Public Safety Committee on April 21st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to bring this meeting to order. This is the fifteenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are studying the Sex Offender Information Registration Act in a statutory review of the act.

I'd like to welcome all of our witnesses this morning.

We look forward to your testimony. I think you have decided on a speaking order.

Ms. Campbell, you will begin, I presume, according to the information I have. I'd like to welcome you to the committee.

Before you speak, please introduce yourselves and give us a bit of background on yourselves, your positions, and so on.

Mr. Harris, you have a point of order.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

My colleague Don Davies is here today. There are apparently some impending committee changes, and Mr. Davies is likely to be replacing me in a couple of days. He will be asking questions on our behalf for this morning's first meeting between 9 and 11.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We appreciate your informing us as to what is going on. Thank you.

Ms. Campbell, if you wouldn't mind, please go ahead.

[Mary Campbell, Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here again. I've had the pleasure of appearing before committee many times. It is a privilege to do so.

I am the director general of the Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate in the Department of Public Safety, formerly Solicitor General Canada. I have worked in this area for about 25 years. I'm very pleased to see some of my former parliamentary colleagues still here today as well.

Thank you for your hospitality.

Along with my colleague Cliff Yumansky, I have been working on the sex offender registry since its inception. Short and sweet, that's our background.

I would invite the other members to introduce themselves.

[Chief Superintendent Kate Lines, Chief Superintendent, Ontario Provincial Police, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Good morning. I'm a chief superintendent with the Ontario Provincial Police. I'm in charge of an area within the Ontario Provincial Police called the Investigation Support Bureau. However, today I appear on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

Thank you.

[Superintendent David Truax, Superintendent, Ontario Provincial Police, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

I'm a superintendent with the Ontario Provincial Police and the director of behavioural sciences and analysis services, which also incorporates the Ontario sex offender registry.

[Superintendent Leo O'Brien, Officer in Charge, Behavioural Sciences Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I'm the officer in charge of behavioural sciences with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police here in Ottawa. I've been in that position now for two and a half years. I have a number of other areas, such as the violent crime linkage analysis system, criminal profiling, and geographic profiling, which are related to or in the same compartment as the sex offender registry.

[Inspector Pierre Nezan, Officer in Charge, national sex offender registry, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good morning. I'm the inspector for the RCMP in charge of the national sex offender registry and the criminal profiling programs. I've been in that position for about 16 months.

[Douglas Hoover, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I'm from the Department of Justice and am the lead counsel in the criminal law policy section on the sex offender registry file.

[Clifford Yumansky, Director, Corrections and Community Development, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I'm the director of corrections programs and community development with Public Safety Canada. I've been working on this file for many years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I thank all of you for that.

Some of you have opening remarks. Again, you have an order you wish to do it in. I'll let Ms. Campbell begin, please.

[Mary Campbell]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll speak very briefly to give a bit of context to the legislation. Mr. Yumansky will speak briefly about the process of registration and reporting. Then, I understand, Inspector Nezan will speak on behalf of the RCMP, after which Chief Superintendent Lines, representing CACP, will speak.

Just to remind members, the sex offender registry came into force in December 2004, so we're now in the fifth year of operation. It was very much a product of federal-provincial-territorial consensus and, occasionally, compromise. It was intended to be a national registry and therefore was designed to, as best as possible, meet the needs of all parts of the country and achieve the overall objective.

The purpose of the registry was to assist police in investigating crimes suspected to be of a sexual nature and, hopefully, to assist police in moving to a rapid resolution of the investigation, either by identifying possible sex offender suspects in the locale or, indeed, by excluding people very quickly from further investigation.

It is one tool of many. The objective of Parliament was to add to the tools that would be available in these cases.

It is not a risk-based registry. Offenders who are convicted of offences are put on the registry. It's not an assessment of whether they are more or less serious in their offending.

The registry was amended by Parliament once, primarily to add National Defence to the registry, because, of course, people there are charged under a separate justice system. The registry now applies fully to those offenders as well.

The registry, from its date of implementation, has been very closely scrutinized by federal, provincial, and territorial officials. There have been amendments made as part of the process of adding National Defence.

Of course, other issues continue to come up, which we meet on regularly, about three or four times a year, I would say. We're also in communication by paper and teleconferencing so we can identify areas in which the registry can still be improved. Sometimes, only operations will reveal what might need to be changed.

Having said that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Yumansky for a brief description of the process.

