Evidence of meeting #41 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mackenzie.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That might be of some assistance.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
People are nodding. The committee is open to your submitting that, so if you would like to read that into the record or somehow relay that to us here, I'd rather ensure that we get it right than have some doubt.
11:55 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It would be unfortunate, for want of a conjunction at the end, that it wouldn't flow properly.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I'll tell you what. We will suspend here for a moment while we discuss this and make sure we get it right.
Let's suspend for a moment, then reconvene.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
We're ready to reconvene here.
I think it's been decided--and Monsieur Ménard, you can confirm this--that you're prepared to withdraw amendment BQ-3.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Yes, okay.
We need the consent of the committee here for him to withdraw that. Does the committee give its consent?
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
The understanding is that we will now move to clause 36. Mr. MacKenzie will have an amendment that he will put on the record.
(On clause 36--Registration of information—Canadian Forces)
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move that Bill C-34, in clause 36, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 30 with the following:
36(1). Subsection 8.2(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (f) and by adding the following after paragraph (f): (f.1) their method of operating in relation to the offence or offences if that information is available to the person who registers information; 36(2). Subsection 8.2(2) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (g) and by adding the following after paragraph (g): (g.1) their method of operating in relation to the offence or offences if that information is available to the person who registers information; 36(3). Subsection 8.2(6) of the Act is replaced
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Are there any questions in regard to this?
This is really making everything consistent with what we've already passed.
Monsieur Ménard.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
In short, you have replaced my three amendments, with respect to “modus operandi”, with the new wording that we all agreed on. Is that right?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Are there any further comments?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 36 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to)
(On clause 39)
I will give an opportunity to the government here to move amendment G-5, which is found on page 5. I think it involves two pages.
Who's going to move it? Mr. MacKenzie.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay. Everybody has it in front of them, I hope. I'll now ask if there's any discussion in regard to amendment G-5 as found on the list of amendments in front of you.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 39 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 40 to 59 inclusive agreed to)
Now we have new clause 59.1.
You don't have to read the entire amendment, Mr. Davies, but if you wish to move it, I'll give you the opportunity to do it right now.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay. Is there any discussion on it?
Mr. Davies, I'll give you the first opportunity.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'll be short about this.
The purpose of this act, as originally conceived by Parliament, was to create a registry to assist our police officers in solving crimes of a sexual nature. One of the underpinnings of the act is that a crime had been committed or was thought to be committed. If you read the first couple of sections of the act, they make it clear that Parliament at that time was very sensitive to balancing the interests of society and the rehabilitation of sex offenders, not necessarily because they were terribly concerned about the privacy interests of sex offenders, although that is an important factor, but because it was recognized by Parliament that ensuring that sex offenders are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society without reoffending is an important societal goal that we all have an interest in. So there was a balancing of those twin interests.
What we've done, I would submit, by our review, and what this bill does, is two things.
I'll back up and say one other thing. The other thing the act did, back when it was passed, was make registration subject to the discretion of the courts. There was obviously a recognition by the parliamentarians of that time that there were certain circumstances in which it was not appropriate for a Canadian to be subject to a registration order.
I also want to underscore, for all committee members as they consider my amendment, that what we're doing in this registry is an important thing but it's also an onerous thing. We are subjecting people who have committed a crime to orders for ten years to life that require them to do a lot of things that are relatively onerous. They have to let the police know when they are leaving their employer; they have to let the police know when they change cars; they have to let the employer know when they go out of the province for periods of time—I can't remember for how long. These are very onerous restrictions on people, and although they may be properly levied, we have to understand the serious incursion into people's privacy that this entails.
Having said that, I think one of the two major changes that this bill before us makes is to add prevention to the act. Prevention is a good thing, and as a word we're all in favour of it, but it does change significantly the original purpose of the act, which was not to prevent a crime but to help the police solve a crime that had already been committed or was thought to have been committed. We really didn't hear any evidence. I think it's fair to say that none of us heard any piercing evidence about what adding prevention to this act would look like. What does it mean? If police can access the registry to prevent a crime, does that mean that police can search the registry and then go visit known sex offenders in their place of work and follow them or surveil them? That might be good or it might be bad. But we didn't really ever consider that, and that's a significant departure from the act as it was originally conceived.
The second major thing this act does is remove discretion from registration. Through my amendments, I suggest that we have a statutory review of just those two aspects of the bill two years from now, so that two years from now we can look and see how automatic registration has worked. Maybe it will be like the Ontario experience has been and it will be fine. Maybe we will find that there have been no real miscarriages of justice. Maybe we'll find that there haven't been any cases of people being registered who ought not to have been. But I'd like to hear from prosecutors and people from the justice department, maybe defence lawyers and police, at that time to see how that is working.
I would also remind everybody on the committee that the automatic registration that we have adopted in this act applies to a wider range of offences—we all know that—than it does in Ontario, including, as I will repeat for I hope the last time, the hybrid offence of sexual assault, which could include sex offences on the more minor scale.
The second aspect of my amendment is that it would ask us to review how the prevention aspect has worked. So two years from now, we can actually see if it's been helpful. How have the police implemented it? Is it working well or is not working well?
That's the purpose of my amendments, Mr. Chairman, to review the bill just for those two particular aspects. I think it would give us a chance to really see how our amendments today are working.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative