JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

Á

1110

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

Ms. Johanne Vallée (Executive Director, Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies)

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Graham Stewart (Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada)

Á

1120

Á

1125

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Jim Stephenson (As Individual)

Á

1135

Á

1140

The Chair

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

Á

1145

Mr. Boyd Campbell (Manitoba Vice-President, Canadian Police Association)

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. David Griffin

Â

1200

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Vallée

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Â

1235

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. Graham Stewart

The Chair

Mr. David Griffin

Â

1245

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Vallée

Ms. Line Bernier (President, Regroupement des intervenants en matière d'agressions sexuelles, Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies)

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP)

Mr. Graham Stewart

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Â

1250

Mr. David Griffin

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mr. David Griffin

Mr. Boyd Campbell

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mr. Boyd Campbell

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mr. Boyd Campbell

The Chair

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

Â

1255

Mr. David Griffin

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jim Stephenson

Mr. David Griffin

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. David Griffin

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Vallée

·

1300

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Mr. David Griffin

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 053

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 53rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

    Today we are looking at Bill C-23, An Act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

    Good morning, bienvenue. This morning, to help us with our deliberations on Bill C-23, we have four different sets of witnesses: from the Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies, Johanne Vallée, executive director, and Line Bernier, president; from the John Howard Society of Canada, Graham Stewart, executive director; appearing as individuals, Jim Stephenson and Anna Stephenson; and from the Canadian Police Association, David Griffin, the executive officer, and Boyd Campbell, the Manitoba vice-president.

    I believe you've been asked to limit the presentation to 10 minutes. I am going to do this in the order in which your names appear on the agenda. At nine minutes I will frantically try to get your attention, and at 10 minutes you will frantically try to end.

    With that, to the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec.

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Vallée (Executive Director, Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the committee members and Mr. and Mrs. Stephenson.

    We would like to thank you for agreeing to hear our comments on the bill. It is an important piece of legislation, because it involves public safety. We would like to take this opportunity to argue in favour of increased public safety from sexual assault. I must confess that it is very difficult for us to express our views in the presence of individuals who have been affected personally by the trauma of sexual offences and the extreme violence they entail.

    We cannot comprehend the scale of your suffering, but we can tell you, Mr. and Mrs. Stephenson, that as parents, we are profoundly touched and we have great sympathy for you. Rest assured that the solutions we advocate do not seek to minimize your experience. We simply and humbly hope to do something to ensure that other families will not have to suffer similar pain.

    Today, however, we are here because of our experience with the justice system, our knowledge of sexual offences and our on-going concern for public safety, including the safety of our children. Our concern about protection is what motivated us to come and explain to the committee why we are convinced that the registry is not the miraculous solution some may think. In our view, the registry is merely the illusion of a solution. We sincerely believe that Canadians deserve a more effective solution, and that Canada has the tools required to enforce these solutions. I would now like to introduce the two organizations that were involved in drafting the brief.

    The Regroupement des intervenants en matière d'agressions sexuelles is a group of experts on crimes of a sexual nature from a variety of backgrounds including psychiatry, psychology, criminology, social services and psychological reeducation.

    Our association, the Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies, represents 42 organizations run by volunteers who are concerned about protecting the public and finding solutions to crime, while respecting the delicate balance that exists between community needs and those of victims and offenders. Every year, our network serves over 20,000 adult offenders.

    Although the main objective of the registry is to contribute to police investigations, we assume that Canadians will assess this approach from the point of view of public protection. We have therefore reviewed the registry with this in mind. The following are the main flaws of the registry, in our view. It applies only to identified sexual offenders who have been found guilty and for whom there is an order for registration. Of course, the application for the order must not be contested. At this point, we want to highlight the problem of identifying the right offenders. This problem occurs to the extent that the registry is based on the crime only. The fact is that a sexual assault or other sexual offence does not in itself indicate the dangerousness of the offender.

    If there is no rigorous assessment done at the trial stage, it is possible that the Crown may not apply for an order, because, on the basis of the crime, it does not feel that registration is relevant. Conversely, if such an application is made for all sexual offenders, there is a danger of overwhelming the data base with information on irrelevant cases. This would be harmful to police investigations.

    It is important to understand that a large percentage of sexual assaults are committed by relatives or people known to the victim. In such cases, the registry has no real value, because the victim is familiar with the attacker's place of residence. In order for the registry to support the investigation, the attacker must have chosen an unknown victim, preferably one close to his own home.

    In the case of assaults by family members, we are afraid that the registry would have a deterrent effect on victims. They might hesitate to report their attacker, because of their emotional ties with the latter and because they fear the penalties attached to the registry. I would invite you to read in our brief—of which you will be receiving an English translation as well—the statistical data on this matter.

    To switch topics for a moment, it is important to point out that the value of the registry is based on the validity of the information it contains. However, there is no procedure in place to check on the information. In addition, the collection of information depends on cooperation from the inmates. Our experience shows that the level of cooperation decreases as the danger of re-offending increases.

Á  (1115)  

    In the case of offenders with mental health problems or low IQs, and in the case of offenders not in support programs, it is possible that the order to register may not be complied with because it does not come with any assistance measures. It is important to remind people at this point that the registry will affect all sexual offenders under federal or provincial jurisdiction. I can tell you that as regards provincial jurisdiction, supervision programs are very minimal.

    When we look closely at the most effective treatment, supervision and prevention measures, the registry provides no solution based on indicators of success. For example, there is no rigorous evaluation of the risk potential of all sexual offenders who appear before the courts. In addition, depending on the seriousness of the crime, a conviction will not necessarily result in clinical intervention that could help change the individual's behaviour and will not result in mandatory supervision of sexual offenders either. To summarize, the order for registration has no evaluation, supervision or treatment measure.

    Although the intention of the legislation is to find a solution, through the registry, it actually provides only the illusion of a solution. To ensure the public is protected properly, we must rely on a number of solutions. We would therefore like to suggest a number of alternatives.

    First of all, we must take into account the support and intervention initiatives with the victims of sexual assaults. We must ensure that people accused of sexual offences and those found guilty are evaluated according to strict criteria. We must ensure that sentences are appropriate, and, if necessary, resort to long-term supervision. We must ensure that treatment for sexual offenders is available and accessible at both the federal and provincial levels. We must ensure that the work done by various stakeholders in this field is coordinated and harmonized. Finally, and I think this is one of the most important suggestions, we must target the sexual offenders most likely to be violent recidivists and recommend long-term supervision in such cases. This is the only procedure that will enable the Correctional Service to have the sexual offender's addresses at all times, to collect better information about their modus operandi and to make this information accessible to the police.

