Public Safety Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I always stand to be corrected when reading legislation like this, but maybe I could ask Ms. Campbell to let me know. When I first read through the bill, it was my understanding that there was an omission here. My amendment would require a sex offender, within seven days of any change to information, to report that change to a person who collects information at a registration centre.

If I hear my colleague on the other side correctly, he's telling me that the general obligation exists somewhere else. If that's the case, then my amendment is not necessary. Perhaps Ms. Campbell could help with that.

[Mary Campbell]

The obligation with respect to name and address is amended in Bill C-34 from 15 days to seven days to tighten up the timeframe.

The NDP-6 motion would require that all the information that is collected would have to be reported within that timeframe if it changed. The list of information in the Sex Offender Information Registration Act includes tattoos, other identifying marks, a range of items of information that police want to know have changed, but it's on an annual basis.

The most important elements, the name and address, would have to be reported within seven days. I think the way it's worded now doesn't exclude having to report on those changes but simply provides a longer framework. If you had to report within seven days every time you got a new tattoo, for example, or a hair colour change or what have you.... Again, it's a balancing act, and that's why it has been framed this way in the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, my specific amendment is under clause 33, which speaks only of the address of every place at which they are employed or retained or engaged on a volunteer basis or, if there is no address or location of that place, the name of their employer or the person who engages them on a volunteer basis and the type of work they do.

My amendment would require that information. It says:

(2.1) A sex offender shall, within seven days of any change in the information that they have provided under subsection (1), report that change to a person who collects information at a registration centre.

It was the employer that I had in my mind. What's not in subsection (1) is all the other bits of information, because I only see proposed paragraph 5(1)(d) there. If we are improving this registry, I don't think we want a person to just notify of a change of name or address; I think they should at the very least notify of their place of employment.

[Mary Campbell]

Just to clarify, Mr. Chair, Bill C-34, being an amendment bill, on page 27 does amend just paragraph 5(1)(d) to add the reference to name of employer, but the effect of adding a new proposed subsection (2.1), referring to subsection 5(1)...only (d) is replicated there. But if you then look at SOIRA subsection 5(1), there you do find all of the information listed, things like height and weight. So it's a question of, if your weight changed substantially, whether you would be required to report that within seven days or whether it is sufficient to report it annually. It's the same with physically distinguishing marks and phone numbers. Simply to explain, it would in fact affect all of subsection 5(1).

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, what I want to say as well is that if my height changes annually, I'd be pleased to report that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mine changes annually.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

If I can have the consent of the committee, what I was meaning—it was probably poor drafting on our part—was to amend paragraph 5(1)(d), not all the information in subsection 5(1), so that if you changed employers you'd have to notify the registry within seven days. That was the intent of our drafting. If the committee thinks that's a good idea, then I would ask that my amendment be changed to make that a reference to paragraph 5(1)(d) of the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I've got two more people on my list, Ms. Glover and then Ms. Mourani.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank Mr. Davies for proposing this amendment.

What I'd like to ask is perhaps of Ms. Campbell. I'm wondering about the administrative burden, because I know my weight changes depending sometimes on the month, because of celebrations like Christmas. What administrative challenges would come into effect if we were to adopt this amendment? Do you have some insight into that, Ms. Campbell?

[Mary Campbell]

I think it's clear that it would add to the workloads of local police and of the registry itself if all of the elements in subsection 5(1) had to be reported on within seven days of any change. It's quite a thorough list. If it were with respect to reporting name, address, and the paragraph (d) in Bill C-34 within seven days, it would be less onerous or of less administrative difficulty. I would say that if it were the full list it would be a significant administrative impact.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Hoover, it appears you may have some comments.

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

One of the interesting things here is how far that goes. For example, you do have to report your weight. I don't know how often you'd have to change that. We anticipate that within 10 years there'll be a total of 50,000 offenders on the registry reporting on an annual basis. That's a significant number. It would be difficult to suggest exactly how many people would be re-registering under that model as opposed to this model, but there's a potential for a significant increase.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry, maybe we can speed this up. I think I've already made it clear that the purpose of my amendment is only to add the change of employer within seven days. I don't understand the point of the discussion going on about height or weight when I've already made clear that was not the purpose of my amendment. I just wanted to make a clerical change to make it clear that my amendment is simply to add the requirement of reporting a change of your employer within seven days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I think, though, that's not what it effectively does. Would somebody with more legal expertise...because it says under subsection (1) that they have to report that. So I don't think it says just employer.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

No, it doesn't, Mr. Chairman. But again if you read the act, it says subsection 33(1), and then it says paragraph 5(1)(d) of the act is replaced by the following, which was just about the location of the employer. When I drafted my amendment, it was either my error or the error of the drafter—something got lost—but I was referring to this paragraph. What it should say is “under paragraph 5(1)(d)”, not “under subsection (1)”. That was my intent.

So rather than engage in a long discussion about the ridiculousness of reporting your weight change every seven days, when I'm telling you that's not what I was intending, I'll withdraw the amendment if people want to insist on talking about something that I'm trying repeatedly to say that I'm not trying to amend. Or, I'd like to hear from everybody on the committee whether they're opposed or not to simply changing my amendment to refer to 5(1)(d), as I originally intended, to make it clear that you have to report a change of your employer within seven days. If people are opposed to that, they can let me know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Well, you have actually proposed two things: to withdraw your amendment, or to get the consent of the committee to amend yours to refer simply to paragraph 5(1)(d).

Is that what I understand you to say?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think I would prefer to do that first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

This situation is similar to a previous one I ruled on. You can't amend your own amendment, but someone else on the committee can do so, or you can withdraw it and propose a new amendment.

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'll make the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, Mr. Holland has moved the subamendment. Let's be clear now on what we're doing.

Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Mourani. You have been on my list for some time. My apologies. Go ahead.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have one question for Ms. Campbell in order to get a better sense of the proposed amendments.

In the current legislation, what information does an offender have to provide with seven days? What additional information does the bill require them to provide?

[Mary Campbell]

In Bill C-34, clauses 29, 30, and 32 contain changes to the reporting time requirement. They refer to when the person has to report the first time, and if they are changing their given name or surname. It really all relates to name and residence, where it's tightening up the 15 days to seven days.

So they were already captured under a separate scheme, by the 15-day reporting requirement in the existing SOIRA, whilst other elements are subject to annual reporting. So Bill C-34 takes that 15-day period and changes it to a seven-day reporting period, for various reasons that I can explain if you wish. It doesn't touch the existing reporting requirements in relation to the longer list that's found in current subsection 5(1), which refers obviously to some things that might not change so easily, a telephone number, and things like that.