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]

Tuesday, March 23, 1999

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Perhaps we can call the meeting to order for a few minutes. It looks like we have a half-hour bell before a vote.

We have with us today Mr. Richard Zubrycki from the Ministry of the Solicitor General; Pierre Couturier from the National Parole Board; Robert Terris from the RCMP, and Gessie Clément as well.

The routine we usually have is roughly a 10-minute presentation for each of you who wish to make a presentation, followed by questions and answers. Let's see how far we can get before we have to run out. Hopefully we won't be too long, and we ask for your indulgence in waiting for us. We'd like to complete this today, if we could.

Mr. Zubrycki.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki (Director General, Corrections Directorate, Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're grateful for the opportunity to be here to assist the committee with its study of Bill C-284. We'll certainly do our best to provide answers to the questions you may have.

Some material has been passed around in advance. I hope everyone has received it and has had an opportunity to look at it.

Between us, we'll certainly try to answer the questions you have about the pardon system, the Canadian Police Information Centre and the Canadian criminal records system, screening of applicants for positions of trust, and, although I realize it will have its own day before this committee, Bill C-69, to the extent the committee is interested in hearing any details about that government bill. I will try to speak as briefly as I can, so there's adequate time for questions.

It goes without saying that all parliamentarians as well as the Canadian public share the objective of protecting our children, and vulnerable adults for that matter, as best we can. I think the only question at issue is how best to do that.

The department's view of Bill C-284 is that it would not be particularly effective in achieving that objective, although there's no question the objective of the shared interest I mentioned is incorporated in Bill C-284.

As I understand it, Bill C-284 would do one primary thing. There are several facets to it, but it would primarily compel the Solicitor General to disclose records of convictions for sex offences against children. In the department's view, this would be an unnecessary restriction on ministerial discretion. It would apply to a very limited number of offences and ex-offenders. It also lacks sufficient safeguards against the unwarranted disclosure of criminal records to third parties.

In our view, the Solicitor General already has sufficient authority to disclose pardoned records under the Criminal Records Act. The Criminal Records Act specifies that for the purposes of administration of justice and national security, the minister has the authority to unseal and disclose those pardoned records when they're requested. That would certainly include doing background checks to screen persons seeking positions of trust.

We're not aware of any particular problems with the exercise of that authority. Certainly in the consultations we've conducted, with the public and with our federal, provincial, and territorial colleagues, this has never been raised as an issue. No proposals have been put forward during those consultations to change the authority the minister has or the way it's conducted.

Right now, the minister receives requests to unseal pardoned records for a variety of purposes, and in about 60% of those cases those records are unsealed.

• 1540

Requests are received for a variety of purposes, such as appointment to other sensitive positions, law enforcement positions, federal boards of various kinds, and for prosecutorial and sentencing purposes. We just did a quick review of the last three years or so and about 60% are unsealed.

But among the requests the minister receives—and there are only about 8 to 20 per year—there are virtually none for the purpose of screening persons seeking positions of trust. In our view, the problem is not with the Solicitor General's authority; it's really the fact that nobody knows when there is a pardon record to seek. This was confirmed in the consultations we conducted, particularly with our provincial and territorial colleagues, where we consulted with senior prosecutorial officials. In all those jurisdictions, it was agreed this was the problem that needed to be dealt with.

As you probably know, when a pardon is granted, the record is removed from the regular Canadian Police Information Centre database and placed in a sealed database. The conviction is not erased and the record is not destroyed; it's sealed and kept in a separate and restricted database that only RCMP staff who manage that database have access to.

That record cannot be accessed without the Solicitor General's authority. That means when a routine screening search is conducted by a police officer in the field, he finds a blank screen in the automated database on his terminal in the police station. In effect, he gets the same response as if there were no record. In that case, neither he nor the organization he's screening on behalf of would be aware there was a pardoned record. Even though it might be well-known that a pardoned record could be unsealed, if it's not known there is one, it won't be requested.

If such a request were received, at this time the Solicitor General has sufficient authority to unseal that record and have it disclosed. Given the sort of criteria the minister would consider, I would be relatively certain that in most of those cases unsealing would take place.

Bill C-69, the government bill, attempts to deal with that problem. As I say, it's a problem that was identified through consultations and confirmed by ministers from all jurisdictions, who agreed to a proposal to deal with that by making the pardoned record visible during a screening search.

This would provide that under certain circumstances the existence of a pardoned record would be known. The circumstances would be where the purpose of the search was for screening persons seeking positions of trust, not just with children but with other vulnerable groups as well. It would always be based on the informed consent of the applicant whom the search was being conducted about. That person's record would have a sex offence on it that would be specified in either a schedule to the act or, in this case, regulations to the act.

That list of sex offences would be broader than what would normally be accessed under Bill C-284. Bill C-284, as I understand it, specifies that the record will be for a sex offence against a child. If we look at the offences in the Criminal Code that would fit that description, there are about 14 or 15 of them. The list of offences that would be contained in regulations to Bill C-69 would contain about 30 offences. They would be broader than simply sex offences that, on the face, are sex offences against children. The reason for that is it's often not possible to tell from the record whether the victim was a child or not.

Some offences are specifically offences against children, but in others, such as aggravated sexual assault, the victim could be of any age and it would not be known from the record of that conviction if it was a child or not. So there are a number of sex offences that would be relevant.

• 1545

Some would argue that in any event the age of the victim is not always that important. If someone is prepared to commit a sexual offence against a 20-year-old adult female, does that mean the person would not also be a risk in the presence of a 16-year-old girl? So the broader set of offences will be more inclusive for those reasons.

When and if the pardon record is unsealed, the whole record would be provided. Again, as I read C-284, only the record of the sex offence against the child would be provided. Under C-69 the whole record would be provided, so the pattern of offending could be assessed and the seriousness of that pattern could be understood by the screening agency.

With that scope of application, we recognize that we have to be very careful when we're limiting the effect of the Criminal Records Act and the effect of a pardon. Pardons are granted for good reasons. Pardons are meant, first of all, to recognize a consistent period of crime-free behaviour and, secondly, to help maintain a stable, law-abiding adjustment of those pardon recipients. In fact, if we look at it from that perspective, the pardon system has been quite successful. In the past 28 years, almost 250,000 pardons have been granted and just over 6,000 have been revoked for a new offence. That's a failure rate, if you want to call it that, of about 2.6%. I would submit that for a system that's designed and operated by human beings, this is a failure rate that would be very difficult to reduce further.