    We know from experience that the best way of reintegrating offenders is to release them gradually, and supervise and support them properly to help them live within the law. This is the only context within which we can expect a positive change in the offender's behaviour and a reduction in the potential for danger. This is not possible using the registry.

    We should not forget that successful rehabilitation is the best way of protecting the public and society. It is important to use measures such as day parole, conditional discharge, long-term supervision and support circles, whose importance Ms. McClung mentioned earlier. The existence of these circles, which help empower the offenders, is another choice that will increase public safety.

    To conclude, from the point of view of protection, best risk management and the desire to achieve the best results, we can state that the registry is not the most effective way of ensuring public safety. The Canadian government will better meet its commitment to public safety by relying on the measures already in place in this area.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Next on the list is Mr. Stewart.

    Mr. Graham Stewart (Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to present this morning.

    The John Howard Society of Canada is an organization of provincial and territorial societies comprised of and governed by people whose goal is to understand and respond to problems of crime in the criminal justice system. Our mission statement is effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime.

    The society is a charity located in approximately 60 communities across Canada, and it has about 15,000 adherents. For over 75 years our society has been involved in programs and services that serve to reduce crime through the reintegration of offenders into the community as law-abiding citizens.

    We have examined Bill C-23 in light of our charitable purposes and are pleased to have been invited to contribute our views to the work of this committee.

    Sex offences, particularly those against the most vulnerable, are among the most reprehensible to Canadians. Few would oppose measures that were demonstrably effective in reducing the occurrence of such offences or the apprehension of offenders.

    That said, we have the following concerns about Bill C-23: there's virtually no evidence of effectiveness of similar registries in other jurisdictions; other measures exist that make the registry redundant and therefore wasteful; there are likely to be unintended negative consequences; it will be applied too broadly and for excessively long periods of time; it sets very punitive and arbitrary extrajudicial sanctions; and it will be very costly and therefore take resources from areas that do have evidence of effectiveness.

    The corrections directorate of the Solicitor General of Canada has been monitoring sex offender registries internationally and nationally for years. The monitoring and analysis is presented in a report written by Jim Coflin and Associates in 2001. This very long, very exhaustive report documents the following: although registries have been in use since 1944, no jurisdiction has conducted a proper and thorough evaluation of their effectiveness; few monitor compliance and have little reason to know what the compliance or accuracy rate of the registries actually are; no true cost analysis has been done that includes all costs, including police costs associated with the registry; and no jurisdictions have the registry as part of an overall strategy to prevent sex offending.

    He concludes:

On the surface, sex offender registration gives the appearance of being a simple, straight forward and inexpensive strategy for managing sex offenders and increasing public safety. In fact, it is, at best, a tool that might support other more proactive efforts such as monitoring, supervision, and offender programs. Absent a commitment to a broader offender management and sex crime prevention strategy, SOR programs risk being meaningless gestures.

    Essentially the same conclusions were reached by the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Working Group on High Risk Offenders, which said:

[The committee] concluded generally (with the exception of two jurisdictions) that a new, national paedophile or sex offender registry would not significantly improve upon the status quo in achievement of those objectives [the protection of children or other vulnerable groups from sexual predators]

    Other measures exist that address the problem that registries intended to address. Some of these have been introduced in recent years and are yet to be evaluated. They include the Canadian Police and Information Centre, which contains extensive criminal history; the screening of volunteers by organizations and employers; public notification; exceptions to sealing of criminal records through pardons for those who have been convicted of sex offences; provisions for long-term supervision orders; community supervision for those who may be on probation or released on parole or statutory release; peace bonds with conditions as provided for under section 810 of the Criminal Code; and provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that require that police be advised of and given extensive information on all offenders likely to be released to their area.

    The registry provisions are intended to add to existing measures by maintaining a list of current addresses of known sex offenders that might aid police in identifying suspects. For the database to be useful, all the following conditions must exist: the offender must have been previously convicted of a sexual offence; the offence must be similar to the one being investigated; the offender has complied with the act and registered; the information that is on record is accurate and current; and the new offence is committed in the vicinity that the offender has identified in his address.

Á  (1120)  

    If any of these conditions is not true, police will be faced with a huge database of useless information that must be processed, a situation that may in some circumstances impede investigation as much as it helps. In fact, there's good reason to believe that these factors will often be true. For instance, most sex offences are committed by those who have not been convicted of sexual offences in the past. Those intending to commit sex offences, particularly those at highest risk, are least likely to register, or if they do, they are more likely to commit the offences away from the residence that's on the registry.

    Some of the most serious predatory offenders in Canada have been transients. Over time, the accuracy and currency of the records is bound to degrade, and the majority of those on the registry in any event will be those of low probability of reoffending.

    There are unintended consequences. With Bill C-23, there are a number of potentially negative outcomes that should be considered carefully as well.

    Stability and support are a very important aspect leading to success for many sex offenders, and the majority do succeed. Fear of registering may encourage some to live fugitive-type lives in order to avoid the registration, and thereby increase the potential for reoffending.

    The most compliant and least problematic low-risk offenders will be most likely to comply and, at the same, be discouraged by the process that's involved, while those who are at highest risk to offend are most likely to avoid the system.

    Some people will be subjected to criminal offences and punishment because of their resistance to the registry or difficulty in complying with it, even though their activity is entirely legal otherwise.

    While confidentiality is one of the elements of the bill, in fact such confidentiality may be very difficult to achieve in practice. Any monitoring of offenders under the register is likely to result in a person's privacy being breached through such measures as confirmation of address or employment.

    Bill C-23 requires an order that has very severe consequences for the offender that might even exceed the punitiveness of the sentence that the court would otherwise give. With long mandatory terms, it is difficult to view these orders as not having punitive intentions and impact. We have three major concerns.

    The use of extrajudicial civil punishments may well lead to sharp escalation in the push for other costly punishments intended to escape judicial review.

    The very long terms of the orders and the very high test that must be met to have them discontinued will in effect impose very long mandatory sentences on all offenders. As such, the registry provisions are clearly at odds with the principles of sentencing that relate to proportionality and require consideration of the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender. Bill C-23 would appear to provide for arbitrariness in sentencing.

    The characteristics of the order may result in the constitutionality of Bill C-23 being challenged successfully, thereby creating the strong, if false, impression that the Supreme Court of Canada puts offenders' rights before those of the public.

    The true costs of the registry will be enormous and largely hidden. These costs will include the following.

    One is the cost of the infrastructure for the database maintenance, hosting, and distribution.

    There is the substantial cost of collecting data, monitoring compliance, and validating the accuracy of the database, which would be necessary for the registry to be relatively accurate.

    The diversion of funds to the registry could well result in lost opportunities to employ programs known to reduce victimization, such as some treatment programs offered by Correctional Service Canada that have been shown to reduce the rate of recidivism for moderate and high risk offenders by 50%.

    Wasted time by police during investigations sifting through hundreds and even thousands of records of people who have no connection to the case and present low risk of offending will be costly and could seriously impede their investigative measures. The burden of maintaining registration offices, monitoring compliance, and verifying information will likely result in demands for substantial new funding by police as resources that would be better spent in other areas will be taken up by this statute-driven activity.

    The increase in the use of incarceration for non-compliance where criminal activity has not occurred could be expensive.

    And a greater degree of unemployability for offenders as a result of the registry might lead to increased costs with the welfare system, health care, and the like.

    Our principal recommendation is that Bill C-23 is unnecessary, and it should be withdrawn.

Á  (1125)  

    In the event that Parliament proceeds with the bill, the following recommendations would mitigate some of the areas of weakness as we see it.

    The broad inclusion of thousands of low-risk offenders is unnecessary, confusing, costly, and punitive without benefit. The exclusion provision proposed in subsection 490.03(4), requiring that the court find that the impact of the order on the offender would be “grossly disproportionate” to the “public interest” in “effective investigation of crimes of a sexual nature” seems almost ridiculous. It is hard to view this test as one that could ever be met. The same almost impossible test must be met to have the order terminated.

    The long list of offences that would give rise to the order is likely to result in cases being subject to the order without benefit.

    We recommend against the use of a schedule of offences, and instead to make the order a sentencing option the court could use where it is satisfied that it is necessary to provide for effective future investigations and that no other measures available are adequate for that purpose. The court should specify the term, but it should not exceed the maximum term to which the offence is otherwise subject.

    The location of reporting centres is left to others to define, with no requirement that such centres be reasonably convenient, thereby creating a possibility that attempts to centralize reporting for cost control reasons might result in unnecessary non-compliance. We recommend that any police detachment office be designated as a registration centre.

    The inclusion of employment information appears to serve no purpose that could not be achieved with the identification of addresses. The employment information runs the risk of significant intrusion into a person's life through disclosures even when not intended or direct. We recommend that employment information not be collected in the database.

    Finally, the requirement that a person who is granted a pardon can only apply for a discontinuation of the order, especially when the test for discontinuation is nearly impossible to meet, makes the pardon virtually meaningless. We recommend that the issuing of a pardon result in the cancelling of the order, and information on the registry be treated in the same manner as other information subject to the Criminal Records Act.

    Thank you.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Stephenson.

    Mr. Jim Stephenson (As Individual): Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

    I haven't started my presentation yet and I'm already complaining, or at least drawing something to the attention of the committee, and that's the spelling of our names. The proper spelling is “Stephenson”. I know you'd want that corrected for record purposes.

    Before I start talking about the registry, the proposed legislation and our concerns, let me share with you an anecdote that I think is appropriate. It has to do with a young girl in kindergarten. She and her other class members had been given instructions by their teacher to draw a picture of someone they loved.

    As these little kindergarten students gathered at their desks and became involved with their crayons, their fists and their noses to the paper to draw the picture of someone they loved, the one teacher noticed this one girl in particular and noticed how intently she was focusing on the task she had been given. She went over to the young girl and asked her who she was drawing the picture of. The little girl, without breaking her concentration at all, without looking up for a moment, still continuing to draw with this intensity that is typical of children who are given tasks like that, said that she was drawing a picture of God. The teacher paused and said, “Nobody has every seen God and nobody knows what He looks like”. The little girl responded again without looking up, “They will when I'm finished”.

    Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I feel I have the same confidence as that young girl as I present my concerns to you this morning and those of my family. I think it will become clear as I make my comments.

    Let me talk about the proposed Bill C-23, the legislation that we have had the opportunity to look at. Let me first address the strengths that I see it offers.

    One, it represents the federal government's commitment at last to create a nationally based sex offender registry.

    Two, the proposed legislation will introduce a vital linkage among police services and law enforcement parties across the country involved in the investigation of sexual offences. It's a short list and one that ends there in terms of the strengths that I see in the proposed legislation.

    Let me talk for a longer period of time about the weaknesses. The witnesses and the presentations that have been made to you on the previous day of sitting and this morning, the ones that have been made before us and the ones that will follow, come from individuals who represent societies. They represent police agencies, police services, and offender-based groups. They all have expressed very eloquently and articulately their concerns and expectations of what a proper registry would look like.

    My wife and I are here today in a personal capacity, as the chair has recognized. We are here as the parents of a young boy who was murdered 15 years ago by a convicted sex offender who was on release. So we bring a certain personal interest to this committee this morning, and I hope for that reason we will have your full attention.

    The proposed registry, first of all, we believe is technologically challenged. The registry will not have provincial, jurisdictional, or radius and postal code search capability. There will be no photograph capability in the proposed registry. There will be no geo-mapping, geographic profiling capability. There will be limited personal descriptor entry and cross-referencing capacity. The proposed registry focuses on creating a database only, containing only basic information that will be of little, if any, assistance to investigations of sexual assaults.

Á  (1135)  

    In the end, the real value of the database will be in producing an alpha listing of registered convicted sex offenders for internal reporting purposes. It will, in the final analysis, represent no more than a telephone directory.

    It would be of use for investigators if the offender were to leave his wallet at the scene of the crime, containing his name, or items containing an address, because that is be the only investigative value that this registry would ever produce and be capable of providing investigators.

    The proposed registry is notional. It is not a national registry; it is a notional registry.

    The decision not to apply the legislation to in-custody offenders will mean there will be no names in the database on the day the legislation is proclaimed. The database will therefore be of absolutely no value to police. As names will be added to the database only as convictions for the prescribed sexual offences are committed--they were provided after proclamation of the legislation--it will take years to build a database that will be of any use to police.

    It is reasonable therefore to predict that in the face of the absence of any utility in the national registry, police will quickly see its limitations as an investigative tool and abandon it. If you're going to throw money into something and watch it be abandoned, this is one way to do it.

    The proposed legislation creates a double standard. It discloses a double standard for in-custody offenders. Under Ontario's sex offender registry, the requirements to register were applied to all offenders in custody: those serving sentences for prescribed sex offences, as well as those serving sentences in the community. All offenders convicted--and I underline that--of sex offences after the date of proclamation were also included to register under the legislation.

