Justice Committee on Feb. 16th, 2015

[Sue O'Sullivan]

It's my understanding that we have a national sex offenders registry, which has 36,000 names on it, according to one witness. That is the registry that's available to police and is going to be expanded to CBSA, as I understand, which we support.

Then there's this idea of a public one. My understanding is that it would only include the offenders about whom there has been a decision already that they are high risk. They're coming back into the community, and they are at high risk to reoffend. So this is not about talking about the national registry that the police have access to. What we're talking about is that, right now—this is my understanding—there will be people who are at such high risk that there is a decision made by a process, having spoken to some people in law enforcement, involved in behavioural sciences, and in some cases obviously correctional services, in some cases having even met with the offender, depending on the community you're in.

These are decisions that are not taken lightly. These are decisions for which absolutely you would want to ensure there's something in the legislation so that these processes that are in place consider the identity of the victim.

However, I am going to say two things about a victim. In some cases, by the time the offender is charged, the child victim may in fact be an adult. So when it comes to—you've heard me say this before—choice and options, you've heard victims of both child sexual abuse and sexual abuse who have wanted to come forward and be public.

Again, when I talk about a process that's in place and these decisions, my understanding based on the previous police witness here, is that in fact there are these discussions that will be going on with the provinces and territories, that there would be a consideration to that piece on the victim's identification, as part of that and a continued part of a process, any process. I would not always want to make the assumption, because I am aware from recently speaking to law enforcement—without getting into detail and confidentiality—of a case in which a victim had become an adult and in fact was spoken to by the police service as to his or her opinion.

These are the kinds of things. I'll just use those words, choice and options and the processes that are in place. Obviously if that child still is a child, then there are other safeguards that would have to be in place in terms of adults, caregivers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Tremblay, do you want to respond?

[Frank Tremblay]

Currently, if a crime everyone finds repugnant is committed, there will be a great deal of publicity. It will be talked about everywhere and we will see the abuser. What is the point of saying that we will really cause harm to that abuser if in addition to that, his name is added to a registry? It will be seen throughout Canada, and throughout Quebec.

We know some cases; Alain can tell you about them. The media will publicize the case, but the important thing is that we all return to our homes in the evening. As the father of 9- and 11-year-old children, I want to know if there is such a person in my neighbourhood, even if I don't want to know his address.

Earlier someone talked about the assaults that were committed and asked if those actions would be described and linked to the victim. I took part in a trial myself and I lifted the publication ban, because I wanted to do things properly. If someone does not want to do that—even an adult who was assaulted—no detail will be published and that person will never be identified. The person we want to see identified is the offender, the mentally ill person, the crazy one, the recidivist. We want to know if he is close to our home. Perhaps you are not scared of him, but I am, and I don't want my daughter to fall into his hands. That is what I want to prevent.

I also want us to stop looking at only one side. People are always concerned about the abuser, and wonder whether his rights are being breached!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers. Sorry, that's our time.

Our next questioner is Mr. Wilks from the Conservative Party.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thanks, Chair. Thanks to the witnesses for being here.

Ms. O'Sullivan, part of the bill that hasn't been talked about a lot is in relation to probation orders, prohibition orders, and peace bonds. They're all found in the Criminal Code now. They're all in place for the protection of Canadians from convicted sex offenders and those who have been brought before the courts.

While at committee, the minister had stated that the purpose of those provisions was to ensure that those convicted of those offences follow through with the court-imposed sanctions that are put upon them. As a result of that, unfortunately, there are those who breach. Not everyone breaches, but some do breach, and that's just part of how things happen.

Although there have been attempts over the years to try to fix that, it's a really difficult thing to do because, let's just face it, some people have a really hard time following rules. That's just the way it is. But it's also an important message we have to send to the public and to the offenders that there are rules in place once they're released.

For the benefit of the committee, I wonder if you could talk about what your views are on this bill from the perspective of breaches of probation, prohibition orders, and peace bonds or supervision orders.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

This speaks to the whole process. I'm going to speak from a victim's lens.

The court has decided that this person is going to be under these conditions and has an expectation they're going to comply. If they breach those, then they have to be accountable. We're all accountable for our actions.

When an offender is out there these are court ordered, these are impositions that are put on by the court, so yes, it needs to be taken very seriously when somebody breaches those. They need to be held accountable for that. That process needs to be enforced because at the end of the day we hear about offenders who are trying to perhaps engage in rehabilitation and the rest of that, but it is all part of how there have to be those parameters in place that when they do breach they're held accountable.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'll digress a bit here and I'll go back to my previous life as a police officer.

That's the challenge. Unfortunately, there are those in society who are released on conditions, who choose not to recognize the conditions. Irrespective of how hard the courts try, they choose not to follow their conditions. Then they're brought before the court again for a breach, and in some cases are provided with a jail sentence, but in a lot of cases they're not. They're released again, given a second chance, or sometimes a 10th or a 15th chance. We see it quite often.

I don't want to belabour the mandatory minimum because I think we've heard enough of that, but at the end of the day, when is enough enough? The question would be, to anyone here, if a person is released on conditions by a provincial court judge and/or a federal court judge, and they breach those conditions—let's say specific to a sexual assault case—what should happen if they come before the courts, breaching the conditions that they were released upon by the courts. Should they be released again, or be put in jail?

That's where I see the failure of the system when it comes to victims. The courts are trying their best to balance, but when is the balance done and you say enough is enough? You've had your chance. We've given you every chance we can.

I direct that to Ms. Hannem, if I may, and then I just want to ask another question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You won't have time.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'll quickly ask it now.

Provincially, with a deuce less a day, you can mandatorily tell someone to take a course within the jail system. Federally they can be offered, but you don't have to take them. There is no one who has to mandatorily take any course in a federally imposed system. Should that change as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Dr. Hannem, the floor is yours.

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

To that question directly, treatment engaged in under coercion is generally less effective, often completely ineffective. I would say no, it doesn't really make sense. I think that to put your resources where they're going to be most effective, you have people volunteer to take those courses. If they choose not to, then that comes under consideration at the level of parole in terms of their risk. I think we have that covered.

You can't force people to take programs that don't exist. In Alberta, for example, a sex offender can't be forced to take sex offender treatment. It simply isn't there. You'd have to put them in the community, in a hospital, because that's where the treatment is in Alberta.

On the other issue of breaching, this is again a question of judicial discretion for me, in terms of what the breach is. What are the conditions? What level of risk does that breach pose to the community? There could be a range of conditions on a release, some of which may include not having access to a cellphone. The individual may need to have a cellphone for work, for other purposes. If they breach that condition—

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

The thing is, we're talking about sex assault.

[Dr. Stacey Hannem]

Yes, but this is a condition that gets put on sex offenders being released in the community because they can't have a phone that has access to the Internet. Finding yourself a phone that doesn't have Internet capability in this day and age is difficult.

If the breach is deemed to put people at risk.... If you have an offender whose offence cycle is linked to drugs or alcohol and that person breaches by engaging in using drugs and alcohol, then absolutely the judge needs to take that seriously and there needs to be a recourse. In other cases it may be deemed that the breach is not a significant risk.

We want people to not be breaching, to put in place the conditions that support them to remain effectively in the community. We know what does that. We know that programs like Circles of Support and Accountability have all kinds of research to back them up. I've worked with that organization. I've seen it in action. I've had convicted sex offenders in my home.

You ask, “Who would do this?” People do this to ensure public safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, we're going to have to move on. Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is from the New Democratic Party.

Madame Boivin, I will give you lots of time too, by the way.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The discussion is very interesting.

What worries me is that bills are always presented as the panacea for all problems, but once passed, there is not much follow-up.

From the beginning, there is something that has been bothering me enormously. I remember the first interview I gave to a radio station in Quebec—which I am not going to name—after the Conservative government introduced Bill C-26. People felt that all sensitive-hearted people would oppose this bill, would play at being lawyers, and so on, although it had been introduced to protect our children.

I am worried that the bill that has been introduced aims to create a database to make information accessible to the public on persons who have been found guilty of sexual assaults against children and who are at high risk of committing sexual offences. My concern is not exactly the same as that of certain witnesses who are here. This has made me shudder from the beginning, because it means that someone will be back in society whereas we know, because it has just been determined, that he is at high risk of committing sexual offences. What is wrong with that picture? There is a problem somewhere.

The fact of knowing that offenders have been released and that they are at high risk of reoffending should help us all to sleep better, including previous and future victims. It seems to me that there is something wrong with that concept.

