Public Safety Committee on March 24th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It may be in regard to the grievance process, which is internal within the---

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

It's up to the minister to know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Baker.

[William V. Baker]

Mr. Chair, there is a decrease of $342,000. This is the end of what was always designed to be temporary short-term funding for the external review committee. The cut is parallel with some shrinkage in the size of that organization given that with the coming into effect of Bill C-43, which will establish a new labour relations regime for the RCMP, the external review committee would cease to exist. This is a transitional measure that is explainable by the changes in the machinery.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

I want to go back to the Canada Border Services Agency. Some witnesses gave us concrete examples of the negative economic effects of those cuts in three or four border crossings in Quebec. We heard that there is very little traffic at those crossings but the little traffic there is is often economically significant since it is mostly trucks carrying goods.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to explain why he feels it is necessary to close those border crossings when all the witnesses we heard stated that a significant part of the trade between the eastern US and eastern Quebec goes through those border crossings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam Mendes.

Mr. Minister.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The information I have--and I have to point out, Mr. Chair, that these are decisions made by local CBSA officials who look at the amount of travel. For example, Jamieson's Line in Quebec, which is one of the ports of entry that is being closed, sees an average of 12 travellers a day and no commercial vehicles. There's a 24-7 port of entry 10 kilometres away. In the case of Franklin Centre, which sees an average of 56 travellers a day and three commercial vehicles, there is a 24-7 port of entry 16 kilometres away at Herdman. Finally, there's one at Big Beaver, Saskatchewan, which sees an average of five travellers a day and no commercial vehicles. There is a crossing 28 kilometres away that has the same hours and that can provide that.

We take a look at the issue of how these border crossings are being used, and I think taxpayers would agree that this is a prudent use of that, given that there's virtually no commercial traffic at any of these and a very limited number of ordinary travellers using those. And there is an alternative not too far away.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Time is up.

Thank you very much, Madam Mendes.

We'll now move to Mr. MacKenzie on five-minute rounds.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister and the officials who are appearing before us.

Mr. Chair, as you know, much of this committee's time has been drawn, from time to time, at least, on the cost and the difference between what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has forecast and what in fact we have heard from people like Mr. Head, who has a very good grasp about what the cost is to run the prisons.

Mr. Chair, I think we heard the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his staff indicate a cost of something in excess of $300,000 per inmate, and that was based on some assumptions that he had built into his model. I'm just wondering if Mr. Head could tell the committee, Mr. Chair, what in fact the actual costs are for inmates in the Correctional Service of Canada facilities. I think there is a significant difference. I read an article in one of the papers this week by an independent academic who suggested that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assumptions were way off, and as a result, based on his assumptions, his final tallies don't accurately depict the cost. I'm wondering if Mr. Head could give us those actuals as opposed to what we have here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.

Mr. Head.

[Don Head]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll give the committee the breakdown of costs by security levels, by offenders in institutions, and by offenders supervised in the community.

On an annual basis it costs us $150,808 for an offender in maximum security, $98,219 for an offender in medium security, and $95,038 for an offender in minimum security. In the women's facility it's $211,093. To administer our exchange of service agreements with the provinces, it costs us an average of $89,800. So the average cost for somebody incarcerated is $113,974.

For an offender in a community correctional centre, the cost is $66,993. For an offender supervised under parole in the community, the cost to us is $27,455. The total average cost for an offender in the community is $29,537. The total average cost for both institutional and community offenders combined is $93,916.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you.

That perhaps illustrates where there are a great deal of differences between the Parliamentary Budget Officer's calculations and the large numbers the opposition are frequently talking about in the House. I don't think the facts actually bear out those allegations.

On the other part of this whole equation, some of this legislation has now been in place for a year--some of it for a little more than a year. Mr. Head told us a few weeks ago that they had expected a certain increase that didn't occur.

I'm wondering if Mr. Head has some numbers he could share with us from the experience of a year of the legislation. Are the numbers higher, lower, or right on what was anticipated? My sense is it illustrates the difficulty in trying to project forward, based on what the legislation is going to have.

I'm wondering if Mr. Head could provide us with some of that background.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.

Commissioner Head.

