Public Safety Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I was here as well, okay? So my apologies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Let's have the hour, then. It's not the minister's fault, but he's here—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Quorum doesn't mean that the government side all has to be here. In fact, I believe that there were enough government members here, and there was a quorum. If the meeting wasn't called, it is not the minister's fault. His schedule is busy. He committed to being here until 12 o'clock. He was here at 10:55. This is an issue that happens with lots of committees, and I don't think the minister should change his schedule because this started five minutes late.

There was a quorum here.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Chair, not to interrupt my good friend Mr. MacKenzie, but I'm happy, if it makes Mr. Davies happy, to just step out of the process and have him ask another question or two. He's had one round. Everybody else has had two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I would have to have the unanimous consent of the committee for Mr. Davies to ask a question, because Ms. Mourani has three more minutes on her time, and then we would go over to the Conservative Party.

With unanimous consent—unless Ms. Mourani wants to give Mr. Davies....

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I could give him my three minutes. I have no problem with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

You have three minutes, sir.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you to the committee.

I meant no disrespect to the minister. He was here well in time.

Mr. Minister, you made reference to the current problem of prosecutors pleading away or sometimes forgetting to ask for registration. I think it's important to understand that the current system is that when that application is made, it is virtually automatic, by virtue of the very heavy test that is made.

I think we all agree that this is a mischief we ought to fix. I think I heard you say that you were open to this suggestion--namely, that if the request was automatic, and then it was the judge who was saying yes or no, that might be something that you might consider.

I'd like to ask whether you might consider going to a model whereby upon conviction the request is automatic, and the prosecutor doesn't have to make it or trade it, but it still leaves some discretion in the hands of the judge as to whether the order is appropriate.

Is that something you would consider?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I mentioned it in passing not as something I supported but rather as something that would be an improvement on the existing condition. But I believe that the amendments before you are the right way to go; they are what I would support. I really meant to point a contrast: that the gaps that existed were not considered, thought-out gaps by judges applying judgment; that the gaps that existed right now were through either plea bargains or oversights. To me, this situation does not offer a good reason to keep those gaps.

The automatic inclusion model has worked in Ontario. It is a good model. I think it should be applied here, and that's what is in the proposal in front of you.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Minister, here is my supplemental question. The thing about the Ontario model, of course, is that the list of offences for which inclusion is automatic is much shorter than the list federally. One of the concerns that has been expressed here is that one of the offences.... Let's say it's sexual assault, which is included under the federal list but not under the Ontario list. While all sexual assaults are serious, it can be proceeded with by summary indictment or by indictment. It is conceivable that there are some summary conviction offences of simple sexual assault for which it may not be appropriate to have someone registered for 10 years as a sex offender.

Would you be amenable to cutting down the list of crimes that are under the federal list to the same list that is in Ontario for that kind of concept?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

No, my preference is the list that is in front of you. I suppose you as a committee can make other recommendations, if you feel it fit, but I think the list that is there right now is appropriate.

I'll just leave it at that. I think it is an appropriate list right now.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

The issue is, of course, that the act also makes reference to the important principles of helping offenders reintegrate into society and not reoffend, so there is a balance in the act at present between registration to protect the community and also society's interest—our public interest—in making sure that offenders don't have their rehabilitation unduly interfered with. The concern is that registration of certain types of people may be inconsistent with their rehabilitation and that we might be making society less safe by forcing registrations of people that aren't proper. That is the reasoning behind having some discretion.

Your act would take away all discretion. Do you think that is the proper way to go, in light of those comments?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I have difficulty with the argument that registration would interfere with someone's rehabilitation. I'm not sure how that prevents their reintegration into society. It may mean they have obligations a little more than others, but those are obligations that have been earned through conduct. All kinds of different people have different obligations in society.

We have to keep our eye focused, as policy-makers, on the overall outcome of public safety and the safety of the community. That's my view of the principal priority here, and I think that principal priority is best served by automatic inclusion of sex offenders in the registry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Our time has expired. I want to thank you and Ms. Campbell for appearing before the committee.

We will suspend for a brief moment and clear the room as we go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]