    Under the proposed national piece, however, these requirements to register will not be applied to the in-custody offender population. The exceptions to that rule are those offenders who are currently in Ontario's database. This seems to create a double standard and it's confusing. The offered explanation is vague and unsatisfactory. Frankly, the suggestion that there may be a charter challenge to the proposed legislation from application to in-custody offenders is hardly acceptable. One would certainly expect the government would obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court on this point and craft sound legislation on the basis of such ruling. To prepare poor legislation on the expectation of some potential challenge is bad government.

    Form 52 orders. Under Ontario's legislation, any individual convicted of a criteria sex offence as listed in the legislation is required to register. The proposed legislation, however, requires that in addition to securing the conviction, the prosecutor must submit an order in form 52 to the court requiring the person to report. This mechanism, in effect, requires that the courts engage in rendering an assessment of the offender's psychological state and his or her behavioural patterns, of the risk or threat that the individual presents to reoffend. This is not within the jurisdiction or the competence of the court, I submit, and a form 52 order for convictions under subsection 490.03(1) should be removed. A conviction under this section of the act should automatically require the offender to register.

    Many sex offences are committed by offenders who have offended in the past, this notwithstanding the fact that the offender will not be required to register until another conviction is served and there has been another victim.

    The litmus test that Anna and I have applied to this legislation is based on this question: would a sex offender registry have assisted police at the time of Christopher's abduction in 1988? We submit in the brief, which we'll leave with the committee, that under Ontario's sex offender registry the police would have had the information in hand in enough time to intervene, and the outcome of that weekend would not have been anywhere near as tragic for us as it was. Had the proposed national sex offender registry been in place at the time of Christopher's abduction, Fredericks would not have been required to register as he would have been in custody.

    Without a suspect name to search, authorities would be unable to utilize any database and they would have had to resort to the traditional, time-consuming investigative methods for identification of the suspect.

Á  (1140)  

    The tragic outcome of that Father's Day weekend in 1988 would not have been prevented under this legislation and this registry. It's as simple as that.

    What we are proposing is a more robust computerized software package and application similar to Ontario's registry. And certainly the other point we want to make very clear is that it should apply to in-custody offenders.

    In the end, the proposed legislation is a step in the right direction. I think, though, that it's important that we get this right, and the legislation as it's crafted falls far short of that goal.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We will now go to Mr. Griffin and Mr. Campbell.

    Mr. David Griffin (Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association): My name is David Griffin. I am the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association. With me today is Boyd Campbell, who is a past vice-president of the association from Manitoba and is currently a staff sergeant with the sex crimes and child abuse investigations unit of the Winnipeg Police Service.

    The Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to appear today before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Incorporated in 1948, the CPA is the national voice for 28,000 police personnel across Canada.

    The Canadian Police Association is acknowledged as a national voice for police personnel and the reform of the Canadian criminal justice system. We are motivated by a strong desire to enhance the safety and quality of life of citizens in our communities, to share the valuable experiences of those who are working on the front lines, and to promote public policies that reflect the needs and expectations of law-abiding Canadians. It is in this context that we are here today to speak to Bill C-23.

    Children are the most vulnerable group in society and are in need of protection from those who would prey on them. At successive annual general meetings of our organization, our national delegates have unanimously adopted resolutions year after year calling for the creation of a national sex offender registry.

    We need a national sex offender registry to track all convicted sex offenders released into the community. We also need laws to protect our children from exploitation by older persons and we need to make greater use of technology to address crimes against children.

    We contend that all sex offenders should be registered. Research establishes that pedophilia is incurable and offenders remain at risk to reoffend for years after their sentences expire. The United States' experience has shown that registries assist police in identifying suspects and solving child sex offences sooner.

    It's a privilege today to share this table with Jim and Anna Stephenson, who, through their own unselfish commitment to this issue, have spent the last 15 years persevering to see that their tragedy is not endured by other Canadians. The 1993 inquest into the death of 11-year-old Christopher recommended that the federal government create a national sex offender registry for convicted dangerous high-risk sexual offenders and require that each sex offender shall register with police in the jurisdiction where the offender will reside or is residing.

    The 1993 Liberal perspective on crime and justice issues supported the establishment of a national registry of convicted child abusers. It stated:

Sex offenders represent almost 20% of the incarcerated population and 10% of the conditionally released population. These numbers are not an accurate representation as they include only those sentenced to two years or more in prison. Actual figures are much higher. Over the past five years there has been a 20.4% increase in the rate of admission of sex offenders. Evidently, more and more sex offenders will be reintegrating into Canadian communities. Repeat sex offenders are more than twice as likely to commit further sex offences, much more likely to violate conditional release conditions and more likely than any other offenders to reoffend with a non-sexual offence. However, treatment programs for sexual offenders are sorely lacking.... It is the norm, when it should be the exception, that convicted sexual offenders return to communities without any counselling or rehabilitation therapy.

    The Canadian Police Information Centre does not currently provide police agencies with adequate information and notification concerning the release or arrival of sex offenders into their communities.

    On December 11, Bill C-23 was introduced in the House of Commons at first reading. While the Canadian Police Association is pleased to see that the federal government is finally moving toward a national sex offender registry, we are concerned that the legislative proposal is insufficient to protect the public and to provide effective investigative support.

    We recommend several key amendments to Bill C-23. My colleague Mr. Campbell will describe these to you now.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Boyd Campbell (Manitoba Vice-President, Canadian Police Association): Mr. Chair, we submit that the registry can and should employ the most up-to-date technologies to achieve the highest possible degree of efficiency and effectiveness.

    For example, the Ontario sex offender registry has 93 different sub-search fields. We submit that the national sex offender registry should be capable of provincial, jurisdictional, radius, and postal code searches. We believe that updated municipal digital photograph entry and cross-referencing should be included in that, and extensive personal descriptor entry and cross-referencing as well as geo-mapping and geographic profiling.

    The proposed legislation only applies to those offenders convicted after the bill is proclaimed as law. It excludes those offenders currently serving sentences for previous convictions as well as those convicted while the bill is being debated by Parliament.

    Nova Scotia justice minister Michael Baker has observed that “We need to protect people from not only those people who will be convicted in the future but from those people who have been convicted in the past, particularly those who are in custody at present”.

    Among the notorious examples of individuals who, if released into the community, would not be required to be registered under the proposed system are Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, and Karla Homolka, or whatever their new names may be upon release. We find this preposterous.