[Clifford Yumansky]

As Ms. Campbell has indicated, my remarks will be very brief. They will focus on two key aspects of the legislation, namely, the registration process and the reporting process.

I have copies of my presentation. If anybody needs them, I'd certainly be happy to share them with you afterward.

At the time of sentencing for an offence specified in the legislation, the crown can ask the court for a registration order. If the offence is one where it is not obvious that it was a sex offence--for example, trespassing at night--but the crown is aware that there was a sexual component, it can ask for an order but will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was committed with the intent to commit one of the designated sexual offences. The offender has the right to appeal the order.

Once the crown has made the request, the offender either can make no argument or can argue that placing his information on a registry would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest and the protection of society through the investigation of crimes of a sexual nature.

If the court orders registration, notice is provided to the offender requiring him or her to register in person at a designated registration centre within 15 days after the order is made or the person is released from custody. The registration period begins on the day the order is made. Re-registration is required once per year, as well as within 15 days of a change of name or residence. If the offender is absent from his home address for more than 15 continuous days, the registration centre must be notified.

Offenders are required to remain registered for one of three periods tied to the maximum penalty available for the offence: 10 years for summary conviction offences and offences with two- and five-year maximums; 20 years for offences carrying a 10- or 14-year maximum sentence; and a lifetime for offences with a maximum life sentence or when there is a prior conviction for a sex offence.

Offenders can make a special application for early termination of the order, but not before five years for orders lasting 10 years, 10 years for orders lasting 20 years, and 20 years for lifetime orders. As well, both the crown and the offender have full rights of appeal of the original decision to order or not to order registration.

I have just a few remarks about the reporting process under the legislation.

Offenders are required to provide to local police, and to keep them current on, certain information such as addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, given names, surnames, aliases, and identifying marks and tattoos. On subsequent occasions when they attend at the registration centre, they are obligated to update any of the information about them that is contained on the registry.

Under the legislation, persons authorized to register information must collect only the information pertaining to the offence and the resulting order. Information is registered in the sex offender database without delay and is treated confidentially. The offender can request correction of information in the case of error or omission.

Information remains in the database indefinitely, except if the conviction or sentence is overturned on appeal, or if a free pardon is granted. A pardon under the Criminal Records Act does not remove the person or the information; the offender must still apply for an early termination order.

Even after a person is relieved of the requirement to report, the information itself stays on the registry, unless as noted. Access to registry data, except by authorized persons for authorized purposes, is prohibited. Police have access to personal information about past sex offenders for at least 10 years and, in many cases, during their natural lives.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

[Insp Pierre Nezan]

Thank you for this opportunity to answer your questions concerning the National Sex Offender Registry and to discuss this very important program. The RCMP view a proper and robust registry as an enhancement to public safety and look forward not only to the government’s continued support of this program, but welcome much needed efforts to strengthen it.

There are currently over 19,000 offenders on the database, and law enforcement agencies across the country administer and enforce the sex offender registry through 14 centres. While the RCMP has welcomed this program, the legislation which governs the Registry has presented us with very significant challenges, some of which are incongruent with the efficient and effective administration and enforcement of the program.

Firstly, the legislation is very specific concerning the information that can be recorded on the database. This means that we cannot include those administrative fields that are necessary for us to ensure the integrity of the data. This conflicts with one of the legislative principles, which calls for this repository to house current and reliable information.

In addition, basic personal data we can collect from convicted sex offenders is restricted. For instance, an offender’s vehicle information cannot be collected or registered on this database, despite the fact that the state, through motor vehicle branch systems, already possesses that information. As a result, the registry is of no assistance to law enforcement in those sexual crime investigations where police may only have a suspect vehicle description as a lead. As you can imagine, some sexual crime investigations are highly time sensitive.

Secondly, not all convicted sex offenders are ordered to the registry. In some provinces, applications are diligently made, while in others, orders are not being sought for a variety of reasons. The absence of an automatic inclusion on the registry of all offenders convicted of sexual crimes has led to the inconsistent application of the law across the country. Someone convicted of molesting a child in one province may be ordered to the registry, while in another province they may not. Given the difficulty of determining which sex offender will reoffend and which will not, this means that some of the recidivists are falling through the cracks.

Third, in many cases, strict provisions on disclosure prohibit communication between agencies that share the responsibility for managing sex offenders. The successful management of sex offenders requires collaboration among different justice agencies; yet the national sex offender registry is essentially prohibited from sharing information that would further this effort or even prevent a crime. This is detrimental not only to the public but to the offender as well.