It's interesting to note, too, that our estimate, which is based on a sample, is that eight years have elapsed since the last offence before the pardon is granted. So we're talking about a pool of individuals who have established a fairly credible record of law-abiding behaviour before the pardon is even granted. Certainly, we would not want to interfere with that stable, law-abiding adjustment of those many thousands of individuals who are maintaining a law-abiding lifestyle, just as the pardon system is meant to promote.

Interestingly, sex offenders who have received pardons display a similar rate of success, or failure, whichever way you want to look at it. I said that overall in that close to 250,000 pardons the failure rate is about 2.6%. If we look at just the pardoned sex offenders within that group who reoffend with a new sex offence, the proportion is just about the same, 2.6%. For sex offenders who have their pardon revoked because of any new offence, the failure rate is slightly higher, about 5.1%. Again, I have to caution that these are estimates based on a sample of cases we've looked at. Still, it's an overall failure rate that's relatively low, and certainly the failure rate with a new sex offence is, as I say, the same as for other offenders.

Having said that—and I certainly don't want to trivialize the problem—we recognize that where a person with a sex offence on their record applies for a position of trust with a group of people who are objectively vulnerable, the risk that's posed to those individuals is heightened. This is a situation we certainly do want to be vigilant about, and special precautions are necessary in those cases.

The government recognized that some years ago when the national screening system was put in place in 1994. The national screening system already allows organizations that deal with vulnerable persons to ask police to conduct a background check, and if a record is found, irrespective of whether or not it contains a sex offence, that record is made available through the applicant to the organization for them to review. This reveals the whole record, as I say. It's always done with the consent of that individual. When they're asked for their consent, the individual has the option, of course, to refuse it, to not obtain their record, and to explain to the organization why they refused to give their consent. In most cases those individuals will simply screen themselves out of the process, so there is a self-screening incentive there by applying that screening system. To date over 700,000 of these background record checks have been conducted through the cooperation of local police, volunteer organizations, the Canadian Police Information Centre, and the Department of the Solicitor General.

• 1550

The Chair: Could we ask you to wind down in the next couple of minutes so that we can start asking some questions?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: As I said, where a pardon has been granted, that national screening system doesn't work because there's no indication that there is a pardoned record. Bill C-69 will fill that gap in the national screening system by providing for a notation or flag to be placed on the criminal history record, and when a screening search is done, a flag will appear. When the operator enters a code that indicates that the purpose of the search is for screening, a flag will be seen. At that point they'll realize that they should request fingerprints and submit the fingerprints to CPIC for review. When that review is conducted, the pardoned record will be found.

It will automatically be brought to the attention of the minister, who will consider it for unsealing. In that case the whole record would be disclosed. This will apply not only to cases in the future, but it will also be retroactive and it will apply to all pardon files of sex offenders that are on the system today. We'll place in the regulations to the act the criteria the minister takes into account when he considers unsealing so that they'll be transparent. Regulations will define vulnerable groups as well as children, and probably it will simply be under age 18.

So we'll have that process all set out, if not in the act, then in the regulations. It will make it clear that the system is always based on the informed consent of the individual and that fingerprints should be a part of the process to confirm identities so that no mistakes are made.

As I've said, this proposal to flag records was considered by a federal-provincial working group. It was one of ten recommendations made to federal, provincial, and territorial ministers and approved by them last October. So that flagging process was developed in cooperation with and, I should say, in collaboration with the parole board and CPIC, and it was supported by all jurisdictions. This was the mechanism they found to be best suited to dealing with this problem.

With that, I'll certainly accede to your request and wrap up, and we'll reply to whatever questions you have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Zubrycki. As I understand it, you're the only presenter from the panel and the others are here just to answer questions.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther.

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

Thank you for the presentation. I have a couple of questions here. When C-284 was originally introduced in the House, a document was distributed and came into my possession that stated “The Solicitor General does not support this bill for the following reasons”, and it gave a number of reasons. Was your department, Mr. Zubrycki, involved in preparing that document?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: I believe so. I don't think we necessarily produced that document, but I'm sure we had a part in its production.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Part of what that document said was that the bill—and I'm referring to Bill C-284—“will give the public a false sense of security rather than enhanced public safety”. It went on to explain that a little bit. It also said “Notwithstanding the penalties set out in the bill”, C-284, “it would be difficult if not impossible to maintain control of or monitor the use of information contained in the pardoned record once it was disclosed”. There are a number of other comments that sort of suggested it wasn't a good thing to move ahead on.

• 1555

Yet now we have Bill C-69. I wonder why that would come along and whether it wouldn't also give the public a false sense of security. Wouldn't it also potentially have the same risks? If I understand what you presented to us today, you're comfortable with Bill C-69 but not with Bill C-284. Why would that be?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: There are some significant differences between the two proposals. The reason behind that statement, as best as I understand it, is that in our view, Bill C-284 really won't achieve very much, because as I've said, right now the Solicitor General receives virtually no requests to unseal pardoned records for the purposes of screening for positions of trust. So, in effect, whether or not the Solicitor General was compelled to disclose records under those circumstances wouldn't change anything. At least in the view of some, that would provide a false sense of security, because people would be led to believe that it is resulting in some greater disclosure of this information.

By using a flagging approach and putting a notation on the criminal history record, Bill C-69 will bring to the attention of screeners that there is a pardoned record that should be sought out. To the extent that screening is being done, and this is more and more common among voluntary sector agencies, that should then help them understand and feel more secure that when a search is done, they will get the whole record.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Your concern is more around the mechanics of it. You're saying you can flag it in Bill C-69, but Bill C-284 doesn't talk about flagging, so how is it going to work? Is that the operational side of it? It seems....

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: My concern would be results.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: I think by taking the flagging approach, which certainly does in some way restrict the rights and entitlements of pardoned recipients.... That approach does have to be couched in legislation, with appropriate safeguards and limitations on it. That's why it's set out in legislation. But it's not so much the mechanics of it, it's the end result.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So if Bill C-284 allowed for flagging, you'd be more comfortable.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: I think the flagging approach is one element of an effective approach. Whether it's in one bill or another, I think it has merit combined with a number of other things, including, for example, the question of consent. It would be essential, in our view, that consent be provided for.