    Given the federal government's persistent resistance to the establishment of a national sex offender registry, it comes as no surprise that Bill C-23 is a hollow and empty shell. Unfortunately, it appears that the charter phobic officials within the Department of Justice continue to hide behind the presumption that the properly established sex offender registry would not stand the scrutiny of challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    We contend that the registration of all convicted sex offenders has a valid, non-punitive regulatory purpose and is therefore not a violation of any offender's rights, when one considers the overarching legitimate public safety concerns. This is consistent with the experience and the jurisprudence in the United States, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding sex offender registries that go far beyond the Canadian proposal and the Ontario example.

    It is also apparent that neither the federal nor provincial governments wishes to assume the cost of implementing the sex offender registry in a complete and comprehensive manner. This is truly unfortunate.

    The registry presents yet another effective investigative aid that can reduce the costs of an investigation and assist in focusing police resources. Conversely, a registry that is essentially a hollow shell or work in progress will take years, if not generations, to become effective and will prove to be an expensive and ineffective tool. We respectfully submit that the registry can and must be applied broadly to all convicted sex offenders with a non-punitive administration framework to provide a complete and effective tool for police. Anything short of this, quite frankly, is empty, meaningless, and a gross misrepresentation.

    Bill C-23 sets out an extensive process by which a judge will determine offenders to be included in a registry with an appeal process. We submit that this is totally inappropriate and unnecessary and suggest that there be no judicial discretion determining the application of the law. We contend that all sex offenders should be included in the registry upon conviction. Failure to register signals police that an offender has consciously chosen to ignore the law. It is a serious warning sign.

    We submit that the consequences of failing to register under Bill C-23 are modest at best and must have more teeth to promote a higher degree of compliance. It should clearly be more advantageous for the offender to register than to choose to ignore the law and accept the consequences if apprehended.

    We submit that the registry must apply to all convicted sex offenders released into the community, including temporary absence, work release, day parole, parole, statutory release, and all forms of conditional release.

    In summary, we believe that Bill C-23 does not adequately address the needs of law enforcement. A truly national sex offender registry must apply to all convicted sex offenders that have been released into the community. It must utilize the most up-to-date technologies and it must provide as much descriptive information as possible.

    All we're asking as police officers, Mr. Chair, is that you give us the tools to do our job, to be able to apprehend these people at the forefront.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    You will notice that there is a light flashing. We'll be voting at approximately 12:15, so I will go to Mr. Sorenson for seven minutes.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): I want to again thank each one of the witnesses for appearing today. It is good to have those who are representing the rights of offenders, though unquestionably and undeniably everyone's rights need to be protected. It is also good to have the Stephensons here. It is always a pleasure to meet with people who have made a difference.

    I think you can already take a great deal of pride in the fact that out of the most horrific case with your son Christopher, there have been changes made, albeit provincial and not yet federal. So we applaud the Ontario provincial government for recognizing the need for a sex offender registry and for implementing it, and for giving the police the resources to see that it is up and running and effective. I think we see it as an effective tool.

    Police are the most vital resource available for combating crime. The police are the front-line workers who we expect will be out doing the job, keeping the streets safe, implementing the policies that we build here, and implementing the laws that we expect will keep Canada a safer place to live. Really, they are the only method we have for crime detection.

    Despite the obvious importance of law enforcement agencies across the country, we recognize that more and more these agencies have been given less and less; that is, they have been given fewer resources, they have been given less manpower, and they have been given fewer resources to implement the requirements that they have as an agency. I think out of that we have seen some terrifying results.

    We have seen the police officer per capita dropping in a major way. We have seen what I call the phenomenon of private policing, private law enforcement, and private security agencies popping up all across the country. We have heard in committee where in CSIS and the RCMP, after September 11, there was a large rise of attrition because people were leaving to go to private security enforcement agencies. We see far too often a diminishing of the level of security that I think we need to expect. All Canadians deserve the same protection and the same service. All Canadians deserve to know that they are in a safe place.

    As a committee and as a government and, finally, after years and years of this debate of whether or not another resource should be given to the police, we come to a point where the government has recognized that this is a resource that would enhance law enforcement, that would enhance safety for Canadians, and that would give those individuals on the street a greater sense of security. We have groups now coming here saying, well, yes, but we need to recognize the rights of the offender; we need not add extra punitive damages or extra punishment onto those who have already served their crime. We have police agencies that have come and said, you have expected us to do the job; why do you handcuff us before you send us back out on the streets?

    Being in the party that has brought forward the national sex offender registry, it is terribly disheartening to know that I am going to have to vote against this registry. As much as we want to see a resource there for our law enforcement agencies, this is not the one. A registry on day one or week one after it is implemented will have no names on it.

    My question is for Mr. Griffin. What kind of resource is that where every offender who comes out of prison isn't automatically put on a registry? What type of registry is that?

Á  (1155)  

    I have a question for Mr. Griffin and Mr. Stephenson, and both have already answered the question. Is that the way the Ontario government implemented it? Was there retroactivity in those registries?

    The government has talked at great length about the firearms registry. It has made registration retroactive. It put large sentences on those who would provide false information to the firearms registry of up to 10 years in prison. In this legislation, if you provide false information to a national sex offender registry, you may see sentencing up to five or six months. Again, whereas the public is crying out for more resources for greater safety, and for more justice to be served, we're coming with infant steps in this registry.

    My question is maybe just for Mr. Griffin and also to Ms. Vallée, who spoke a little bit about the second criterion. My question to her as well is, are the sentences now not appropriate, or does she believe the sentences are quite appropriate, as we have them now? There are about three questions there.

    Mr. Griffin, maybe you would begin. How long before this would be effective?

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Griffin and Ms. Vallée, and that will be it.

    Mr. David Griffin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

    In terms of what kind of resources, we see that we're faced with a bill that is proposing to build a bucket, essentially, that will be empty as opposed to a database that will contain information. Our concern is that this is being established as part of a sentencing regime and is being viewed by people as part of a punitive measure. From our perspective, that's not what this is intended to be. It's intended to be a confidential database that will be used only for a specified purpose, which is the investigation of crimes of a sexual nature.

    This would provide efficiencies in an investigation where it may be necessary in a matter of hours to identify potential suspects and eliminate others as quickly as possible. The technology that is available in the Ontario model—and other models in the United States—provides photographs. It provides information about geographic locations so that you can cross-map those locations with the location of an incident. That's the type of data we're suggesting should be in this national sex offender registry.

