Evidence of meeting #30 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I would not make that conclusion without further analysis.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
In the legislation, there are a number of clauses.... You start with mandatory inclusion, which is an improvement. I support that. But there are a number of clauses in here with respect to termination orders, such as section 490.14, and exemption orders that follow in clause 12. Further on, you have automatic terminations in terms of the duration of obligations, found in section proposed section 490.027. I would assume first that in proposed section 490.02905, “Application for exemption order”--there are a number of possibilities and exceptions here for somebody who is required to register on a mandatory basis to then somehow get out of it.
First, I assume you would agree—and I think this is self-evident—that it would be better for the public if this didn't happen, that they couldn't get out of this, particularly the dangerous offenders. Second, why are there all of these various ways to get out of it in this legislation?
9:15 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Well, in the first place, I don't think it would be correct to automatically assume the termination and exemption provisions are contrary to public safety.
I think it's important to understand the context of policy development for this legislation. This was first tabled in December 2002 as Bill C-23. That was the result of direction from the then public safety minister to consult with all provinces and territories to come up with a consensus model for a sex offender registry.
The federal-provincial territorial high-risk offender working group of senior justice officials met over a lengthy period to review the existing frameworks for sex offender registries around the world to consider what the best policy choices and effective policies were for protecting Canadians through a sex offender registry. They did come up with a unanimous consensus. Included in that consensus were recommendations for the model that was tabled as Bill C-23. That passed, as all parties supported it in the House at the time, and all parties supported it in the Senate, so it became law.
There's been little or no suggestion that I've seen so far to date, other than today, that the termination and exemptions currently part of the scheme are somehow contrary to public safety. So my personal view is that it works very well.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you.
We're going to have to move on to the Bloc Québécois, please, and Monsieur Ménard.
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Chair, I thought that you were asking whether we had any comments to make and whether it was worth while to get going on the clause-by-clause study. Personally, I do not think so. This bill is not easy to read. I will always remind federal legislative drafters that law that is badly written is law that is badly understood, not to mention badly enforced. So much of the legislation that we see here is in that category. Just when you start to understand, you notice that there are unexplained gaps. The minister could certainly have filled those gaps, had he received our report before having the bill drafted.
The most striking example is the one that Mr. Holland gave about vehicles. Anyone who is familiar with the way in which dangerous sex offenders operate recognizes that, to be of any use, the registry must contain information like that. We really should not normally be debating political questions. We would all agree that there should be information about the modus operandi, or, to guard against oversights, for example, the fact that those keeping the registry are not informed when a sex offender dies. We are told that that kind of information overloads a registry, and that it becomes less useful when it is too full.
We would certainly have recommended that there would be computerized geographic mapping of dangerous sexual offenders, as is the case in Ontario. I would also like to have discussed whether it would be pertinent to include new offenders in the DNA registry. At the moment, we cannot even include information related to the last two bills we passed. Eliminating that backlog would take at least two years. That, in fact, is the time it would take to train the staff hired to do it.
There are a number of suggestions. We had at least five that all parties would normally have agreed on. They are not in this bill and the only explanation I can think of is that it was not a departmental decision, it was an oversight. A lot of consultation took place, and the consultation we did ourselves leads us to the conclusion that some deficiencies have not been dealt with.
I have no objection to starting the clause-by-clause study. But, time and time again, when I have introduced amendments, I am told that...
they're out of the scope of legislation.
The best example is the addition of geographic mapping, I am sure. That certainly would help to enhance police investigations. I do not think that we are ready to move to clause-by-clause study. I thought that was what you were asking, to start with. Perhaps we should discuss it right away.
So I am going to introduce a motion to put off clause-by-clause study until the fall. Among other things, that would allow us to talk to the minister, who, in turn, would be better informed about what was in our report.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
You've heard Monsieur Ménard make a motion that we, in essence, suspend our deliberations today and allow for the minister to come before the committee.
As chair, I was wondering if any of the witnesses had any comments in regard to the concerns that Monsieur Ménard raised--geographical representation, that kind of thing. Do you wish at this point to make a comment? We will have to have discussion on the motion and then decide, but as the chair I was wondering if you had any comments in regard to that.
June 18th, 2009 / 9:20 a.m.
Clifford Yumansky Director, Corrections and Community Development, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I can make a couple of comments on two of the issues that Mr. Ménard raised, one issue being the fact that information regarding the death of a sex offender is not able to be registered. In fact, one of the proposed reforms does call for a change that, essentially, would allow for pure data elements, such as the death of a sex offender, to be included in the database.
With respect to geographic.... I'm not quite sure of the term that was used. “Geographic mapping” is the term I'm familiar with. It's my understanding this is a technical issue that really doesn't need to be put into the legislation. It's a system enhancement that goes to the operation of the registry rather than something that would have to be contained in the legislation.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Does anyone else have anything to add to that?
Monsieur Ménard, Mr. Yumansky just made a comment in regard to geographical mapping or representation not being necessary within the legislation. I understand it's probably already somehow addressed within the registry. Does that address your concern?
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
No, I think we should follow the lead of the Ontario act.
Anyway, there are other things. Modus operandi and vehicle information are not included. This is vital information if this act is going to have the preventative effect that the preamble claims.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Are you aware that amendments have been submitted to address some of those things?
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I'm just wondering if the best way to handle this is to perhaps allow the questions to be completed. And then maybe we could go in camera and talk about future business and how we might best be able to handle this.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Monsieur Ménard, would you agree to wait for the discussion on your motion until we go in camera, and allow the other parties to ask the witnesses questions?
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
That is fine by me.
So I will ask my questions; I do not have a lot.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay. I haven't kept track of the time, so let's give you another three or four minutes.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Why does vehicle description not appear in the bill? Why would a sexual offender's modus operandi not be in a registry of dangerous sexual offenders?
I would like other explanations. I am not sure that the registry has to mention the fact that a person is in jail or has been released.
If you do not need legislation for the geographic mapping, why has it not already been done?
9:25 a.m.
Director, Corrections and Community Development, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'll give it a try.
With respect to the geo-mapping issue, as I indicated earlier, it is an issue that goes to the heart of the operation of the sex offender registry rather than the legislation. I guess it's a decision the RCMP, the group responsible for both the maintenance and the administration of the database, would have to address in conjunction with the provinces and territories that ultimately own this national sex offender registry.
I don't want to simplify the answer, but I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that resources are a major concern. Ontario decided to implement a geo-mapping system. That's a policy decision it made. Other provinces are free to do that if they wish. Ultimately, it's a decision that would have to be taken when it comes down to the type of operation you want to have with respect to the....
But as far as I understand, it is something the RCMP would be best to address.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
You're actually out of time, but does anybody want to talk to the first question that he asked?
9:25 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In regard to the modus operandi, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. In the body of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, section 2, there's a stated purpose that discusses the objective of public safety in regard to sex offenders, police investigation of sex offences, and protection of society as the new amendment. That may go to your concern. I'm not sure if what you're talking to is in fact in the test in the Criminal Code. Again, this act is no longer going to require any judicial discretion to determine whether an individual goes on the registry. I'm not sure if modus operandi is relevant in the Criminal Code at this point. You may want to clarify what you mean by that.
As to the information remaining on the registry when the individual is out of prison, yes, it does for the term that the individual is ordered to be on the registry to comply. Once the individual's term has expired, then the obligation to report is no longer relevant to the registry's functioning.