Finally, the imposed legislated requirement that allows police to access the database only after a sexual crime has occurred runs contrary to our efforts in this country to prevent crime. Law enforcement agencies have a number of databases at their disposal that are accessed routinely by police for law enforcement and public safety purposes. The national sex offender registry database is not among them and is purely a reactive tool. There is no opportunity for this law enforcement tool to prevent what amounts to some of the most serious and devastating crimes.

It is true that offenders who are truly motivated to perpetrate crimes of violence will usually do so. It would be disingenuous on my part to suggest that the national sex offender registry would always or even consistently prevent sexual crimes, but there have been cases with other registries where this very thing has happened. While we do not view the sex offender registry as the panacea for solving sexual crime, it nevertheless has a role to play and can support our efforts in identifying and prosecuting sexual crime offenders. More importantly, crime prevention should always be one of law enforcement’s primary goals.

Crimes of a sexual nature can result in what is often irreparable trauma to the victims. The impact can be a life sentence for some. Therefore every effort should be made to reduce the risk of these crimes. The RCMP believes that a sex offender registry has value and can advance sexual crime investigations and, in some instances, potentially prevent crime.

The Federal government’s introduction of a national sex offender registry in 2004 was a positive move forward. However, there are significant improvements needed in order for this registry to efficiently and effectively fulfil the legislative principles and maximize its contribution to public safety.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Are there any more opening remarks?

Ms. Lines.

[C/Supt Kate Lines]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am a member of the Ontario Provincial Police and have been an officer for 33 years, but today I represent the CACP and the approximately 1,000 members we have across this country.

In past duties with the OPP, I was actually the officer in charge of researching, developing, and implementing Canada's first sex offender registry, which was legislated in the province of Ontario eight years ago today, on April 21, 2001. Ontario's sex offender registration legislation is known as Christopher's Law, in memory of 11-year-old Christopher Stephenson, who in 1988 was abducted and brutally murdered by a convicted sex offender who was on federal statutory release.

At the 1993 inquest into Christopher's death, the coroner's jury recommended the establishment of a national registry for convicted offenders. In the absence of that occurring, and with the support of victims' groups and law enforcement organizations and, of course, the support of the Stephenson family, Ontario implemented the first registry in the country. It remains today the only provincial registry and has maintained its existence given the limitations and restrictions of the legislation that's before you today and of the current national sex offender registry program.

After consulting with police agencies across Canada, Commissioner Julian Fantino of the Ontario Provincial Police requested in August 2008 that the CACP call upon the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety, to amend the Criminal Code and to consider the Province of Ontario's sex offender registry legislation and software application as a model for enhancing the national sex offender registry. Commissioner Fantino's resolution to maximize the public safety of all Canadians was subsequently adopted by the CACP.

To ensure the safety and security of all Canadian residents, CACP supports that the national sex offender registry program should be further enhanced by, for example: mandating automatic registration of sex offenders upon conviction rather than pursuant to a judge's order; ensuring the members of all police services in Canada have access to registered sex offender information for crime prevention or other law enforcement purposes; mandating federal and provincial correctional services to notify sex offender registry centres of offenders' release dates; creating an electronic link between all provincial and federal corrections agencies to the national sex offender registry to ensure the identification of offenders being released from institutions and ensuring their compliance with registration; ensuring that police services of a jurisdiction verify registered offenders, reporting their home addresses; and last, allowing data matching, which includes comparisons of other electronic applications with the NSOR, which is currently prohibited by the national legislation.

My colleague with me today, Superintendent Dave Truax, has a document that hopefully all members will be provided with. It outlines those key differences between the provincial and the national sex offender registries. The CACP has further requested that the federal government financially support a program enhancement, including development, implementation, and maintenance.

Commissioner Fantino recently extended an invitation to the Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Peter Van Loan, to visit the Ontario sex offender registry unit in Orillia and to view its software applications and its capabilities. On behalf of Commissioner Fantino, I extend that invitation to all committee members.

Actually, the database itself can be demonstrated off site as well and does not necessarily require travel to Orillia. Were it not for the usual restriction on using audiovisual equipment for committee members, I would have liked to use my 10 minutes to show you the tremendous capabilities of the Ontario database in protecting the citizens of Ontario and, obviously, potentially our most vulnerable victims, our children.

As of 8:15 this morning, there were 11,963 offenders registered in the Ontario registry, with 278 currently non-compliant and under investigation. Our compliance rate, again as of this morning, is 96.84%, which is one of the highest compliance rates of a sex offender registry worldwide.

