STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT, 1996 LOI DE 1996 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DE LA COLLECTIVITÉ
CONTENTS
Tuesday 9 September 1997
Community Safety Act, 1996, Bill 102, Mr Runciman /
Loi de 1996 sur la sécurité de la collectivité, Projet de loi 102, M. Runciman
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
Tuesday 9 September 1997 Mardi 9 septembre 1997
The committee met at 1553 in room 228.
COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT, 1996 LOI DE 1996 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DE LA COLLECTIVITÉ
Consideration of Bill 102, An Act to improve community safety by amending the Change of Name Act, the Ministry of Correctional Services Act and the Police Services Act / Projet de loi 102, Loi visant à accroître la sécurité de la collectivité en modifiant la Loi sur le changement de nom, la Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels et la Loi sur les services policiers.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. This is a hearing of the administration of justice committee consideration on a clause-by-clause basis of Bill 102.
Filed with the clerk prior to Friday at 3 pm, I believe it was, are nine amendments, by both the government and the opposition. You should all have received copies of that for your consideration.
If there are no objections, I'll move to section 1 of the act and we'll deal with them in numerical order.
Shall section 1, with no amendments, carry? Is there any discussion in regard to that? If not, shall it carry? Against? Section 1 is carried.
Shall section 2, with no amendments, carry? Section 2 is carried.
Shall section 3, with no amendments, carry? All those in favour? Against? That section is carried.
Now we'll go to the first amendment, being a government amendment to subsection 4(3) of the bill.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move that subsection 4(3) of the bill be amended by adding the following as subsection 8(1.4) of the Change of Name Act:
"Incidental information not to be disclosed
"(1.4) The Ministry of the Solicitor General shall not, under subsection (1.2), give any information that it has obtained under clause (1.1)(b), other than information that may be relevant in determining whether there has been a change of name of a person or, if there has been a change of name of the person, any information regarding or relevant to the change of name."
I'd be pleased to give an explanation although maybe it's self-explanatory.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wood. We would like an explanation.
Mr Bob Wood: This bill amends the Change of Name Act to allow the Registrar General to give the Ministry of the Solicitor General access to records to allow the ministry to search for and obtain information that may be relevant in determining if there's been a change of name.
The bill allows the ministry to share that information in accordance with the regulations with corrections, police services, Ministry of Transportation or other agencies for the purpose of law enforcement, corrections or the administration of justice.
The amendment provides that, should ministry officials have incidental access to personal information that is not relevant to a change of name, that information cannot be disclosed. Incidental access could occur in two situations: (1) In searching the Registrar General's records for change of name information of individual A, access is provided to change of name information of individual B. (2) In searching individual A's file, access is gained to collateral information relating to another individual such as, for example, A's parents. Ministry officials will still have access to all records in the possession or control of the Registrar General. However, only information relevant to determining if there has been a change of name or relevant to the change of name may be disclosed to other organizations.
This amendment will help ensure that personal privacy is protected.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I gather that this is in response to some of the concerns around the privacy issues that were raised by Mr Borovoy and others at the hearings. Is that correct, or is this something the ministry itself determined was missing from the bill?
Mr Bob Wood: This came more from the ministry and some of the discussion with respect to the bill.
Mrs Boyd: The other question I had was about some of the incidental information you talked about with a third party, as in parents or as in one would assume perhaps a former partner. Would that also apply if the individual had been adopted and there had been a name change as a result of an adoption?
Mr Bob Wood: I think the answer to that is, it would. I'm going to doublecheck that.
Yes, that answer is correct. Only if it were irrelevant to the change of name, which in the circumstance you posit, I don't think it would be.
1600
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Perhaps you can just give me some definition of "relevant" and who would determine what is relevant and what is not.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm not sure I can improve upon the word itself. The definition is primarily by the officials administering the act.
Mr Crozier: We just have to assume or at least have confidence in the fact that whoever is reviewing this will be able to determine its relevancy and then go from there. In other words, if they release, I can't see any problem with erring on the side of not releasing too much. But on the other side, if I see something as not being relevant and suddenly somebody else sees it is, the information is already out. In the end, it's just a judgement call.