    In terms of penalties, we are certainly concerned that there's not sufficient penalty for people who knowingly refuse to register, because from our perspective, that's a serious warning sign. Most important, officers should have the ability to arrest without warrant somebody that they find to be in violation. There should be serious consequences for people who try to evade the system.

    The experience in Ontario, as we understand, is that approximately 90% have voluntarily complied. If it's framed in the appropriate manner, offenders will realize that this is a tool that in some respect is going to help them be eliminated in investigations very quickly. We don't see that the model before us is going to do an effective job.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Vallée.

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Vallée: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to remind people that our organization is not an advocate for inmates' rights. This is an important point. Our bosses are volunteers who do believe, however, that it is possible to increase public protection by promoting social reintegration and rehabilitation.

    With respect to so-called inappropriate sentences, at the beginning of my remarks, I said that we looked at the issue of the registry on the basis of our knowledge of the federal and provincial systems, because we serve both. What we find problematical is that offenders—and here I'm talking about our experience in Quebec—who are under provincial jurisdiction unfortunately do not benefit from proper rehabilitation, treatment, and supervision programs. There is a terrible lack of financial resources in provincial correctional services. This is problematic, because it compromises the ability of offenders to change their behaviour and compromises somehow our community intervention and supervision tools. Consider people on probation; I will be honest with you. When you've got a caseload of 80 people, you cannot do any proper or effective supervision.

    I would also point out that studies show that the vast majority of sexual offenders have mental health problems. It goes without saying that programs for sexual offenders must necessarily include clinical interventions and treatments. Subsequently, we have to provide follow-up and supervision.

    We hear about compliance with the registry, but how do you expect sexual offenders with low IQs or mental health problems to be able to understand the importance of complying with the registry, if they also come under provincial jurisdiction and are not getting any supervision? There's very little likelihood that they will comply with the registry.

    My colleague reminded me that there is provision for fines up to $10,000 for the offences set out in the bill. There is also reference to prison terms. In some cases, these offences will entail a more severe punishment than the actual sentence some sexual offenders receive. Some sexual offenders have their prison term stayed. Consequently, if they do not comply with the registry, they will be facing offences with sentences even more serious than the one they received for the sexual offence.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I'm going to suspend now, rather than cut Mr. Lanctôt off in the middle. I would ask the witnesses to hang in there. We'll go over and vote, and then come back and complete the dialogue.

    The meeting is suspended for 15 minutes.

  (1203)  

---

  (1233)  

    The Chair: I will reconvene the 53rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

    We're going to go directly to Mr. Lanctôt for seven minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would like to thank all the witnesses who are appearing before us to discuss an issue that may be more or less important depending on the way this proceeds. In theory, this could be an additional tool for something else, and that could be excellent.

    Currently, however, its usefulness is limited. It is supposed to allow us to search for and find children, or to protect them from sex offenders. We know that there is a serious problem. The problem has been raised by the witnesses. The police have told us that the registry does not go far enough. Mr. and Mrs. Stephenson, who appeared as individuals, also told us that. There are also enormous shortcomings, especially in terms of efficiency, and then there is also the possibility of challenges under the Charter.

    When we questioned the minister, he told us that retroactivity could go against the Charter; proportionality could be an even greater problem. Obviously, then, the first case will go as far as the Supreme Court because there will a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    One important issue is being forgotten, and that is the issue of dangerousness. Why not include that in the dangerous sex offender registry? Several examples have been raised.

    I remember one raised by Mr. McKay. Let us take the case of an assault within a family, committed by either a stepfather or a close relative. If the assault is minimal, and they are able to resolve the issue amongst themselves, even if a charge was laid, we should be able to avoid a criminal record being established, which would cause huge family problems. That person may have been under the influence of alcohol or strong drugs. Perhaps that person is not dangerous; perhaps the aggressor loves his wife and children very much. Yet, he would be in the registry. Why?

    You mentioned that Ontario has already established a registry and that it is already been challenged, not in terms of dangerousness but in terms of retroactivity. Have things moved too quickly? Does this need to be referred to the Supreme Court, not only to resolve the issue of retroactivity, but also that of proportionality? Would it pass the section 1 test? In a free and democratic society, would this be acceptable in order to protect the victims? We don't know.

    The minister mentioned that it will cost $2 million to establish the registry and that the annual cost will be $400,000 thereafter. At about the same time, the person responsible for the establishment of Ontario's registry told us that setting up the registry and entering information for each year was costing $4 million for Ontario alone.

    It all comes back to the type of administrative problems we had with the firearms registry. How can we trust the minister's words? He tells us one thing one day and other witnesses tell us something else either the same day or the following day. The minister tells us that it will cost $400,000 a year, whereas in Ontario it's costing $4 million simply to update a registry. People must not be taken for fools.

    Will the registry be efficient? You are telling me that it won't be, mainly because of retroactivity. On the other hand, we have been told to be careful, that there may be other issues. Perhaps this money could be used to establish programs to help sex offenders, and also to help the victims. The question of how to proceed is very complex. An attempt was made to reach a compromise. You think that is inefficient. Others says that it isn't efficient for other reasons as well.

  (1235)  

    We also need to think about how much this will all cost if we are violating the Charter; the registry may also be inefficient. Why not establish parameters that would ensure that the Charter was being complied with? Then we would not have to wait several years before the Supreme Court had to rule. We could have all the information immediately instead of throwing our money out the window because of administrative costs.

    You tell me that from your perspective this passes your test. We must not forget that the United States Supreme Court ruling set a precedent. That ruling will be used. We must also not forget that the United States still uses capital punishment, which does not exist here. We need to be careful because that is a country where there is very strong repression and prohibition. I do not think that the same attitude exists in Canada, and even less so in Quebec. Do you think it would be a waste of time if we were to ask the Supreme Court to give us its opinion, not only on the point you have raised but also on the issues of dangerousness and proportionality?

    There is also section 7 of the Charter, not only subsection 11(g). We need to ask for an opinion on both. Retroactivity was the only issue for Ontario, but both could be issues. The registry may not be the most far-reaching or durable solution. You can imagine the costs that this will involve; in Ontario, it's still at the trial level. We are still far from seeing a final result.

    I would like the witnesses to comment on these issues.

  (1240)  

[English]

    The Chair: Possibly not everyone, as we have 15 minutes left and we've had a shortened version.

    Mr. Stewart.