[Don Head]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As the minister pointed out, our initial projection for this first year was that approximately 1,300 offenders would be coming into the system who were not anticipated. As of our count at the end of February, we had 520 more offenders than at the same time last year. So our actual inflow is lower than our anticipated costs. As both the minister and I have pointed out in the past, we monitor these figures very closely on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis.

Our earlier assumptions on the uptake of C-25 by the judiciary did not occur at a rate that we anticipated, so that's part of the numbers. There may still be an increase coming in the near future, or it may be at the lower rate we're seeing now. But we continue to monitor that very closely.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think there's one other important thing that Canadians should know, and I'm sure Mr. Head can answer. What is the age of some of the existing facilities that will certainly in the future need either major refurbishing or replacement?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Be very quick, Mr. Head. Our time is up.

[Don Head]

On average, our institutions are about 40 years old. The oldest in my fleet is older than Confederation, and that's Kingston Penitentiary, which first came into use in 1835.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the minister and all the department heads for appearing today. Certainly at times when our committee looks at the estimates or the supplementary estimates, we very much appreciate not only when the minister appears but when he brings the department heads.

So thank you for that. We appreciate it very much.

We are going to suspend for a few moments, and then we will resume the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll reconvene our committee as I bring everyone back to order here.

In our second hour today, we will continue our hearings on Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act.

First of all, as individuals appearing before us, we have Mr. Randall Fletcher, a sexual deviance specialist, and William Marshall, director of Rockwood Psychological Services.

From the Vancouver Police Department, we have Deputy Chief Constable Warren Lemcke.

I know another Warren Lemcke and was thinking that he was going to appear here today, but I see that we have a different individual here.

We certainly welcome you from the Vancouver Police Department.

I also understand that all of you have opening statements. After we hear them, we'll go into the first round of questioning. Our intentions are to suspend approximately 10 to 15 minutes before the end of our time, at a quarter to, as we have some committee business that we must take care of.

Mr. Lemcke, I think maybe you've travelled the furthest to be here, so would you begin, please?

[Deputy Chief Constable Warren Lemcke, Vancouver Police Department]

Thank you very much.

It's a pleasure to be here. This is my first trip to Ottawa. It is a beautiful city.

Good morning. It's an honour to appear here today to give comments on a bill that has the potential to impact both public safety and the confidence of the public generally--but especially victims--in regard to the justice system.

In the past few years, we have seen much focus and public attention on the issue of pardons in Canada. This, of course, has precipitated this bill.

There are many elements of this bill that I would suggest the policing community would support, as they would assist us in protecting the public.

First, changing the name of this from “pardon” to “record suspension” is important, as it recognizes the victims in this process. Victims can be impacted by crime long after any pardon or record suspension is given. In many cases, they would never pardon the criminal.

It is a very positive step that the National Parole Board will now have much more authority when it comes to granting, denying, and revoking the record of suspension.

With regard to extension of the ineligibility period for application and concerns about how that can affect people, we need to remember that although the bill recommends that summary conviction offences have a five-year waiting period and indictable offences 10 years, through the use of absolute and conditional discharges there are two other periods: one year for absolute discharges; and three years for conditional discharges, where these records are automatically removed either immediately or upon successful completion of the probation period. Many of these sentences are given out especially with first-time offenders so they don't have to wait for the longer period imposed by this proposed bill.

I note that out of the 400,000 pardons given since 1970, 96% are still in force. That's an important figure, but what about those who've been given pardons who have just not been caught?

I do find it interesting that it appears that a very large number of pardons have been given out in the last few years. I also note that, based on figures given, in the last two years hundreds of sex offenders have been pardoned. This is very troubling.

Some sex offenders, especially predatory criminals and those pedophiles who prey on children, are arguably never cured. If any are included in that group, the consequences could be tragic. I note again these individuals who were pardoned in just the last few years. It should be noted that, according to Statistics Canada, sex offences have one of the highest rates of underreporting in Canada.

There will likely be concern around the issue of no eligibility for those who are convicted of certain sex offences against children or who have three convictions for indictable offences. Anyone who would commit these sexual offences against children is a predator. As I've said previously, it is a well-established fact that many of these predators can never be cured, so in light of that they should never have a record suspension.

It does make sense, though, to allow the noted exceptions, which relate to certain sex offences against minors by offenders close in age, as I think the public would understand this rationale.