When I spoke about the dangers of unwarranted disclosure, it's not so much further disclosure by the screening agency that receives that information, but disclosure in the first instance to that agency, because if the individual does not choose to proceed with their application and chooses to keep the record unexposed, then the same end result is achieved. That person is screened out of that position.

If they don't have that opportunity, then that information will be disclosed before they have any opportunity to influence whether this happens or not, possibly without their knowledge.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Isn't this really a case of what's going to be in the regulations and what's not going to be in the regulations? Bill C-69 doesn't even specify any particular crime. It refers to regulations to specify the crimes that we might access the pardoned records for. Bill C-284 doesn't specify the way it will be flagged or the conditions that will be required to be met, but it does allow for the minister to receive an undertaking in writing in a form prescribed by the minister. So it gives lots of latitude to put the checks in place, allow the consent—however you want to structure that part of it within the regulations. So it seems to me we're getting into what's in the regulations and the legislation.

I would suggest to you, and I look for your response, that Bill C-284 allows a great deal of latitude for the Solicitor General to determine how these organizations would get access to the record, because Bill C-284 simply says that the minister can receive an undertaking in writing in a form prescribed by the minister. It doesn't preclude using CPIC, if that's the route the Solicitor General and the department elect to go.

• 1600

Remember, there are only 12,000 sexual offenders who have been pardoned in the last 28 years anyway. Calgary, in my riding, has 700,000 people in the phone book. This is a small number of people that we need to keep track of. And whether it's CPIC or a catalogue under lock and key, those are decisions that can be made by the department. Maybe they don't need to be in the regulations, as long as the latitude is there for the minister, as Bill C-284 provides.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: I'll just say a couple of things in response. Of course, Bill C-284 does not provide any specific regulation-making authority, but it's arguable that regulations could nevertheless be made. Certainly to my reading of it, Bill C-284 does not speak to flagging whatsoever; there's nothing about flagging in it. And I would submit that it would be difficult to achieve that simply through regulations. We would need a proper statutory base to underpin that, because of the potential detrimental impact it would have on possibly thousands of other offenders.

Regarding the specificity of the offences, I personally don't find Bill C-284 very specific about what offences should or should not be included and exactly how one would decide what offences to include. Would they be offences that specifically make reference to children? Would they be offences that make no reference to children, but somewhere on the record you might find a reference to a child victim? This is very unclear. I have to say I'm not a lawyer or a legal draftsperson, but I really doubt this could all be provided for in regulations.

What we have attempted to do in Bill C-69 is to provide a statutory framework that does allow some flexibility down the road through regulations, so as requirements change we can make some adjustments but at the same time provide a good, solid statutory basis. Absolutely, flagging is the central feature in that legislation. And, with respect, I don't think it is or could be provided for in Bill C-284.

The Chair: This is the last question, please.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Are you in support of providing organizations that care for children the information that the person who is applying for a job with them has a pardoned record of sexual offence against children?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Yes.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. John McKay.

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

What timeframe are we at in terms of when we're supposed to go back to the House?

The Chair: These are just quorum calls.

Mr. John McKay: Okay.

I know you've been following this testimony, and in some respects it's like a prehearing on Bill C-69. The interesting questions are coming up about what a pardon means. When is a pardon going to be a pardon? I wonder whether the department has a view with respect to the granting of a pardon on these 15 offences—I now hear it's 15 offences.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Actually, our call is 14.

Mr. John McKay: I heard it was 26, and now it's 30 on your bill. We're playing with numbers here, regardless.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: We forgot a few.

Mr. John McKay: Does the department have a view with respect to whether, in the area of these 15—or 14—offences, as the case may be, there might well be a schedule of offences for which no pardon is available? We have a bit of an anomalous situation here. If I'm sentenced to life for murder, I'm not entitled to a pardon. Yet the chances of my rehabilitation are probably far more significant than if I am convicted of one of these 14 or 15 offences. There seemed to be some consensus in the testimony that people just simply do not recover from this kind of condition.

So what would be the department's view with respect to making pardons unavailable for these kinds of offences and taking that right out of the equation?

• 1605

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: There are a couple of things. Of course, lifers are not eligible for a pardon because their sentence never ends. So there's a requirement that there has to be a crime-free period after the completion of the sentence.

You may know that under Bill C-55 we introduced a new long-term offender category with long-term supervision of up to ten years following the completion of a prison sentence. So we've lengthened very much the period of time—and I should say the long-term offender provisions are directed specifically at sex offenders. In effect, we've lengthened the period of time for up to ten years following completion of the sentence before the clock, in effect, starts ticking for that crime-free waiting period. We have pushed that off quite a ways, not through Bill C-69 but through previous legislation.

But I have to say, and I hope we don't get into a major debate on this, that sex offenders simply do not reoffend at a very high rate. You say lifers have a good prospect of rehabilitation. In fact, they do. They have one of the lowest reoffending rates of any category of offenders.

Next to them, probably, are sex offenders. Sex offenders and drug offenders are probably the two next lowest reoffending groups. That doesn't mean it's insignificant. The consequences of those offences are serious, but at the same time there are many sex offenders who do not reoffend. Some will say, well, they do and we don't know about it. But the numbers are very clear.

Mr. John McKay: I think that's the point of Mr. Lowther's bill. We're not quibbling as to whether these individuals get involved in the criminal justice system again. We're talking about a designation, if you will, of a lifestyle, and these individuals may well not offend as we would understand the word “offence,” but they would still be applying for the kinds of jobs Mr. Lowther is worried about, and be involved with children. There's no way in the current system a police officer could give that information.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: No, but certainly under Bill C-69 you would. That's the whole point of Bill C-69. We recognize that this is a small group of offenders, the ones who potentially have that risk, but certainly in the circumstances where a position of trust is applied for, the risk is heightened. Even if, as I'm saying, statistically the risk is actually quite low for this large group of offenders, the risk is heightened in that circumstance and we should take special precautions. That is reason to limit to some extent the effect of the pardon.