Mr Bob Wood: That's in essence correct. We have confidence in those administering the act, both police and others, that they'll follow the act.
The Chair: I have a question, if I may. Are there any sanctions if the act is not complied with or would that be under the Change of Name Act?
Mr Bob Wood: I want to consult before I answer that. The answer is that no penalties are provided in the act. Whether or not a breach of the act might leave the official open to civil liability is a question I wouldn't want to undertake to answer. I think that might have to be determined by the courts.
The Chair: Are there any further questions or discussion in regard to the proposed amendment by the government? If not, shall the amendment carry? Against? The amendment is carried.
I shall now put the question, leaving time for debate if required. Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Is there any further discussion in regard to that question? If not, all those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Section 5 has no amendments. Is there any discussion in regard to section 5 before I put the question? If not, shall section 5 carry? All those in favour? It is carried.
We are now proceeding to section 6 and we have a proposed amendment by the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following as subsection 10(2.1) of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act:
"Restriction on disclosure to general public
"(2.1) A person described in subsection (2) shall not disclose personal information about an individual to the general public unless he or she first obtains an order from a judge of the Ontario Court (General Division),
"(a) finding that the individual who is the subject of the proposed disclosure is dangerous to the public;
"(b) finding that the proposed disclosure consists only of information that is reasonably required for public safety; and
"(c) permitting the disclosure."
The purpose of the amendment obviously is to deal with some of the concerns that were raised around the arbitrariness of the bill as it stands. This would offer due process in terms of finding that indeed it is in the best public interest for the information to be disclosed. I think basically the consistent concerns expressed about this bill were only about ensuring that public safety concerns were balanced with concerns around any infringement upon rights. It seems to me that providing for due process where a judge would make a determination on these matters would allay some of the concerns that were being raised by people like the Civil Liberties Association.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Boyd. Is there any further discussion.?
Mr Bob Wood: We share some of the concerns that underlie this motion, as those who have had an opportunity to read our amendment will see. We take a somewhat different approach to the solution of this. We feel that the police chiefs and others set out in the act are the best qualified to make this kind of decision.
We think that to throw this into the courts is not the most appropriate way of balancing the rights of all concerned, in particular those members of the public who might be endangered by the persons being named. The second issue raised here is the matter of, should there be a different test for external disclosure from internal? While we are not supportive of the idea of involving the judiciary, as we get some experience with this act there may be merit in a different test. But we think we need more experience with the act before we are prepared to endorse that. It may be a good idea; it may not be. Those in essence are the reasons that we are not supporting this amendment.
Mr Crozier: Can someone give me their best estimate of the time it takes to have something like this taken to the court? Is there a long delay, does it have to get into the process or is it something that's handled immediately?
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Overnight when I was there.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Weeks.
The Chair: You weren't always there.
Mr Bob Wood: It's longer rather than shorter. As you judicialize something, you get into formal rules. You have to file a notice of motion, there's a right of cross-examination, in some cases an affidavit and all that sort of thing. I think the answer is that we can't tell you that until it happens, but the tendency has been for the times to grow, not diminish. There have been attempts at speedy judicial process, most of which have failed.
The Chair: Thank you. Are you done Mr Crozier?
Mr Crozier: Yes.
Mrs Boyd: I think that explanation needs some questioning. One would obviously assume this would be in the nature of an injunction or another matter that might be brought ex parte. In terms of safety, we see those in the family court all the time; in terms of civil actions around restricting the access of someone to another person. It seems to me this is very much the same kind of situation. What we had envisioned was a process that would be similar to a process of an injunction or a civil restraining order. While that might take a little bit of time, it seems to me that what we are looking at here is an action of disclosure that essentially affects a person's liberty in a very real way. We have seen many examples, where police chiefs have made the determination and have released the whereabouts of someone in the past, that that person is unable to live in that community any longer.