    Mr. Graham Stewart: As I was listening to the other panellists and of course thinking about my own comments, it seemed to me that there appeared to be some agreement among the panel that the registry was unlikely to be effective. Where the disagreement fell was whether or not a larger or more complex registry and a much more expensive registry would solve the problem. Obviously some felt that it might. Others, including me, were very skeptical of that. You would think, given that registries have been in place since 1944, that we would know by now. It just seems, given the logic of how registries would actually work in practice and given the lack of evidence, that it's a hugely expensive experiment that's being proposed here.

    I think a reference to the Supreme Court to have some of the constitutional issues decided would be helpful, although I understand that's rarely done and not well received by the Supreme Court itself. In principle, it would certainly be helpful to me. I'm not a lawyer and I'm reluctant to get into legal questions, but it just serves no point to pass a law that will fail. It would seem that there are some serious questions in this legislation, which even a non-lawyer can see, that would run that risk and would have a very negative impact, I think, on the public as a whole.

    The Chair: Mr. Griffin.

    Mr. David Griffin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be very quick, with just three points.

    One is with respect to the idea of restricting the registry to only “dangerous offenders”. From our perspective, this identifies two problems. The first is the effect of plea bargaining: that people who may have gone in for very serious crimes may in fact be convicted of a less serious offence. Secondly, I think it's fairly well acknowledged that there's a continuum of development of the sexual predator from very minor crimes. Some of our most notorious sex offenders and sexual predators in this country started off as peeping Toms. There's a continuum of behaviour that is of concern, such that we want to be able to identify people who have the potential, not just the past practice.

    Secondly, with respect to the charter, I'm not a lawyer either, but I think what Canadians would like to see, and certainly what our members would like to see, is the Department of Justice and Parliament taking a more proactive approach to some of these charter questions. We seem to find on a number of issues, this one being the most recent, that the charter is used as a reason not to do things that most Canadians seem to feel are appropriate.

    We're also concerned that the way the bill is structured as a sentencing tool is problematic and will probably result in challenges being more successful than if this were treated as an administrative requirement, not a sentencing requirement.

    Finally, with respect to costs, I don't think we can look back to 1944, because we're talking about paper-based systems then, and what we're asking for as police is to have the technology that's available today to assist in providing this information. If you look at the costs per offender, those costs are relatively minor per year.

    We agree that there should be greater supervision of people who are released into the community and we agree that there should be greater access to treatment for offenders and greater access to rehabilitation programs, but what we don't agree with is that every convicted sex offender has the ability to be rehabilitated. We're also concerned that in the absence of those programs we need a system to ensure or to prove that those programs are in fact effective. We need the tools to identify potential suspects who are potentially related to a crime.

  (1245)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Vallée.

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Vallée: I will give the floor to my colleague, Line Bernier.

    Ms. Line Bernier (President, Regroupement des intervenants en matière d'agressions sexuelles, Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share your concerns about how much this tool will cost and what it will mean constitutionally, but I am more concerned by public protection. In that regard, I agree with your comments about its evaluation. The numbers that we were shown are slightly different from mine.

    Pedophilia is not incurable. Some men who have this problem reoffend their whole life and have many victims, but that is not the case for the majority of them. Earlier, you raised a case in point, a family abuser. In cases like those, there are fewer repeat offenders.

    Current research has given us enough information to establish a profile of offenders who are at high risk of re-offending. Obviously this will not allow us to identify all these men. As you said earlier, there are men who have not yet committed a sexual assault but will do so eventually. However, we already know that young men who abuse women and young boys they are not related to, and who have committed sexual or other offences in the past, are sexual offenders with a very high risk of recidivism. If we could focus on these men, we would have a better chance of intervening, not only in terms of offences committed, but of those to come.

    What we are proposing does not require changing the law. First, we need to better use the resources that we have. Research has allowed us to target high-risk offenders, and the long-term supervision order provides a framework from the start; this can last for up to 10 years after sentencing. This framework has the advantage of not only providing a supervision tool and data collection, but also of providing a framework and treatment for these men.

    For those reasons, it is important that there be good cooperation between the Correctional service of Canada, which is responsible for long-term supervision, and the police. That would give us more information and make investigations easier, because we would know how to proceed as well as the areas where these offenders are operating. Furthermore, we will have attempted to help these people.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We have about 11 minutes left. Mr. Nystrom and Ms. Jennings have seven minutes each. You can work out the math.

    Mr. Nystrom, that wasn't intended to put any pressure on.

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): I'll be very brief and very much to the point, because Marlene has questions as well.

    I think Mr. Stewart had mentioned the cost of the registry. We've already seen the cost of the gun registry: $2 billion. It was supposed to be $2 million, and now it's $2 billion, for a law that's going to be very, very questionable in its assistance in the end anyway.

    What do you think the cost of this one will be?

    Mr. Graham Stewart: I have no idea, but I don't think anyone else has much of an idea either. One of the problems is that the whole administration is being distributed throughout the criminal justice system, through the federal government, the provincial governments, and the police forces throughout the country.

    It also depends on how it's actually implemented. If it's simply a very simplistic registry process that's entirely dependent on compliance on the part of the offenders, it would be less expensive but obviously less useful than one that involved verification and constant review to ensure compliance. Given the thousands and thousands of sex offenders who would be on this registry over a period of time, for the police to undertake that kind of constant vigilant process to ensure that the database was effective would be enormously expensive.

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes.

    To Mr. Griffin and Mr. Campbell, you've talked about the registry having advantages in terms of investigations when a crime has actually taken place. I want to know whether or not this registry will also be helpful in terms of supervising offenders and protecting the public when the offender puts himself in an environment where he might commit another crime, such as applying for a job at a summer camp or something of that sort. Is there any plus to the registry in that case, or is it just for the investigatory advantages when a crime has been committed? Do you see any protection for the public later on in terms of preventing a situation that might arise? I know that's very hypothetical, but would there be any advantage of the registry to prevent something that might arise as opposed to something that has arisen?

  (1250)  

    Mr. David Griffin: What we've seen to date in other jurisdictions is a high degree of voluntary compliance, so we don't see compliance as a significant concern.

    From our perspective, tools are available now where, for convicted sex offenders, even those who have received a pardon, if they apply for a job that involves children, there are means for accessing those pardoned records.

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Already?

    Mr. David Griffin: Already, yes. That bill was passed before. So we haven't considered it in that--

    Mr. Boyd Campbell: In most provincial jurisdictions...I know in Manitoba we have a registry for those sorts of things. If you want to be a boy scout or a camp counsellor, whatever, those things are in place.

    Now, whether one would augment the other I'm really not sure. That would be a matter of crossing over those sorts of boundaries.