Mr. John McKay: So it's your view that the individual who commits this kind of offence should ultimately be able to get a pardon.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Certainly I would say so. Our current estimates—and I apologize that they're somewhat different from numbers you may have seen in the past—are that in those 250,000 offenders who have received pardons, there are something like 4,250 sex offenders, people with a sex offence on their record. Out of that, over 4,000 sex offenders, about 114—again, this is an estimate—would commit a new sex offence. In effect, that proposition would deny the pardon to that group of 4,000 so that this group of 114 will not have a pardon.

Mr. John McKay: Well, that's not entirely fair. We know that group of 114 committed an offence. It doesn't mean they're not back in the general population, and it doesn't mean they're not applying for jobs such as Mr. Lowther is concerned about or being a “risk” to the community.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: But as Bill C-284 would do, Bill C-69 would acknowledge that because of that risk, that whole group of over 4,000 should have their entitlements with a pardon limited. So if they were to apply for a position of trust, they should be in a position where the existence of that pardoned record would be known to the screeners, and the individual would be given some option of whether they screen themselves out or not, but ultimately that information, the whole record, would then be provided.

Mr. John McKay: Are you prepared to table your regs and your schedule of offences with Bill C-69?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: That's our intention. The regs are not all drafted, but we're working hard to have them drafted in time.

• 1610

Mr. John McKay: Really, Bill C-69 becomes a bit of an exercise in good faith, for which Mr. Lowther has some degree of cynicism—and justifiably, may I suggest. I would suggest strongly to the department and to the minister, don't bother coming before the committee without all of that prepared, because my view of it is that it's a package deal.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Can the committee give me a deadline?

Mr. John McKay: I'll leave that to our estimable chair.

The final area is simply how the exercise of the discretion would occur. I take it that you would be of the view that this discretion, whatever the discretion might be, whether it's a circumscribed discretion or a more liberal discretion, shall we say, is to be exercised by the minister.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: That would be consistent with your position? Okay, good. Thanks.

The Chair: This is round two.

Mr. Lowther and Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I want to follow up on Mr. McKay's comments, and I appreciate them.

I do have some confusion here. I heard in the regulation there are 15 offences. Mr. McKay thought there were 15 and Mr. Zubrycki thought 14. Yesterday, Mr. Saada was telling me there are 26. I have not seen this list, and I would really request that you table that. If we're debating the merits of both bills, it would certainly do me a lot of good, and probably the committee, I would hope, if we knew exactly what that list was, for trading off between these two bills.

Let me say that we're here as a committee debating this issue of giving children's organizations access to conviction records of pedophiles, and we all want to get there. Whether it's Bill C-69 or Bill C-284, I'm prepared to work together to get us there, but it's hard to do that when you don't have these other issues clearly defined, like regulations, and so on.

Mr. Zubrycki, on the comments you've made about the success of the current system, I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from on this. First of all, yes, the Solicitor General does disclose, if he's asked, a lot of times, but most people don't know to ask, because of course there's no indication. I think you may have made reference to that.

On top of that, on the failure rate you point to, the recidivism side of this, the reconviction, we've had many people come before us, the police association, for example, who said there are often many, many incidents of these kinds of abusive situations going on before somebody is actually caught. So to say, gee, only 2.6% of these people reoffend, really what you're saying is that only 2.6% of them actually get caught. We don't know how many of them reoffend, but people who are at the front line tend to suggest it's quite a few more.

I need clarification on our numbers here, because I'm looking at the federal-provincial-territorial task force, the one you made reference to, and that particular report told us there were 12,000 pardoned sex offenders since they started doing the automatic pardon once the criteria were met.

In addition, the corrections research that has been done—and I can give the committee the exact volume and reference number—is saying, and I'm quoting:

The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offences, who selected extrafamilial boy victims, and who were never married.

That's after a 15- to 30-year follow-up period. Yet I think I heard you say that the recidivism rate for this is no different from any other crime. The department's own studies tend to suggest just the opposite. So there's a disconnect here for me.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: There are several things there. I'll try to deal with all of them.

As far as regulations go, I'm sorry if I left any confusion about the numbers. What I meant to say, and I hope I've said it, is that with regard to Bill C-284, as best as we can understand what offences would be caught by that definition, we count 14 in the Criminal Code—sex offences against children. Bill C-69 will deal with a broader set of offences; I think right now the list we have is 26 offences, but we know there are a couple that we have not included yet that should be added, so it will be approaching 30 offences.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Can you table those today, Mr. Zubrycki?

• 1615

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: I myself would not be at liberty to do that, but I will certainly ask the department if that's possible. We are drafting regulations as fast as we can, and when we're incorporating regulations, certainly the committee would see them then. But if we can circulate them quicker than that, we'll certainly do it.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, we're going clause by clause on Bill C-284 tomorrow, and it's pretty hard to make decisions without those—

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: I apologize. It's just that it's not within my authority to make that commitment to the committee, but we will certainly attempt to do that in advance of the regulations being prepared. That's the most I can commit to at this stage.

On the issue about how many of these offenders are not caught, I suppose you can say that about any offence. Some would say these are very devious people, that certainly some of them rack up a very large number of offences before they are actually caught. I couldn't quarrel with any of that. All I can say is that when you look at the reoffending rates over a long period of time and compare offence types, sex offenders reoffend at a comparatively lower rate. In particular, pedophiles and incest offenders are at the lowest rate among sex offenders. I'm just reporting what the research tells us. How important is that? I don't know if it's that important.

Certainly, we did those estimates—the ones you quote—because we are working to a very tight deadline. We did not have actual numbers, so we had to draw estimates. We did that by looking at a sample of pardon cases and by extrapolating from the samples across that quarter of a million cases. Those are the numbers we came up with. Since then, we've had a bit more time. The combined sample we looked at, at that time, was only 285 cases. Since then, we've looked at a sample of over 1,100 cases, and those numbers came down. We suspected they were high, and they have come down.

Again, I don't know how important it is. I think we're agreeing that for a fairly large number of offenders, there are a small number we're concerned about and we need to find a mechanism to deal with that group. I don't think there's any quarrel with that, but I have to say that for the numbers you're looking at there, for the 12,000, our estimates are based on our current sampling of 4,225. For the sex offenders who reoffend with a new sex offence, the number is 114. Those are the estimates we have at this time.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Can I ask where those are coming from? I'm looking—

The Chair: Mr. Lowther, can we come back to that, please? We're way over our time.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Could I just finish with Mr. Lowther's question?