The issue around due process ought to pertain whenever we are restricting the freedom of an individual, and in these cases one would assume an individual who had served their time and was just like any one of us. It seems to me not unreasonable that we would expect the same kind of judicial process to apply to that person as to someone who, for example, was charged with criminal harassment and put under a civil restraining order to keep them from having contact with the person they had harassed. It is a public safety issue that's quite similar; it seems to me the parallels are quite similar.
In order to protect due process, it is not very wise for us to say it might take a little bit of time. It does take a little bit of time to protect freedoms in a democratic society, that's true. But in the long run we all lose if we begin to undermine those freedoms.
1610
It worries me quite a bit that the government has tried to say they do not anticipate that this would be happening in hundreds and hundreds of cases, as I recall they have said. It would be the very specific cases where there is a clear danger. We're not talking about every convict having their name and their location broadcast. We're talking about very specific issues, and one ought to be required to go through a due process in order to restrict someone's freedom under those circumstances.
The Chair: Any further discussion or questions?
Mr Young: I have a concern with the proposed amendment. I don't think the courts or the judges are experts on community safety. I am concerned that it would lead to lengthy delays in getting that information and bringing the court up to speed. In fact, the people they would consult would probably be the very police chiefs we want to give this power to in the first place. I am concerned that while the courts consider the matter, dangerous offenders would be released and endangering the community.
Mrs Boyd: Equally, there is a danger that we may see a situation of a police official who does not like having certain types of offenders, even if they have filled out their entire sentence in their community, using this as a way of sending people forth from their own communities into other communities. Basically, this is a bit of a nightmare that you are setting up here if you get this kind of revolving aspect where it's left up to chiefs of police to decide who is dangerous and who is not. It is a very small step from that, in the cases of these particular people, to police chiefs making other kinds of determinations around who ought to be able to live in a particular community. I think that's a very serious issue.
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments in regard to Mrs Boyd's motion to amend section 6 of Bill 102? If not, I will put the question. Shall the amendment to section 6 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those against? I believe the amendment fails.
I will move on to the next amendment, which is a government amendment, item 3 of your amendment package.
Mr Bob Wood: "I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following as subsection 10 (2.1) of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act:
"Purpose of disclosure
"(2.1) Any disclosure made under subsection (2) shall be for one or more of the following purposes:
"1. Protection of the public.
"2. Protection of victims of crime.
"3. Keeping victims of crime informed of the law enforcement, judicial or correctional processes relevant to the crime that affected them.
"4. Law enforcement.
"5. Correctional purposes.
"6. Administration of justice.
"7. Enforcement of and compliance with any federal or provincial act, regulation or government program.
"8. Keeping the public informed of the law enforcement, judicial or correctional processes respecting any individual."
Changes to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act will allow for the disclosure of information by correctional officials in accordance with regulations. Concern was expressed at public hearings that the bill did not contain enough detail regarding the purposes of this disclosure, creating the possibility of unfettered discretion to release information. This concern was shared prior to the hearings as well. This amendment responds to that concern by establishing eight purposes for disclosure by correctional officials. Information may be released, for example, to protect the public and victims of crime from high-risk offenders. Disclosure may also be made in the interests of the administration of justice, law enforcement and for correctional purposes.
While enforcement and correctional purposes will be defined by reference to the statutes that set out these mandates -- ie, the Police Services Act governs law enforcement and the Ministry of Correctional Services Act describes requirements for correctional purposes -- the inclusion of the administration of justice will help ensure the flow of relevant offender information among police and courts administration, correctional and paroling authorities. This amendment demonstrates that the purpose of this bill is to provide for disclosure for legitimate justice and law enforcement purposes.
Mrs Boyd: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could give me an example. I understand entirely the first three points here, but I wonder if you could give me an example of what you would anticipate to be under this section for law enforcement. What would you see as the disclosure for the purposes of law enforcement?
Mr Bob Wood: If you thought there was a dangerous offender who might offend, that's law enforcement.