The issue of ineligibility where a person has been convicted of more than three indictable offences is one that I respectfully suggest requires some discussion. A young person could be convicted of three break-and-enter offences when they're in their late teens or early twenties. If they clean up, and they're in their thirties and forties, should they still be ineligible? Overall, I believe the police community and the public would support this bill and its intention to allow those who have reformed to have a clean slate to get on with life and be a contributing citizen. Those who continue to reoffend or commit sex offences against children should not get this privilege.

Having the National Parole Board given the authority to make informed decisions in all cases can only be seen as positive. This bill should turn around the public perception that pardons are there just for the asking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemcke.

Perhaps we'll just work our way along the table.

Mr. Fletcher, please.

[Randall Fletcher, Sexual Deviance Specialist, As an Individual]

Just to give you a bit of background, I know I have a bit of an unusual title as a sexual deviance specialist. It's caused me no end of embarrassment sometimes.

I work for the Attorney General's department of the Province of Prince Edward Island. In that position I provide assessment and treatment to anyone who has been convicted of a sexual offence in the province or anyone who is presenting with deviant sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviours regardless of whether or not they have a criminal conviction. I've been doing that for the past 16 years on a full-time basis.

Prior to that I worked for Mental Health Services, doing the same thing on a 50% basis.

I have been qualified as an expert witness in this area by the Supreme Court of P.E.I. And in a previous position, where I worked with Mental Health Services, I also provided treatment to victims of sexual offences.

In 1994 I was awarded the Lieutenant Governor's Award for crime prevention in recognition of my work in establishing a very comprehensive assessment and treatment program for persons who have committed a sexual offence.

My motivation for this work is that I'm very concerned with crime prevention, particularly preventing crimes against children. And it's in that regard that I'm speaking today.

The Canadian justice system recognizes that people who commit criminal offences can be rehabilitated and contribute positively to society. Treatment and rehabilitation programs for people who commit all categories of criminal offences have been proven to reduce reoffending, while punishment on its own has been found overall to either have no effect or, in the case of more severe punishment, the negative effect of increasing reoffence rates.

To justify the denial of record suspension for a category criminal offence, there has to be a compelling reason: for example, if there is scientific evidence of the high reoffence rate for a category of a criminal behaviour; if the effects of that behaviour on victims have been established as always being greater than for other types of offences; if it were established that rehabilitation of people who commit that type of offence was not effective; and finally, if it were established that there are no significant differences between persons who commit that type of offence. Given scientific evidence of those things, it could be argued that record suspension be denied to everyone who commits a sexual offence against a child.

In passing legislation that has an impact on any criminal population, it is also important that there be an awareness of the possibility of unintended consequences. Legislation aimed at making communities safer could have the unintended effect of actually increasing reoffence rates by interfering with the person's rehabilitation into society.

In considering legislation that would deny record suspension to anyone who has been convicted of a sexual offence against a child, the following four points should be taken into consideration. First of all, people who have committed a sexual offence against a child are not a uniform group. They differ significantly in terms of motivation, dangerousness, degree of dysfunction, and the risk to reoffend.

Second, the sexual reoffence rate for people who commit sexual offences against children is not high; most do not reoffend. Compared to many other categories of criminal behaviour, the reoffence rate is relatively low.

Third, treatment and rehabilitation of people who have committed a sexual offence against a child have been proven to be effective. I can tell you, for example, that in a study in 2006 with people who had completed treatment in the province of P.E.I., the reoffence rate over a five- to ten-year period was between 3% and 4%. I believe Dr. Marshall can give you similar statistics for his program.

Finally, the effects of sexual victimization of children can be very severe and lifelong and should be taken seriously. However, there is a continuum of harm, and while no level of harm to a child is acceptable, not all offences produce severe or lasting trauma. Research has shown that the most damage to children is caused by exposure to domestic violence, while children who have been physically, verbally, or emotionally abused experience similar effects both in type and severity to those who have been sexually abused.

Just to put this in perspective, it's important to understand that the verbal or emotional abuse of children, which can produce very severe effects, is not considered a criminal offence.