The Chair: Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: On the 77% rate you quote, I have to say that if you look at that study, the sample is drawn from sex offenders released from a maximum security prison. The 77% itself refers to the highest-risk group within that sample. The sample was of 191 offenders, and the 77% applies to 11 offenders within that larger group of 191. If you read on in that summary, there is a line that says the lowest-risk group within that larger group reoffended at a rate of 20%, and that involved 40 cases.

Again, there's not really much point having a debate about the numbers and the research, but this is a sample of extremely high-risk offenders. Naturally, you'd expect to find that kind of result, but these are not pardoned offenders. At the risk of sounding facetious, I would ask how many of them had a pardon at the time, because pardoned offenders tend to be the lowest risk of this group.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, I'm in doubt, or I'd give you the answer to that question.

The Chair: Mr. Zubrycki, thank you.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Many witnesses suggested various levels of discretion to us in their presentations.

[English]

Of course, Bill C-69 deals with maintaining discretion at the SolGen level. The Canadian Police Association has requested that the discretion be brought to the police level. Some witnesses this morning have requested that it be at the level of the organization, the potential employers, if I may say so. According to you, what would be the best arguments to justify that it remain at the SolGen level?

• 1620

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Well, there are a couple of things. One of them is that having discretion at a very high level within the system is important. It's an important safeguard. When we begin to restrict the rights and entitlements of individuals who have certain guarantees, not just under this statute, but under the charter, under the Canadian Human Rights Act or under the Privacy Act, we have to be sure that limitation of their entitlements is done very cautiously and is well justified. This is one important safeguard that provides some protection under those guarantees of civil liberties, that ensures that when these limitations are applied, they will be applied for a good reason.

What is the best way to make the strongest guarantee? I would argue that it's to place it at the highest level possible in the system, and that would be with the minister. I don't think ministers generally have a lot of time to deal with these kinds of decisions on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, it has always been regarded as important that it be placed at that level, so I think this is probably the strongest reason.

There's also the question of consistency. I cannot imagine a variety of police forces, organizations, or whatever they are, around the country applying this sort of discretion in an even-handed, comparable manner. So, again, having that discretion in one place makes it visible. It will be consistent. Of course, this is also the essence of ministerial accountability. If that discretion is not applied in a reasonable fashion, he will be accountable in Parliament.

Mr. Jacques Saada: There is a process that is envisaged in C-69. Of course, I know we're talking about C-284, but I think we are all trying to achieve the same goal, so I think it's good if we can just simply look at them together. The process in C-69 includes ministerial discretion, it includes the flagging, and it includes a role for the applicant, of course, as opposed to C-284. How confident are you that with these provisions, Bill C-69 is likely to resist a charter challenge, is likely to resist any challenge based on the Privacy Act or human rights?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: On all three scores, we have looked very carefully at what the risks are, we've had advice from Department of Justice, and we've consulted with the privacy commissioner's office. We are reasonably certain, but you can never be absolutely certain in any of these cases that a case will not come along in which the risk will turn out to be high and a case might be lost. However, we are given reasonable assurances that the risk is low on all of those scores, and that we would withstand a test, given the safeguards we've built in. In fact, those safeguards have been built in because of advice we've received from those sources.

Mr. Jacques Saada: You know my position on this already; it's quite clear. Are you saying the best way to achieve Mr. Lowther's goal of protecting children against potential harm would be by C-69, by virtue of its chances to survive a challenge, as opposed to C-284, which can be defeated by a challenge?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: I think that's one of the strengths of C-69, but it's certainly not the only one. We've looked carefully at those issues and we've designed that legislation to deal with the potential challenges under any of those—

Mr. Jacques Saada: Are there any common grounds between C-284 and C-69?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: I have looked hard at the comparisons between the two. To be quite honest, though, apart from the laudable objective they both share, I do not see any compatibility between them.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Lowther.

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

• 1625

I have a couple of questions. Are the 14 child sex offences included in Bill C-284 included in the list of 26 you're bringing for Bill C-69?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Yes, for sure.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So there's some common ground right there, isn't there? Good.

Isn't it possible that if I decline to hire someone once the department has given me the information that they have been involved in some sort of pardon for a sexual offence against children, that I, as the hiring institution, could now be charged with a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act for not hiring that person? I would then be forced to incur whatever legal fees would be involved to defend myself under Bill C-69.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: There's nothing that can prevent you from being sued if someone has a mind to sue you. But the Canadian Human Rights Act does provide a reasonableness test in section 15, and we're confident we meet that test of reasonableness because the provisions are carefully targeted on a particular set of offences and offenders that clearly bear a relationship to the kinds of positions that would be screened. The sorts of restrictions that would be placed on them, and the safeguards as to consent and ministerial discretion, would all, as a package, provide a set of circumstances that would survive a reasonableness test.

Mr. Eric Lowther: If I may interrupt for the sake of time, pardon me, but if you, sir, were in the situation where you were administrating this children's organization and you decided not to hire someone because they had a pardoned record and Bill C-69 was in place, wouldn't there be some concern that if I don't hire them I am going to find myself in court, whereas with Bill C-284 you could relax because you know it's clearly laid out that you can make this decision without any kind of prejudice?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an expert in that area of law, but I'm not so certain that Bill C-284 would survive such a test. I can't say what considerations went into its construction, but I would think because of the lack of safeguards, because of the comparative arbitrariness of the disclosure, it would run probably quite a high risk of running into trouble.

As I say, I'm not an expert on that. You would have to interview Justice officials if you really want a concise answer.

I should also point out that the Canadian Human Rights Act of course applies solely to federal agencies and most of the people doing this hiring fall within provincial jurisdiction. That may be a little too cute, because of course we do hope and expect that the laws will be respected and supported by everyone. But strictly speaking, most of these organizations are not regulated by the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Mr. Eric Lowther: One of the items, it was suggested, that Bill C-69 benefits us with that Bill C-284 does not was released in a press release from the Solicitor General's office. It talked about one of the things it offers is specifying in the regulations the factors to be considered when the Solicitor General is deciding whether to unseal a pardoned record. I've not seen that in Bill C-69 or in any of the amendments. Can you help us understand what are the factors that will be considered by the Solicitor General when deciding to unseal or not unseal a criminal record?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Generally speaking, they'd be the same factors that are considered now. This is the policy that is followed, and we will place that policy, or at least the essence of the policy, in the regulations so it's more transparent. Basically the Solicitor General will look at factors such as the length of time since the last offence; looking at the whole record, the seriousness of the offences and the pattern of offending; the sensitivity of the position applied for; and any other relevant factors. But in particular the minister will be concerned that there is a connection between the position applied for and the record that is contained.