Mrs Boyd: It's probably wise for us not to use the terminology of "dangerous offender," since it has a particular meaning under law in Canada, under the Criminal Code. You are talking about someone who is being released from prison, having fulfilled their sentence, right?
Mr Bob Wood: So they may be a dangerous offender even though they haven't been found by a court to be a dangerous offender.
Mrs Boyd: That is the worry about all of this: Who found them that way and who makes that determination? You're saying that the police do.
Mr Bob Wood: That's true.
Mrs Boyd: I continue to feel it's extremely dangerous for us to get into a situation where police or correctional officers are making that kind of determination. It can be extremely arbitrary, particularly when we are talking about a wide range of possibilities.
I'm sorry, I'm still having a little bit -- I can understand correctional purposes in the sense of how the release takes place and that kind of thing, but I'm not quite clear on what you would see as happening with either the law enforcement or the administration of justice. Can you give me an example?
Mr Bob Wood: I'd answer your question this way: There obviously is a lot of discretion in the judicial system. They've done studies of that, and about half of it is done by police officers: to charge or not to charge, when to arrest, all that sort of thing. We think they have done a very good job of exercising that discretion. That is why we're reposing that discretion in the police chiefs and the others set out in the act. The police exercise, if you want to look at them as a group, more discretion than a judiciary does and we think they do it well.
Mrs Boyd: I would not disagree with you. I think that the recent changes to the Criminal Code that gave staff sergeants more responsibility around interim release conditions and so on when someone is arrested indicates that generally is true, that within the justice system there has been a good level of faith at the discretion of police officers. I was very supportive of those changes. I think it is important to get some of those things resolved, when someone has been charged but not yet convicted, and deal with the public safety aspects at that end of the spectrum.
But when we are talking about someone who has already served their time for a crime for which they have been convicted and for which a court was not asked by the prosecutors to name them as dangerous offenders, which gives added powers to the whole supervisory function of corrections, at that point to have that determination made by a police officer for reasons other than protection of the public -- my argument is not around the issues of protection of the public. You've got a number of different items here, and all I'm saying to you is that I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by talking about law enforcement or administration of justice. Yes, of course if the police are acting to protect the public, they're already covered. I don't understand why law enforcement is a separate category here, particularly when you're saying, "one or more of the following purposes".
A scenario: You've got a police chief who doesn't like anybody who has ever been convicted of anything coming back and settling in his or her town. It is not inconceivable that this one purpose could be, "I don't like these folks living in my town," as a law enforcement officer, isn't it? So you've left it very wide open.
The protections you say you're putting in: In response to the concerns that were raised, it seems to me that section on law enforcement and administration of justice is completely out of sync with the other elements you have here, which are protection of victims, protection of the public, correctional purposes, the enforcement of any provincial or federal act. Those all make sense to me, but simply law enforcement and administration of justice? Pretty wide open.
Mr Bob Wood: My interpretation of law enforcement would be a little different from yours. I don't think that if a police chief doesn't like somebody, that has anything to do with law enforcement. The issue is, are they going to breach the criminal law?
Mrs Boyd: Why doesn't it say that?
Mr Bob Wood: I think that's what it does say. I don't think a police chief could give as a reason, say: "Well, I don't like that person. Therefore, for the purposes of law enforcement, I'm going to disclose them." I don't think they can do that. That's not what I think law enforcement means.
Mrs Boyd: To whom are they going to give a reason? That's why we want it to go to a court, that they would give a reason to a court. "This is the reason why this person is going to be pilloried in the press, because they're a danger to the public." They don't have to give a reason, they just do it, under this bill.
Mr Bob Wood: I think the idea that there is no supervision is not correct. If in fact a disclosure is made contrary to the act, it is also a violation of the privacy laws.
Mrs Boyd: My point is that it wouldn't be contrary to the act.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes. I think you and I differ on what law enforcement might mean.
Mrs Boyd: If we're not sure, how will the people who are going to be enforcing the act be sure?
Mr Bob Wood: I think it's fairly clear. The example you gave is not law enforcement. I don't think it's a marginal case, I think it's quite a clear case that doesn't fall under that heading.
