Public Safety Committee on April 21st, 2009

[C/Supt Kate Lines]

Yes, sir. From a police perspective, you're quite right. When we speak of recidivism, especially for an adult male with younger male victims, and when you understand as well that some of those who have a sexual preference for children can offend against hundreds of victims, we really need to keep a perspective on that. I do agree with you--and perhaps it's a cynical police view that we sometimes have--that there not be a plea bargain to a lesser offence in relation to those who do come before the courts, and that we must really and truly understand what the offending is about.

I believe that's where correctional services and those who are involved in the treatment programs give us some of our best literature for those that we feel are self-reporting accurately. That's some of the best research.

But you're quite correct. In relation to the recidivism and risk levels, risk is not static, of course, but dynamic. Over time, there are so many variables, such as alcohol treatment programs and drug treatment programs, that are so dependent on the success of that offender not reoffending. We must always be cognizant of that.

[Mary Campbell]

I would just add that obviously this is the type of crime that tends to be private, as opposed to being a public event. It's hard to ignore a bank robbery, which is, by definition, a public event.

Dr. Hanson is engaged in some research on trying to devise a reliable way to estimate the hidden amount of sex crime. To the extent that he now has or in the future will have anything that he could share with the committee, I'd be happy to pass that along, because it is a very troubling issue with relation to these offences.

[Insp Pierre Nezan]

I would like to weigh in on this one as well.

There is some research out there on undetected offences. First of all, sexual assault is the most under-reported crime. People report their vehicles stolen and their houses broken into, but for a wide range of reasons, a lot of victims won't come forward when they've been sexually assaulted. It's very under-reported. That's the first thing.

There has been some research on undetected offences by offenders in treatment. There's one research project where they found that 23 offenders had an average of about 175 victims each for whom they had not been apprehended. Another study indicated that 232 child molesters had admitted more than 55,000 incidents of molestation. I have another study here by Gene Abel, who is well known in this area, which found that 561 offenders—a broad range of sex offenders, not just one type—had admitted to 291,000 offences. It's well known, certainly in our law enforcement circles, that often, but not always, you're dealing with the tip of the iceberg, and that more comes out through treatment, because there's perhaps no longer any jeopardy at that stage of the game for the offender.

The other thing that has been commented on in Canada by well-known researchers is that, as you indicated, using official records as a measure of recidivism is weak. Usually the follow-up periods are four to five years, which is a relatively short period. The offender may have been incarcerated for part of that time. The other thing is that you're dealing with a criminal conviction. So, first, a lot of the time, you don't get caught. Then, second, you have to be charged. Third, you have to be convicted. There are several processes before you get to the end of the road. Measuring this solely by using conviction statistics has its limitations.

I asked our research and development section to measure the effectiveness of sex offender registries. In their search around the world, they could not find any research measuring the effectiveness of an SOR, but it's a project that the RCMP will be undertaking. We already have a project to measure recidivism of offenders in the national sex offender registry. About 18% of offenders currently in the national sex offender registry have a prior conviction for sexual assault.

[Supt Leo O'Brien]

If I could just add, sir, by way of an example, during my days on the detachment I once did an investigation where a 48-year-old was apprehended for a number of sexual assaults. It came out during the investigation and from the evidence that this 48-year-old had been offending since the age of 18. He had been offending for 30 years and that was the first time the person had been reported and apprehended.

We interviewed 54 children between the ages of 8 to 18. The person indicated under sentencing that, yes, he'd been at this since the age of 18. This was the first time he had been caught. The medical evidence at the time, I recall, was that the medical experts testified they could treat that person, and could manage him, but they could never cure him.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think that's the practical aspect of this. I disagreed with Superintendent Lines when she referred to the “cynical” police perspective, because I think it's the practical police perspective. I think police officers see this every day. Your view is very practical and I think you've expressed that.

Ms. Campbell, are there differences across the country in the perspectives of the provincial and territorial bodies as to whether or not we should expand the registry in a broader sense? Is there some reluctance by some provinces to become more involved? If there is, is it something we need to be cognizant of and work towards strengthening in the registry?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We'll have to make that your final question.

[Mary Campbell]

I would reiterate that no one disagrees with the overall objective--that's very clear--of safety and security for everyone. As with any issue, sometimes there are different paths to achieving that objective.

At the officials level, it's fair to say that we look at many different models. As I say, if people have not looked online at the U.S. sex offender registries, it's very instructive to do so. They're all publicly available online. They are somewhat different from state to state, so it's important to know, when you're talking about a registry, exactly what kind of registry you're talking about.

In terms of expanding the Canadian registry, again, it's a bit hard for me to answer broadly speaking, because there are different ways of expanding the current registry. We've heard comments today about more proactive access to the registry, more automatic registration.

I think it's fair to say that across the country, at the officials level, there are different points of view about the efficacy of the different models. That's the kind of debate you want to have, the kind of analysis you want to have. At the end of the day, I think it is something to be aware of. This is a system that is administered by crown attorneys and police across the country. It's not operated out of Ottawa. We want to have a model that is useful for all jurisdictions, that doesn't impose a burden that some jurisdictions won't be able to meet, but that, on the other hand, doesn't sell short the tools that are needed in other jurisdictions.

I don't have a short answer other than, yes, there are different paths to the same goal. Our job certainly is to listen to the different points of view.