Is there someone among the witnesses who has thought about the criteria that will allow authorities to determine if a person is at high risk of committing a sexual offence? If there is a witness who is intelligent enough to help us provide guidelines to the government in that regard, we would appreciate it. According to Bill C-26, the governor in council will by regulation establish the criteria that will allow people to decide whether someone who was found guilty of a sexual offence against a child is at high risk of reoffending.

Ms. O'Sullivan, I would be tempted to throw that ball in your court, even though I am sure you do not want it. What should those criteria be? Should they not be established in advance, rather than leaving the whole topic open and saying that they will be established through regulations? Moreover, the context is such that there now seems to be a lot of overlapping legislation.

Not that long ago, we studied Bill S-2, which allows delegation through regulations. We may never see it again and we will suddenly realize that there is a regulation that establishes criteria and that we did not even know it.

Can someone suggest guidelines for these criteria? Is there someone among the witnesses who is concerned about the fact that a database will be created, while we know that an offender is being released who is at high risk of reoffending?

[Sue O'Sullivan]

Well, I have a couple of things. First of all, on your general comments about how we need to look at the entire.... We're here discussing one bill. Your colleague mentioned the issue of the victims bill of rights. You've heard me present on those issues.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Yes.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

I want to agree that we need to look.... If we want healthy and safe communities, it is about balancing and looking at all the prevention and the rehabilitation that victims would say they want. You've heard victims say this. They want what offenders have and they want the right to rehabilitate and have those resources in place. If we want healthy and safe communities, we need to look at that holistic look, not just at the time of crime but the entire continuum.

Second of all, there already are processes in place in this country. There have been high-risk public notifications going on. In many cases in some communities, they will include community members, and they will include, as I've said, the Correctional Service of Canada, so there already are processes in place that police services are using.

I think Ms. Hannem stated it. These processes may differ from community to community, and it's something that hopefully in a national conversation.... It's exactly what you're saying: let's have that conversation about what it would be. I too agree. Let's have an evaluation. We have an opportunity here at this time, if this bill does go through, in that we also can consider that there is an evaluation process put in place at the beginning so that we can ask a few years down the road if this is the most effective or if this is the best place to put the money. But at the end of the day—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Aren't we luring ourselves or deluding ourselves in thinking that it would make our communities more secure to have that—

[Sue O'Sullivan]

But we have heard from victims, and we have seen cases where people have been released back into the community, and at some point when they are high risk there's an onus that the information—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

But isn't it included in the charter of victims rights that they will automatically know that their sexual predator is getting released?

There is a rule of law which says that Parliament does not speak in vain. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights already states that there will be more communication with victims and that they will be kept informed. This is not what is being discussed here. With all due respect to Mr. Fortier and Mr. Tremblay, we are not talking about their case here. We are talking about informing the public that a dangerous person presents a risk. This is what the part of the bill that deals with the new database is discussing.

In that context, my question is whether we are not deceiving ourselves into thinking that communities will become safer in that way, while we have no criteria. There has not been any national discussion with people who are used to dealing with this issue.

The debate has been at an intellectual level, among lawyers and people who have their own experience, but we are not necessarily discussing what Bill C-26 aims to accomplish.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

But there are risk assessment processes, and again, Ms. Hannem has spoken to that in terms of the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. They do a risk assessment, but as well, there are the community processes in place that rely on some of that expertise coming to the table. I don't disagree with you. Is this alone going to make public safety...? No, because again, it's exactly what you said, combined with the victims bill of rights....

I wanted to add to one point you made about whether victims will be told when their offender is.... Federally, if someone is registered as a victim with the Correctional Service of Canada parole board and they choose to be notified of that information, then they will be notified. But it's not a public notification. It's for registered victims. You've identified it. We're talking about a very small percentage. Again, according to the data here, there are 36,000 registered sex offenders in Canada. That database is available to police agencies and is being used, and I think you even spoke about the efficacy in terms of the compliance issue—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I don't think all 36,000 of them would fit the criteria, necessarily, and I'm still unsure about what they are—

[Sue O'Sullivan]

Oh, absolutely not. Like everybody, probably, I got on the databases that are currently the websites that are available publicly, and it's not a huge.... I think that in Saskatchewan there are only two on there.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

But you see, in your answers you're at the same time creating more doubts in my head, because you talk about the parole boards and you talk about the police, but we don't know who's going to be in charge of this. As a lawyer—and sadly for some people I am—