If in fact a request for a record came forward that might be styled as a screening request, but there's clearly no relationship between the position applied for and the nature of the record, in a case like that the minister might decide not to disclose. But if those factors indicate that there clearly is a connection, there is a risk, then those would be the factors that would lead him to decide to disclose.

• 1630

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have one question for Ms. Clément, if I may. I understand you work with CPIC and you're in charge of the sealed files in CPIC.

Ms. Gessie Clément (Officer in Charge of the Canadian Criminal Records Information Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): I actually am the officer in charge of the Canadian Criminal Records Information Services. CPIC is actually the database in which we put the information.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I don't know to whom I should ask my question, but I'm going to ask it any way.

In practical terms, physically speaking, what happens when you get an application for a file that the solicitor general has authorized the disclosure of?

Ms. Gessie Clément: Normally, since we would know that it was a file for a person who has received a pardon, we ourselves would ask the minister for authorization to disclose the information. We would provide the minister with the criminal records of the person who received a pardon, which would contain all the necessary information, including the reasons why we believe that disclosure is in the public's interest. The minister would ask us to forward his response.

Mr. Jacques Saada: When the file of a pardoned person is disclosed, it is for a very specific purpose, it is part of a very specific request. For example, it might be for a very specific job application. Is that right?

Ms. Gessie Clément: Exactly, sir.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Does the organization that receives this information has a responsibility not to disclose it to other organizations?

Ms. Gessie Clément: That's an excellent question. Normally, the file of a person who has received a pardon is not disclosed to a third party. Instead, the person himself is notified, and he can decide whether or not he wants to present his file when he applies for a job.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, I understand, but there may be another problem that we should look at.

Let's assume, for example, that my file shows that I have received a pardon for a previous offence and in order to get a job, I decide to authorize disclosure of the file to a possible employer, let's call him employer A. What would keep employer A, who has my file on his desk because I have provided it to him, from passing it on to organization B? Does the act contain any guarantee that that will not happen?

Ms. Gessie Clément: The Privacy Act and the Criminal Records Act prohibit the disclosure of the file of a person who has received a pardon.

Mr. Jacques Saada: So, whether you invoke Bill C-284 or Bill C-69, in either case, this guarantee does exist to cover us. Is that right?

Ms. Gessie Clément: Yes, according to the Privacy Act—

Mr. Jacques Saada: When a file is disclosed, the people to whom it is disclosed are subject to statutes that prohibit them from disclosing it to others.

Ms. Gessie Clément: Yes, that's what it says in the Criminal Records Act and the Privacy Act.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Fine.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I have one more question, Mr. Chair. I wonder if Mr. Zubrycki is familiar with the report of—and I assume he is and I'm looking at the report here—the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on High-Risk Violent Offenders that came out in October 1998. Are you familiar with that?

Since we have different numbers floating around here in front of the committee, that particular report states that 12,039 pardons were given to sex offenders during the last, I think, 28 years. Then it also states that 704 of those pardoned sex offenders recommitted a sex offence. To my way of thinking, about 7% of the total number of pardoned sex offenders were caught a second time after the pardon. We don't know how many of the others weren't caught.

• 1635

My first question is, are you okay with those numbers? Second, if the conditions are met and those people are put in situations of care and trust over children, why would you ever deny that record to an organization?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Of course, the only number I'd be okay with would be zero. We obviously have to do everything we can to reduce those numbers. I have to say, and I apologized before, the numbers in that report are estimates. We were working under fairly strict time lines, and because we did not have an automated system to generate those numbers, we drew a sample of existing pardoned cases and looked at them. That total sample was 285 cases.

Mr. Eric Lowther: It's an extrapolation.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: That's right. We've redone that work just recently, based on a larger sample of over 1,100 cases. Just to give you the comparative numbers, the 12,000 would be 4,225, and the estimate of the number of offenders who had their pardons revoked because of a new sex offence would be 114 or 2.6%.

That work isn't complete yet. We'll be publishing the numbers probably in a month or so. But in the end, your first question is the key one. I'm really no more happy about 2.6% than I am about 7%, and we have to do everything we can to bring those numbers down. I think Bill C-69 attempts to do that by providing a system where the maximum exposure of that crucial information will be provided to screening organizations. That's the whole intent and objective of Bill C-69.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. John McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I'm just looking at subclause 2(2) of Bill C-69, “If the board proposes to refuse to grant a pardon”. I'm trying to imagine how this is going to work. We have this schedule of offences—30, 26, or whatever the number is—and somebody proposes to obtain a pardon on that scheduled offence. It strikes me that the onus then shifts to the board and they have to decide whether to refuse to grant a pardon.

So the converse has to be true. The converse would be that in certain instances the board will grant a pardon automatically to any offence in that schedule of 30 offences. Is that a correct working assumption?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: I'm not sure if I understand your question precisely. There would be cases where the passage of a certain number of crime-free years would be the only requirement for the granting of a pardon—

Mr. John McKay: Even with respect to those big 30 offences.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Yes. If the offence were prosecuted on summary conviction, or if it were solely summary—there are sex offences that are summary conviction offences—it would be treated like every other summary conviction offence.

Mr. John McKay: If Mr. Lowther's 14 or 15 were in that group of 30, and if the individual had been convicted on a summary basis and there had been sufficient passage of time, in theory the pardon would be granted, virtually automatically.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: That's right, and if they went on to apply for a position of trust, under Bill C-69 there would be no differentiation, whether it was indictable or not.

Mr. John McKay: So as a member of the Boy Scouts making an application, I would have no way of knowing that.

• 1640

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Not unless you did a screening check.

Mr. John McKay: I am confused.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Are you the screener or the screenee?