Mrs Boyd: Most people at some point or another commit -- would a parking offence be law enforcement? Would failure to pay support payments be a law enforcement issue? These are all laws, and that's a very broad category.
Mr Bob Wood: None of those are criminal laws.
Mrs Boyd: It doesn't say "criminal law." You do not say "criminal law enforcement" here.
Mr Bob Wood: That's true.
Mrs Boyd: If you were prepared to entertain simply putting "criminal law enforcement," I would stop arguing with you about this issue.
Mr Bob Wood: I think that's what it means in this context.
Mrs Boyd: But it doesn't say it in the bill.
Mr Bob Wood: I think when you read the bill as a whole, that's the way it will be interpreted. I may be wrong. I can't guarantee that.
Mrs Boyd: Since we're amending the bill, would it not make sense, if that is what the government means by this, to simply say "criminal law enforcement"? If that's the intention and we're in the process of amending, would that not be a friendly amendment to your amendment?
Mr Bob Wood: I think the statute as drafted has that result. I don't think it's a necessary amendment.
Mrs Boyd: We will see, won't we?
The Chair: You are not making a formal amendment, Mrs Boyd?
Mr Bob Wood: No amendment is in order.
The Chair: Why not?
Mr Bob Wood: I thought they all had to be in by --
The Chair: An amendment to an amendment is always in order, is it not?
Mr Bob Wood: I didn't think any were, but maybe they are. I don't know. I defer to you.
Mrs Boyd: I would like to make an amendment to the amendment.
The Chair: I think it's in order. Would you like to comment on why it is not in order?
Mr Bob Wood: I understood that all the amendments had to be in by 3 o'clock. I thought that was what you asked.
The Chair: Yes. That's the amendments to the act. Just one moment. We've got to take two minutes' recess. That's an interesting point. This is an amendment to an amendment that you did not see until that time. Could we recess for two minutes? Thank you.
The committee recessed from 1625 to 1627.
The Chair: If we may reconvene. I feel that amendments proposed from the floor at any time to amendments filed with the committee are proper as of this moment. I wasn't inviting an amendment. I asked, however, whether you wished to make an amendment to the present amendment.
Mrs Boyd: I understand that you weren't inviting an amendment, Mr Chair, but I would like to amend the motion in front of us by adding the word "criminal" under paragraph 4 to read "criminal law enforcement."
The Chair: The amendment has been made. Is there any discussion?
Mrs Boyd: I think we've discussed it thoroughly, Mr Chair.
Mr Bob Wood: I think I'd like to add a couple of things here. We don't support this amendment, as I indicated earlier. We want to err on the side of community safety. Once we get some experience with this act, it may well be that this section should be refined, but we'd like to start by erring on the side of community safety and erring on the side of victims. To the extent there is any error, I think it should be in that area.
We do not support this amendment at this time. As we gain more experience, there may well be changes that are meritorious, but we'd like to get some experience before we make any.
Mrs Boyd: If there's any chance of erring at all, and we're erring on the side of infringing on people's individual rights, we'd better be very clear that these could be anybody's individual rights. I am not at all comforted by the parliamentary assistant's suggesting that there may be an error and, "We'll see over time and we can retrieve it." You can't retrieve what happens to people whose lives are exposed the way they might be as a result of this act.
I hope that the parliamentary assistant would agree that it is important for us always to err on the side of caution and that the other protections for the public are already here. We're simply talking about a section here where one or more of the following purposes could pertain. If it said, "Protection of the public and protection of victims of crimes always," and then any one of the others added to it, that might be something else. But it could be just this alone, and we don't know what that means.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? We are now dealing with Mrs Boyd's motion to amend a government amendment moved by Mr Wood.
Is there any further discussion in regard to the amendment of the amendment proposed by Mrs Boyd? If not, I would put the question. Shall Mrs Boyd's amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? I believe the amendment fails.
We are now dealing with Mr Wood's amendment as set forth in item 3 of your amendment package. Is there any further discussion in regard to Mr Wood's proposed amendment?
