Public Safety committee  Yes. From a drafting perspective, I think there was additional wording, which Mr. Yumansky has, that refers to “if the information is available”. That would address those situations where it wouldn't be an absolute requirement to enter the information if it's not available. Although it might seem implicit that one would not enter information that is not available, the drafters seem to feel that out of an abundance of caution the words should be there.

Public Safety committee  We've just been having a quick discussion here. There seems to be a sense that given that Black's Law Dictionary says “a method of operating”, it certainly corresponds to what is in the French dictionary. I'm not sure if it would be "façon de travailler" or "façon de fonctionner"—

Public Safety committee  I don't have anything to suggest immediately. If the committee wished to stand it down for a few moments, the officials could take advantage of the direction of the committee to see if they can come up with something.

Public Safety committee  I would just add one thing, which I meant to say and then overlooked, Mr. Chair. Just also bear in mind, as has been said before, that the registry is one tool for police in investigating crimes and presumably at some point in preventing them. Other tools remain at their disposal, and what occurred to us of course was the tool known by its acronym ViCLAS, the violent crime linkage analysis system.

Public Safety committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're much more attentive than my law students, I can tell you. I can obviously not comment on the merits of the proposal but simply inform on the background. When officials looked at the amendment, one of the things we did was to consult with the drafters at the Department of Justice.

Public Safety committee  Yes, it was just a simple oversight.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  I have just a clarification, Mr. Chair. There are two situations where the Canadian has committed the offence abroad. There is of course the situation where the person is coming back under the International Transfer of Offenders Act. In those situations, the scheme is that the Minister of Public Safety, who is responsible for the administration of that act, is the authority under law to make the decision about whether the offence is equivalent or not.

Public Safety committee  Yes, perhaps I could help out. I'm not sure where you're looking, Mr. Ménard. If you're looking at Bill C-34, you are correct, it is a motion that would affect page 8 just after clause 10. It is of course not there, and this may be something the chair will be commenting on. It is an amendment to the Criminal Code provisions as they currently exist outside of Bill C-34.

Public Safety committee  I'm not familiar with any convictions for non-compliance with either the Ontario or the federal registry. I can tell you the penalty structure for the federal registry: a first offence is a summary conviction offence, which carries a maximum of up to six months' incarceration or a $10,000 fine; and second or subsequent offences are hybrid offences, punishable by up to two years' incarceration, or again up to $10,000 as a fine.

Public Safety committee  There's another substantial difference, which is that the federal registry has, as Mr. Yumansky has referred to, 13 offences that are not sex offences on the face of it, such as, for example, break and enter with intent. My understanding is that those 13 offences are not on the Ontario registry, but it is very clear, as previous witnesses have indicated, that there are offenders who are committing sex offences with these other offences.

Public Safety committee  That's correct. The national registry has a different approach.