I'll go back to the point that, as we've said, the registry is one tool for police. Of course, CPIC continues to be available as, you might say, a registry of all criminal convictions. That's another tool. Parliament has enacted other measures to try to target sex offending. The idea is to have a range of options available to law enforcement, to schools, to employers, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie. We'll have to come back to you.

Mr. Oliphant, please.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you for being here, and thank you for the work you do.

I want to begin by saying that if we spend one minute of our time on this, one dollar of our money, and it saves one child or one youth, one woman or one man, from becoming a victim, then I think it's worth our time and our money.

I also understand the difficulty in answering some of the questions with exactitude, and the fuzziness of social science research, so when I ask the questions, I'm not expecting all of that...but this for me is such a strong issue of concern that I want to make sure that what we do is actually working. And I know you do as well.

To Ms. Campbell or Mr. Yumansky, are you aware of the work that Jim Coflin did in the department a couple of years ago?

[Mary Campbell]

Yes. He did that under contract for us.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

As I look at that work, it seems the success of the registry is being hinted at, and then eventually--out of a Maclean's magazine article--it comes out that probably not one crime has actually been solved, in either Ontario or Canada, exclusively by the use of the registry. And I think we've got that clear: we can't prove that it works.

There is a tool kit that we have--section 810 peace bonds; sentencing tools and all of the other tools; perhaps double judicial discretion should be offered. I mean, there are many things that we should be trying to add into this. But I don't want to spend more time on this sex registry, or rather sex offenders registry--“sex registry” sounds like something you subscribe to--than is merited if it's not going to actually be effective.

So that's the premise I'm working on: what could actually help? I know you have talked about licence plates, and I've talked about that. Is there something we're missing on this?

[C/Supt Kate Lines]

I think from a practical standpoint, and from a CACP perspective and an Ontario law enforcement perspective, it's just having a tool that's available. Time is of the essence in many of these investigations.

With abducted children, the first 24 hours is critical. In most non-parental abductions, the child is deceased within 24 hours. Time is of the essence. Police access to the database is very important, rather than having to have the baseline for, the reason for, accessing the national registry. Certainly it creates a time constraint when it can't happen within the force itself, and there are parameters in which they must stay. Sometimes, in those very early hours, when one doesn't know for sure and perhaps can't state the criteria, there's concern that there's then a delay in these investigations.

So that's significant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Is there a concern, though, that we waste time or have a false sense of security because of the list? If most offenders are actually known by the family or by the person, is there a wasted police effort in spending time on the registry? Is that a danger?

[C/Supt Kate Lines]

Yes.

I can't state the specific case, given confidentiality, but there was a very high-profile case that occurred a number of years ago for which the registry was accessed. Immediately, because of the circumstances of the case, none of the offenders residing in the area were suspects.

That saves a lot of time for investigators, who can now move in another direction. As I said, that was what I was referring to earlier. It's almost like a negative. Taking someone off the list rather than identifying them has great value when investigative time is of the essence.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. O'Brien, in 2006, the government opened up this legislation through a Senate bill. The RCMP ended up drafting a memo to the federal-provincial-territorial high-risk offenders working group suggesting many changes to this act. Did the government act on any one of them?

[Supt Leo O'Brien]

No, not to this point in time.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

That was three years ago, and the memo, which I'm not going to be able to get a copy of, apparently listed many deficiencies in the bill, as I've read in news accounts. The only thing added was court-martialled offenders. Have you been in any further contact with the minister or the government on this?

[Supt Leo O'Brien]

Yes. During the past year, we briefed the previous minister. Stockwell Day was the minister at the time. He was briefed twice, once by Deputy Martin, our deputy commissioner, and once by Inspector Nezan. It was about a year ago now, I guess.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Has the new minister asked for any intelligence on this?

[Supt Leo O'Brien]

He hasn't asked our office directly. I don't know, but maybe he did so through Public Safety. I believe that he is working with the Public Safety officials.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Just to follow up on a previous question, Ms. Campbell, you told us that in the U.S. this is available to the general public. Could you inform the public in Canada about who has access to this? Is it only the police? Can the general public inform themselves of who is in their neighbourhoods?

[Mary Campbell]

In Canada, the model that was chosen by Parliament is one that restricts access to police, so it is different from the United States, where every state has a publicly available registry. As part of the research we do, of course, you look into why those decisions were made. I think it's important to look at the various reasons why the registries are public.

One of the reasons is, of course, that making the registries public was tied to some federal funding for some unrelated matters. That's the decision the individual states and the U.S. government have made. Again, I would encourage members, as a matter of interest and research, to have a look at those registries.

But no, in Canada the choice was to not have a publicly accessible registry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, again, both for being here and for taking the time.

As you know, this committee is charged with the review of this legislation and we're hearing from all sides. Of course, there's representation by people who feel that it's an infringement on human rights.

I'll make a statement and then ask my question.

I've spent a lot of time with special needs individuals during my life, both children and adults, and their innocence concerns me greatly, which applies to all victims, I suppose, but especially in their case. It's gut-wrenching for me to contemplate the situations that some of them may find themselves in. So I definitely am biased towards giving you the tools you need to do the job in law enforcement on the streets and on a timely basis.

It was mentioned earlier, I think by Mr. Nezan, that the current set-up is inefficient, and the integrity of the data is compromised. That's the note I made on your comments. Can you expand on that a bit?