Mr. John McKay: I'm screening mad some days. I think this is pretty important to clarify, because we've been sitting here for quite a number of days worth of testimony, and there may be some gaps in our understanding.

Again, back me up to the point where I am an individual who has had a summary conviction of one of the offences in your group of 30. A sufficient passage of time has gone by and I now want to work for the Boy Scouts. So the Boy Scouts apply and I consent to the application. What am I going to find under Bill C-69 that I don't find now?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Normally, the way it would work, when you applied to the organization they would ask you to obtain your own record and bring it to them to review. So you would sign a consent form either with the agency or at the police station. They would query their CPIC terminal and would probably use two pieces of picture ID, government ID. They would enter your name and birth date and would look for your record. They would get a blank screen, the same as if you had no record.

As part of the process, they would enter a code that would say they were doing this search for screening purposes. If there were a pardon record, a flag or notation would appear on the screen and say something like “for screening purposes, submit fingerprints”. That would alert them that there was more of a record than they were seeing on the screen, and they would ask the person to consent to give their fingerprints and provide them to information services, which would then search the record and find the pardon file. They would bring it forward to the minister for unsealing. Assuming the minister would approve that unsealing—

Mr. John McKay: Let's follow the “theys” here. I've consented to put my fingerprint in. That's been a flag or a tip-off. Presumably you're doing the unsealing. Is any of that information being made available to anybody at that point?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: No. If the record has been unsealed, it would go back to the police agency doing the screening. They would provide it to the individual, who would be expected to take it to the agency and discuss it with them, unless they decided at that stage they didn't want to go through with that step and screened themselves out of that process.

Mr. John McKay: So that pretty well takes the police right out of the loop.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: No, the police are central.

Mr. John McKay: But they're out of the loop in terms of any discretionary decisions.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: They certainly have a responsibility there to manage this whole process, but as far as the police actually making this decision about whether or not to disclose that information to anybody, other than the requesting party, they would not have a hand in it.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Some organizations will have a protocol of some kind with the local police where that information will be provided directly to them. But again, it would be with the consent of the individual who had signed a consent to have that information provided to them. That's really not the common circumstance.

Mr. John McKay: You'd have to fashion your consent so it would be not only a consent to search, but a consent to give flagged information as well.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: That's right.

The Chair: Have we pretty well come...a short one?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I want to finish as badly as you do, Mr. Chairman.

Just to clarify the discussion, following on what Mr. McKay said, what if the pardoned person who now has his record goes back to the Boy Scouts and doesn't tell them about the pardoned record he has in his hand and says “No, it's all done”?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: If there is no record, they will receive a certificate of some kind that says no record exists.

Mr. Eric Lowther: No, I'm saying they did receive it, they have the pardon and they did the stuff, as in his scenario.

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: When that pardon certificate is provided to the individual, it will say on it either that there is no record or there is a record and it will state the purpose of the search. So it would be possible for someone to come in and say they wanted to obtain their record for a visa application, let's say. Of course, it would not access the pardoned record, because it's not a screening search for a position of trust, so the flag would not be seen. So a person could obtain their record without that information and then take it fraudulently back to the screening organization and say, here, I have a clean or reasonable record. But it will say on the record form the purpose of the search. So that should be clear. If it says, search done on this date, for this person, for a visa application, then the screening organization should know this is fraudulent.

• 1645

Mr. Eric Lowther: I think you said earlier that the minister doesn't have a lot of time to review cases on whether to release pardon info. So in effect then the discretion clause seems useless. Why not then just automatically release it if it meets your criteria?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: There's such a huge variety of circumstances, individual circumstances, different kinds of records, that it's very difficult to anticipate them all. Let me give you not a hypothetical example—I'd rather not get into that—but a real example. When the public debate about this legislation began, we received a phone call from a person who said he was highly placed in a child-caring organization today but 35 years ago committed an indiscretion—this was the way he put it—and he was concerned today that this would dredge up that old record. I have to say, yes, it would, as long as the record is still in existence and this person for any reason were screened, whether his employer decided to screen all employees or whether he applies to move.

I'm not saying his record should or should not be disclosed. But I think it at least is an example of the kind of case that needs really to be looked at on its merits. If we lose the ability to look at cases on their merits, then I think we run a high risk of not only causing greater harm than good, but also of running afoul of the civil liberties test that we're concerned about meeting.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Saada, a final question.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I want to come back to what Mr. Lowther asked a few minutes ago concerning this person who applies for a job and he's refused the job on the basis of his police record. In your estimation, isn't the fact that he has a role to play in the whole process by authorizing this something that reduces the chances for a successful challenge he could launch against a potential employer versus the automatic process in which he has nothing to do?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Absolutely. Certainly one of the purposes of ensuring that those safeguards are in place is to make sure the risk of a successful challenge is low.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Within the realm of section 15 of the Human Rights Act, which you were referring to in terms of some leeway?

Mr. Richard Zubrycki: Yes. We've been given assurances that in the opinion of the experts, it would fall within that section.

The Chair: I have a question for Mr. Terris. We've heard some testimony that CPIC is a tired old system that has some shortcomings and that some law enforcement agencies don't have the utmost faith in it. Are you in a position to comment on that? If there are shortcomings, what are they and what can be done to rectify them?

Mr. Robert Terris (Officer in Charge, Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To give you a very quick background, basically CPIC, the system itself, became operational back in 1972 and has been operating since that time in providing service to law enforcement and the criminal justice community. Over the years we have of course increased the size of our databases; we've increased the size of our network where we can communicate between all the agencies; and we have entered into a partnership with a lot of the federal and provincial government agencies. This of course has expanded the use of the system.

A few years ago the technical people within the informatics directorate, who are responsible for the maintenance of the CPIC system, identified the fact that we have to start looking at the system to bring it up to date, to restructure it, to enhance its ability to keep up with modern technology.

At this point in time we have a CPIC—what we call a CPIC 2001—project in place that has been in place for about three years. We've identified a lot of the changes and enhancements to the system that will be required to better serve our clients. At this point in time, what we're actually waiting for is the receipt of funding from the federal government to proceed with those enhancements.