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom: So it's not necessarily a plus in terms of that kind of--

    Mr. Boyd Campbell: Well, I'd never rule anything as not necessarily a plus. Certainly it's as many tools as we have available, but it certainly wouldn't be the primary focus. We come here with the primary focus, from a police investigative point, that it's a starting point, a ground zero point that will give us enough information at the onset in an investigative process to give us as much lead time as possible. As you've heard before, you have that golden hour or two hours in those stranger abduction cases that are most valuable.

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I wonder if you could explain to the committee what the advantage is now of the legislation as it is written as opposed to CPIC, which already exists in Saskatchewan, where I'm from, or Manitoba. As it is written, you're calling for improvements in the bill now.

    Mr. Boyd Campbell: We've asked for improvements as it is now. There are some concerns with respect to having somebody register and give notification of change of address. It's better than CPIC because CPIC right now is merely a record of information as it exists at a stagnant point in time. The only change is that a person comes into contact with police afterward.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you very much, all of you, for your presentations.

    I want to address, as briefly as I can--and that's a real challenge for me--the issue of retroactivity. Some of you have said that in order for the SOR, the sex offender registry, to be a truly effective investigative tool for the police, it has to be retroactive, and you have used the Ontario registry as an example.

    I've read the legislation for the Ontario registry. It actually includes anyone who is convicted of a sex offence, whether the offender was in custody or serving a sentence out in the wider community. However, it appears that when it was actually implemented Ontario only included offenders who were found guilty on or after the day that it was proclaimed and those sex offenders who were serving their sentence in custody. One, is that correct? And two, if that's the case, even Ontario, on its retroactive aspect, really limited it.

    The second point is that we do have a system of law, and double jeopardy is something that we're protected against under our charter. I would be interested to know from you, Mr. Griffin, as a representative of a police union, ultimately what would happen if one of your members had been found guilty of violating an employer procedure, rule or regulation, went through the disciplinary process, was found guilty of the violation, was served a penalty of, let's say, a 30-day suspension without pay, served the sentence or was in the course of serving the sentence, and then under a new collective agreement that particular violation became a 40-day suspension. Would your membership agree that this application be applied to those who had already been convicted--and I put that within parentheses--and were either serving their sentence or had already served out their penalty? Would you agree that it be applied retroactively?

    If I have one more moment, my understanding in terms of the cost is that it has been costed by the RCMP for the piece that they will actually be operating, but the costing in terms of the provinces will determine how much of the possibilities that the legislation will allow they will take up.

  (1255)  

    Mr. David Griffin: With respect to the Ontario model, I would have to defer to...I'm not sure if Mr. Stephenson's in a better position to address that. Certainly my understanding is that there are historical names in the Ontario registry. As for whether or not those are restricted, as you suggest, which is still better and I think would capture probably 2,000 to 3,000 offenders that would not be captured in the existing government bill, I'm not certain.

    In terms of the double jeopardy aspect, we would not support a double jeopardy proposal for one of our members in the labour relations environment. But that's not what we're talking about here, and from our perspective, it's wrong to look at this as punishment. We're not asking people to be punished further or to serve some other form of sentence. I know people want to draw that comparison. What we're talking about is simply knowing the whereabouts of people who have committed crimes of a sexual nature. Given that in your party's red book it was acknowledged that there's twice the likelihood that those people are going to reoffend with crimes of a sexual nature, we should have the ability to identify where those people live in the community and determine whether or not they are a bona fide suspect in an investigation as quickly as possible.

    We're not asking to punish people further. We're not asking them to serve an additional sentence. We're asking them to simply register their whereabouts with the police, notify the police of a change of address, and provide sufficient information to allow for them to be properly identified in the event that there is a crime in the neighbouring jurisdiction.

    We don't see that as a terrible infringement on an individual's rights when we compare those consequences, or the costs, both in human terms and in dollar terms, of not being able to gather that information quickly and having to rely on searching of records, checking of informants, and checking of information manually.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you. Any other comments?

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

    Mr. Cadman has one quick question he wants to put, if that is okay.

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

    Very briefly to Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Griffin. I would just like your comments on the fact that this registry, the way it's proposed, will not include young offenders. I'm certainly aware of a situation in my own province where we had a 15-year-old who molested children and within a year raped and murdered a young girl--by the time he was 16. Also in my own community we've had some very serious aggravated sexual assaults committed by young offenders that were not dealt with in the adult court.

    I would like to hear your comments on that.

    Mr. Jim Stephenson: Really, that is an area I would prefer not to comment on here. I'm just not prepared to speak to that issue.

    Mr. David Griffin: There is a requirement that they register, right?

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: Only if convicted as adults.

    Mr. David Griffin: Okay, yes. We discussed that in terms of preparing for our appearance today. Ultimately we decided that it was not an issue that we felt we could expect the bill to be amended on and we wanted to focus our attention on the more serious questions.

    Certainly it troubles us that a young offender who has a propensity to commit these types of crimes may fall short of being included in the registry. However, our concern on today's date focuses really on the completeness of the registry itself in the immediate future as opposed to the longer term.

    The Chair: Ms. Vallée.

[Translation]

    Ms. Johanne Vallée: We did not make specific recommendations for young offenders. But it would be—and I will try to play down the term—irresponsible to force a young offender to register without providing any treatment along with the order. It would be irresponsible because these are young people.

    When 14-year-olds become the victims of sexual assault, they are considered to be children, whereas if they become sexual aggressors at the same age—for all kinds of reasons that research is bringing to light—they are not provided with the treatment opportunities. This is currently the case in certain areas, even in Quebec; young sexual offenders do not have access to treatment because there are no child psychiatry services in their region, for example.

    If young sexual offenders are included in the registry, at a minimum the order must include an obligation to provide treatment.

·  (1300)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I'm making my clerk nervous, but I am going to give the last word to Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): I have a quick question to Mr. Griffin.

    We've heard this morning that one of the political parties sitting around this table will not support this legislation because it doesn't go far enough, it's insufficient, etc. You yourself have pointed out what you feel are a few warts and have suggested improvements. What is your advice to me? Do I support this system the way it is? Is it better than nothing, or do I not support this system the way it is, notwithstanding your suggestions for improvements?

    Mr. David Griffin: I would have to say, from the perspective of the Canadian Police Association, we would like to see this bill sent back to the drawing board. We think there are more than a few warts and that those issues should be addressed.

    The Chair: I thank you very much.

    I thank the panel and I thank the committee. My apologies for the fact that we had to skip out for a bit. It's the nature of where we work. Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

    This meeting is adjourned.