In summary, people who commit a sexual offence on a child are not all the same. Most do not reoffend. Treatment aimed at reducing the risk to reoffend has proven effective. The effects of sexual abuse on children can be serious and life long, but there are other types of abuse and criminal behaviour with similar or more traumatic effects. A one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. Our system already contains provisions for denying pardons to those sexual offenders who are dangerous and who continue to pose a high risk for sexual offending.

I'd also like to briefly address the risk of unintended consequences. Labelling theory, which was developed by sociologist Howard Becker, holds that deviance is not inherent to an act. Instead, it focuses on the tendency of majorities to attach negative labels to people who are seen as deviant from what is seen as normal or acceptable. The theory is concerned with the self-identity and behaviour of individuals and how that might be influenced or determined by the terms used to describe them. This can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which a person decides that this is what they are; they cannot change, so they may as well accept it.

The passing of legislation that would universally deny suspension to anyone convicted of a sexual offence against a child would deliver the following message: you have been signalled out as among the most dangerous and damaging members of our society; there is nothing you can ever do that would ever convince us that you can be rehabilitated or that you are worthy of pardon.

It is important to consider the effect this could have on the motivation to attend treatment programs and to change behaviour.

Finally, an important component to the rehabilitation of anyone who has committed a criminal offence and has been released into the community after a period of incarceration is the attainment of gainful employment. It is well established that a criminal record can be a deterrent to obtaining a job. For someone who has a record of sexual offending, this is particularly true. Denial of a suspension can further prolong that difficulty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fletcher.

Now to Mr. Marshall, please.

[Dr. William Marshall, Director, Rockwood Psychological Services, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me. It's a pleasure to be here.

I've been doing treatment and research with sexual offenders for the past 42 years. I was a professor at Queen's for 28 years and they gave me the opportunity to do this kind of work. I've consulted for somewhere around 25 countries around the world, helping them design treatment programs for sexual offenders in their prison systems, and I have set up programs in I think six different countries around the world for sexual offenders.

I have 380 publications, including 19 books, most of which deal with sexual offenders and their treatment. I have contracts with Corrections Canada, among others, and we've been providing treatment in corrections facilities in Ontario off and on for the last 30-something years. I started the very first treatment program in 1973 in Kingston Pen. It was the first in the country.

We've been following our offenders very carefully. We have, for example, a cohort of 535 that we've now followed for an average of 10.5 years. Of those 535 treated, 5.2% have reoffended over that period of time. Reoffences among sex offenders, whether treated or not, mostly occur within the first three to four years. So I think we're on safe ground to say this program is very effective.

Corrections Canada has been at the forefront in the world of providing rehabilitative services to all manner of offenders, and particularly sexual offenders. By the way, I concur with Mr. Fletcher that the average reoffence rate of untreated child molesters is 18% over a 10-year period. This is not a remarkably high level of reoffending, compared to other types of crime.

One of the problems in getting sex offenders into treatment is that they need to see some value to themselves. The opportunity for parole is a very important motivator in getting these men in prisons into treatment programs, as is the opportunity to function within a programs-oriented prison rather than a non-programs prison, as is, finally, the opportunity to find some redemption in securing a pardon.

Of course, no sensible community would give pardons to all sex offenders. What they have to do, in my view, is demonstrate, first off, that their danger and risk to innocent children has been reduced, and the best way to do that is through effective treatment in the prisons. Corrections Canada has the good sense to also require most sex offenders, particularly child molesters, to do follow-up treatment in the community once they're released as a condition of parole.

I think the incentive of a possibility of a pardon is crucial, but of course there are some people I would never recommend a pardon for, and I could string off a bunch of names familiar to all of you, I'm sure. We have to have discriminatory procedures. You have to discriminate amongst the level of risk and the efforts the person has made to rehabilitate themselves, not just through treatment programs, but also by their good behaviour in the community.

We can talk about unidentified crimes, but that's like knitting clouds, as one of my colleagues used to say; it's an unknown. We can't know how many unreported offences occur for any particular individual. All we can go by is the official record, their behaviour--information that the parole board can take into account in deciding on whether or not to give them a pardon.

So I would strongly oppose the idea of just wiping out pardons altogether. I think the incentive of the pardon is very important, but we need to make sensible decisions about that, and be, I think, quite conservative about it.