• 1650

I feel personally that the CPIC system is performing quite well under the circumstances. It is performing a reliable service. From our perspective, our concern is that when we look at all the hardware and software the system is comprised of, we estimate that we probably have a viable system for the next four to five years. At that point, the technicians tell us, we're just not going to be able to maintain the system any longer at its current status. This is why it's so important for us to get on with the restructuring or redevelopment of the system.

The Chair: What funding levels are necessary to bring it up to an adequate standard? You said you're waiting for resources from the federal government. Do we have a figure?

Mr. Robert Terris: I don't, myself.

The Chair: That's fine. Okay.

Are there any questions arising out of my questioning? There being none, I appreciate the panel and their testimony here today. Thank you very much for coming.

I might remind the committee that we have clause-by-clause tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. in this room.

First of all, Mr. McKay, and then Mr. Lowther. Go ahead, Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Mr. Chair, I'm not sure we should be doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-284 tomorrow afternoon. For pretty well the entire balance of the testimony we have been basically comparing the merits of Bill C-69 against Bill C-284, and it seems to me—and this is without conversation with Mr. Lowther—we should hold off doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-284 until we see the merits of Bill C-69 and have a proper comparison between the two philosophies and the two approaches behind the bill. I don't purport to comment on strategies, techniques, and politics on this particular issue, but in terms of trying to give a fair analysis to the joint purpose of both bills, it seems to me that it's entirely premature to do clause-by-clause.

The Chair: Are there any comments on Mr. McKay's comments?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, I'd be open to that, for sure.

The Chair: I thought Mr. Lowther and Mr. Saada were going to chat about this at some time. Have those discussions taken place?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I just want to say one thing for the record. Mr. Lowther has reassured a lot of openness on the objective and the ways to achieve the objective. We are cooperating on that, and I'm looking forward to more discussions with him to see if we can resolve this matter so that we can proceed as quickly as possible. I'm looking forward to the regulations being tabled soon—in two days. So I think Mr. McKay's proposal might make eminent sense in this regard.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther, are you in accord with the discussion so far?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, if I'm following the discussion, we're saying we would delay the clause-by-clause on Bill C-284 until we had the regulations and the committee had a chance to look at them. That would help us in determining what to do with Bill C-284 and Bill C-69. I think that's a great idea.

The Chair: Are we concerned about time limitations? You don't want this to drag on indefinitely, I assume.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, I think if we can capitalize on the work that's already been done on Bill C-284 and go ahead and get the right thing done, whatever that is—a combination of two bills, whatever—then if we delay a day or two, it's probably better than having the whole thing go down the drain.

The Chair: I think it will perhaps be longer than a day or two. But we certainly don't want to look at another six months, that's for sure.

Mr. Eric Lowther: That's right.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Just in terms of logistics here, not in terms of politics or.... Even if we have the regulations, let's say within a few days, it will be our weeks off. We're going to resume here on April 11. I honestly cannot make a commitment that we can look at these regulations before they are drafted and before we go. So I would certainly think if we do accept this proposal, we'll be looking at it as quickly as possible the very first days after we come back.

• 1655

The Chair: I think we're looking at perhaps an effort on everyone's part to effect some reconciliation or resolution where there are competing elements of the legislation.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): If I could comment, I'd just say that if we do go to clause-by-clause, and if for whatever reason we don't move on with Mr. Lowther's bill, then we're right back to square one with Bill C-69 to start with. So I can't see any reason why we wouldn't want to wait and see if we can get some kind of side-by-side comparison and proceed from there. By the time we eventually get something, it's probably going to wind up as six of one, half a dozen of the other.

The Chair: What I might suggest is perhaps we defer it until the first meeting we're back, to review the status of the situation, and then perhaps make some concrete decisions on when we would reschedule a clause-by-clause of a bill, or an amended bill.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I appreciate that so much. I thank the committee for that. I just submit one request to the committee for consideration. The week of April 18, when we come back—I believe it's the 18th....

The Chair: It's April 12, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Sorry, April 12. That particular week I am committed. I will not be here on the Hill because of other commitments. If we can wait for that more thorough review until the week after that, the week of April 18, it would certainly help my schedule and allow me to be part of the process. Otherwise I'm really stuck.

The Chair: The week of April 19 our subcommittee is travelling on another leg. Those people have sat in on these deliberations. Would I be so bold as to suggest the week of April 26, the following week after that?

Mr. Eric Lowther: If that would be open, that would be great for me. Then I could be part of the process. I'd appreciate it.

Mr. John McKay: That gives the department a month to get their act together.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: You wanted a date, you've got one now, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay, then there's consensus that we'll defer, perhaps to April 26, for a status report. If there's some progress being made, we can.... Perhaps, Mr. Saada, you could advise the committee two weeks prior to that date.

Mr. John McKay: The other interesting point of this is if Bill C-69 is going to come forward, and they're going to have the regulations and the offences all simultaneously before us—presumably the department makes its presentation—that will lead to more testimony of some kind or another, I should think. Now I don't particularly care to reinvent the wheel, because we've heard a lot of testimony at this point in time and it would be unfair to witnesses to call them back on that, but if we could get Bill C-69 in front of us with the regulations and all the rest of the paraphernalia, and any witness list that's appropriate, then we could do your clause-by-clause on both, simultaneously or sequentially, whatever.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That would depend on what the outcome is after we have seen all the regulations and so on, and what the future is of either one of those two bills. But I would like to suggest, Mr. Chair, if I may, that as soon as the regulations are ready, they be mailed or sent to each member so we don't wait until April 26 before we have them for the first time. Then we'd have a chance to look at them before and prepare the grounds for it.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, I agree with that, Mr. Chair, but just following on what Mr. McKay is saying—and I think I get his intent—we don't have to go through this same process again, and we can capitalize on the work that has been done. Whether it's under a Bill C-69 banner or a Bill C-284 banner, I don't care. I think we need to work on some processes to get us there, as opposed to reploughing the same grounds. I'm open to that.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John McKay: What will we do tomorrow then, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: We'll have clause-by-clause at 4.30 p.m. on Ms. Guarnieri's bill. Also, depending on how much time it takes to deal with the clause-by-clause of Ms. Guarnieri's bill, we would like to move into an in camera consideration of instruction to our director on the impaired driving as well.

Mr. John McKay: Gee, I thought we could have the day off.

The Chair: Thank you again for coming. The meeting is adjourned.