Officers from across Ontario continue to directly access the registry daily in regard to their ongoing investigations as well as in relation to their crime prevention efforts.

Here are a couple of examples of how agencies are using the registry. In Ontario, a police agency recently disclosed information on three registered sex offenders in their jurisdiction to the employers of those sex offenders, pursuant to the Police Services Act of Ontario. Two of the offenders had been in the Ontario registry for offences against children and were in positions where they currently had access to children through their employment. The other offender had a history of sexual abuse of the elderly and was currently employed in a nursing home. This information was obtained and shared as a result of the offenders' obligation to register.

In another case, a male store clerk was sexually assaulted. The physical description and behaviour of the offender were queried in the registry and provided the police with a suspect. A photo lineup was prepared and the victim positively identified the offender, who was subsequently charged and convicted.

If a child were to go missing outside of where we're sitting this morning, perhaps at the corner of Elgin Street and Wellington, Ontario's registry, given its query capabilities, could do a radius search within minutes to identify registered sex offenders in the area and provide their physical description, occupation, and even the vehicles they drive. Within a short period of time, officers could be knocking on the doors of those sex offenders.

If Christopher Stephenson's case would have occurred in Ontario today, police would have been notified that a registered sex offender was living very close by, could have gone to that residence, and potentially could have found that person who was holding Christopher Stephenson against his will, perhaps preventing his death.

Christopher's parents, Jim and Anna Stephenson, will be appearing before you on Thursday of this week. They were very much involved and continue to be in partnership with us in our efforts with the Ontario registry. More than 20 years later, they have not given up the cause that the CACP shares with them, that is, to maximize public safety across this country with a registry that will protect its citizens.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Are there any other opening remarks from anyone?

If not, we will turn it over to the official opposition.

Mr. Kania, please.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

Officer O'Brien, do you have any statistics on the likelihood of these types of offenders repeating their crimes as opposed to other types of ordinary criminals doing so?

[Supt Leo O'Brien]

I think I'll let Inspector Nezan answer that question. He's a trained criminal profiler. In his studies to be a profiler he did a lot of research in that area, so he's probably better equipped to answer the question.

[Insp Pierre Nezan]

Thank you.

A number of research projects have been undertaken by academia on the risks of recidivism by sex offenders. Actually, Canada is recognized as a leader in this field.

The ranges for reoffending really vary. In some cases, it's 13% for all types of sex offenders. For others, the risk of recidivism is up to 52% and 60%. It depends on what type of offender you are evaluating. For instance, certain child molesters have a high risk of recidivism, and so do rapists, but other types of offenders are less likely to reoffend.

The answer is very complicated and there are different reasons for that. I can tell you that most people involved in research will tell you that the rates are underestimated, simply because it's very hard to detect sexual crime. Very often, sexual crime is not reported to the police.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

From all the presentations, it seems clear there's a general theory that the Ontario system is better than the national system. Are there are statistics showing fewer repeat offences in Ontario as opposed to nationally? Can you show that it's actually working to stop people from committing such crimes again?

[Mary Campbell]

Again, that's a very good question. There have not been any evaluations to date of the national registry, simply because it is too soon. Now that we're in the fifth year of operation, I think researchers would say this is a point at which they can start looking at the impact of the federal registry. As my colleague has pointed out, it's something we intend to pursue as much as possible.

One of the foremost international experts, Dr. Karl Hanson, works in my area as a sex offender researcher, and as Inspector Nezan has said, for most sex offenders, it's a very mixed group, and you really have to focus on different groups. The highest rate of reoffending tends to be among, for example, men who choose young male strangers as victims. Other groups of sex offenders tend to reoffend at a very low rate. They do tend to offend over a longer period of time; that's one of the features of the category.

As for the impact of various registries on reoffending, obviously it's a difficult research question, because sex offences, in terms of police statistics, have gone down considerably over the past decade. There could be any number of reasons contributing to that decline, of course, and the challenge is to try to parse out what impact a registry would have had on that. It's not impossible, but it is challenging.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Are there any statistics that any of you have in terms of crimes that have actually been solved through the use of either the Ontario or the national system?

[Insp Pierre Nezan]

I can speak to the national system, sir. We have not helped solve any crime where the offender was unknown. There has been a handful of cases where the offender/suspect was already known by the investigating body and we provided updated data, such as an updated photograph or address, which advanced the investigation. But we have not helped in any cases where the crime was unsolved and the offender was unknown.