Good morning. My name is Carman Baggaley. I'm a strategic policy advisor with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. I'm here with our general counsel, Lisa Campbell. We're pleased that we were asked to appear to comment on the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.
Our office has an obvious interest in the act. The act requires convicted sex offenders to register with the police and, after they've been released, regularly inform the police of their movements. In addition, they're required to provide personal information, telephone numbers, secondary addresses, and other information that potentially allows the police to contact them. These are requirements that are not imposed on other types of offenders who have completed their sentences.
We understand why this is the case, given the seriousness of these offences. Nonetheless, this is a significant intrusion into an individual's privacy, an intrusion that can only be justified on the grounds that it produces a clear and demonstrable public safety benefit that cannot be achieved through less intrusive means.
One way to assess the reasonableness of the inherent intrusiveness of the legislation is to look at its effectiveness. We know that questions were raised about the potential effectiveness of the registry when the legislation was first proposed. We're not aware of any formal evaluations that have been done since the act came into effect that would directly answer these questions.
We're also aware of testimony before this committee that casts doubts on the effectiveness of the registry. Assessing the effectiveness of the scheme is very important. If it's not effective, then the privacy intrusion is for nought. Sacrificing someone's privacy in the hope that this may protect society is a dangerous precedent.
We expect that the committee will hear many suggestions to improve the registry, and we expect that many of these suggestions will involve expanding the scope of the regime. This could involve a number of possible changes, such as increasing the number of designated offences, eliminating judicial discretion with respect to the issuance of orders, or allowing greater or broader use of access to the registry.
We would urge the committee to avoid trying to improve the effectiveness of the registry by allowing its broader use. Providing public access to the registry or allowing it to be used for community notification could be counterproductive. Incidents have occurred in both the United States and the United Kingdom in which members of the public have attacked and even killed people suspected of being sex offenders, based on information contained in the press or accessible through the Internet.
In addition to the harm caused to the offender, or, in some cases, people wrongly thought to be an offender, this publicity may be counterproductive. It can drive offenders underground and make them less likely to comply with registration requirements. One of the purposes of the act is to help police investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring registration of information related to sexual offences. Making changes to the act that would reduce the likelihood of compliance runs counter to this purpose.
Publicizing the identities of offenders may also make them less likely to seek treatment, and it could make it harder for them to establish a stable environment, increasing the possibility that they may reoffend.
We did not come here this morning to urge the committee to recommend withdrawing the legislation. We know this isn't going to happen. We know there is considerable pressure to change the legislation. We would urge the committee to look at any proposals carefully, particularly proposals that would increase the amount of information being collected or disclosed or expand the permitted uses.
There may be ways to make the scheme more effective, perhaps through increased resources or through procedural changes that would enhance the effectiveness and value of the legislation without increasing its intrusiveness.
We'd like to conclude by offering two specific suggestions. First of all, we think there should be greater transparency and openness about the program. For example, we weren't able to find any information on either the RCMP's website or Public Safety's website about the number of registered offenders. In contrast, one can look at the DNA data bank. It publishes an annual report. You can go to its website and find out a great deal of information about how that program operates.
The other recommendation we would make, and we think this is critically important, is that there should be a formal evaluation of the effectiveness of the legislation. This should be done by an independent third party. We would strongly recommend that this evaluation be done before any significant changes are made to the legislation.
Thank you for your time. We'll be pleased to answer any questions you may have.