexual offenders and children, my vote would have to go for the minister.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I have a comment, going back to Mr. Saada's comment about getting the flagged record. It's flagged, and you go up and get the record from the Solicitor General. Let's say this candidate does have a pardoned record, and he brings this back to the hiring institution. He says, I've been clean, but I have a pardoned record of pedophilia, and then the hiring institution says, we're not hiring you with that. I just submit to the committee, as I understand it, that at that point they could be in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That's part of the reason we attached that amendment.

Mr. Jacques Saada: There are plenty of precedents even established by the Supreme Court to say there are some limitations to the concept of discrimination, and this could be part of that.

Mr. Eric Lowther: We're talking about flagging. Both bills talk about flagging. I want to work together. I don't want to get into a competition on bills, but I guess that's the road we're on. No matter what we do here, we have to compare the pluses and minuses of each. Both bills talk about flagging the record.

• 1200

But then we have this discretion comment, following on what Mr. McKay is saying. Mr. Headridge, you said that if we have to have discretion, leave it with the Solicitor General. I'm saying that if the conditions are met up front—hiring organization, person signed off on the record check, there is a pardon there—do we need discretion? The conditions are met. Where's the discretion? Can't we give it to the agency that's doing the hiring? Would you be in favour of that scenario, as opposed to a discretionary component in the chain somewhere?

Det/Cst Bruce Headridge: First, for the investigator in the field, flagging is a wonderful tool. It doesn't give us a great deal of information. It only tells us that there's more to the story, the big picture.

The second part of the scenario is, am I going to be able to get ahold of this information? That seems to be the key issue. Both bills readily agree that the flagging of sexual offences against children is not really an issue. The issue seems to be whether or not the minister should release that information and whether or not he may do so. In my opinion, there is no reason not to release that information because of the risk factor that's involved with a sexual predator. It may turn out that the man's sexual preference may have nothing to do with the job he's applying for, but it should be the right of the agency that's going to hire him and be responsible civilly for his conduct to at least know there's something there and to be able to make an informed decision rather than an uninformed one.

I think the minister should release the record if it involved the sexual exploitation of children and if the person is applying for a position of trust over children, only under those circumstances. As Bill C-69 also points out, that would also include the mentally and physically challenged as well as the elderly, but I was brought here today to speak about children.

The Chair: The side on my right has another round, if they wish to take it.

Mr. John McKay: Just to follow up on that, for some entities, such as the Boy Scouts, it's pretty easy to determine that they are interested in the welfare of children. For some entities, however, it would be much less apparent on the face of it that this is an organization that is involved with the welfare of children. Just because one is applying for a position not involving children doesn't mean that down the road that same organization couldn't place that individual in a situation involving children. So I wonder whether the premise that the organization has to be on a schedule of organizations or it has to be involved with children is a false premise. I'm curious to hear your response to that.

Det/Cst Bruce Headridge: I don't know if I would consider it a false premise. I would say that it involves children, and it would have to coincide with the legislation that's already in existence. The Criminal Code specifies the ages quite clearly. If the individual has a record of offences against children in general, then I think that should be disclosed automatically.

• 1205

Mr. John McKay: Should it be disclosed to anyone?

Det/Cst Bruce Headridge: No, just to the police and the organization that is making the application.

I believe both bills clearly state that the only people this information will go to will be the police, on behalf of the organization, and to the organization for determining if the party is suitable for employment or to be hired as a volunteer. There are strict penalties under both bills if they violate that.

Mr. Gerry Peters: If I could comment, does your dilemma in the example you gave not relate to provincial policy, really? You were talking about having a criminal record check done, and if the individual started in an organization in one capacity that didn't involve children, but then subsequently moved to an area where he was involved with children, he would have gone around or skirted the mandatory criminal record check.

Mr. John McKay: Exactly.

Mr. Gerry Peters: But that organization being somewhat involved in the care of children probably wouldn't require all of its employees possibly to get criminal record checks, but certainly those who did work in that area of the organization. So those people would have been required through some provincial guideline to have that done once. Perhaps then there would be additional requirements that anyone who does move either from outside or within the agency to that area would be required to have the check done for their employer.

Am I getting that right?

Mr. John McKay: Yes, you stated the dilemma well. I just don't know how to address it and I'm just soliciting comment as to how one could address that issue.

Mr. Gerry Peters: Perhaps it has to work in a retroactive fashion.

The Chair: Mr. McKay, thank you very much.

I'd like to thank the panel again for their presentation here this morning and for your frankness. Thank you very much.

I would ask the committee members if we could just have a quick in camera discussion of a matter dealing with our Corrections and Conditional Release Act subcommittee. Thank you very much.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]