Mr Crozier: Just to say that I supported the amendment to the amendment and I will be supporting the amendment. That's not to say that there is any change in the way I feel. I just felt that the previous amendment strengthened it, but certainly this is an improvement on what we have in the bill.
Mrs Boyd: I too am very disappointed that the parliamentary assistant would not agree to that minor change. But there is no question that there is at least some greater protection in the bill under this amendment. I will with some reluctance also be supporting it because it is a better solution than the original bill provided. At least it went some way to meet some of the very serious concerns that were expressed during the hearings.
The Chair: I'll put the question. Shall the government amendment to section 6 carry? All those in favour? It is unanimous. It is carried.
I'll now move to item 4, a government amendment.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following as subsection 10 (4) of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act:
"Same
"(4) If personal information is disclosed under subsection (2) to a ministry, agency or institution, the ministry, agency or institution shall collect such information and subsections 39 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act and Protection of Privacy Act and 29 (2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act do not apply to that collection of personal information."
Changes to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act will allow for the passage of regulations for the disclosure of personal information. While this will include notice to the public about high-risk offenders, the regulations may cover other disclosure situations whose purpose are set out in the bill as amended. Regulations may support the flow of information generally through the justice system. For example, corrections and paroling authorities may be authorized to share all relevant personal information with the police. Under current provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the authorities collecting the information may be required to give notice to the individual. This amendment will remove the necessity of providing notice to individuals regarding collecting of their personal information, which would be impractical and unmanageable.
The Chair: Any discussion or comments, or questions of Mr Wood in regard to the proposed amendment? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.
I will now put the question. Shall section 6, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 6, as amended, is carried.
We're moving to section 7. We have a third-party amendment proposed, being item 5 of your amendment package.
Mrs Boyd: I move that clause 60(u) of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by inserting "for disclosures that are not to the general public," after "and" in the fourth line.
This clause (u) would read: "authorizing designated persons employed in the administration of this act to disclose personal information about individuals and for disclosures that are not to the general public prescribing the nature of the information that may be disclosed, to whom it may be disclosed and the circumstances in which it may be disclosed."
This is simply distinguishing between information that is to be disclosed to the general public and information that is to be disclosed to certain persons for the purposes of their job or their function within the community. It just assumes that there are going to be two different modes of disclosure.
Mr Bob Wood: As you know, our approach at this point is not to have different tests for public and internal disclosure. We'd like to see how the act works. I don't say at some point in the future that there might not be merit in making that distinction; we think the time is not now, however, to make that distinction.
Mrs Boyd: Again I would make the point that in the meantime a great deal of harm can be done. It seems to me that the government ought to be making a very clear distinction between disclosures that are to the general public and those that are for the purposes of law enforcement or administration of justice or some of those other issues that as yet seem to be just as difficult to define as the rest of this bill.
The Chair: Any further discussion, questions or comment in regard to the proposed amendment, being item 5 in your amendment package?
If there is no further discussion, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment proposed by Mrs Boyd carry? All those in favour? All those against? I believe the amendment fails.
Therefore, we are now proceeding to section 7 of the act, as unamended. Is there any discussion in regard to section 7 of the act as proposed in Bill 102?
If there's no discussion, I put the question. Shall section 7 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 7 is carried.
There are no amendments to section 8. Before I put the question, is there any discussion in regard to section 8? If not, shall section 8 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 8 is carried.
We have an amendment to section 9 proposed by the third party; item 6, I believe.
Mrs Boyd: I thought the government amendment came first. Am I out of order here?
The Chair: Does it matter? Would you withdraw yours if the government --
Mrs Boyd: It's exactly the same wording and I would like to read it into the record.
The Chair: Fine.
1640
Mrs Boyd: I move that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following as subsection 41 (1.01) of the Police Services Act:
"Restriction on disclosure to general public
"(1.01) A person described in subsection (1.1) shall not disclose personal information about an individual to the general public unless he or she first obtains an order from a judge of the Ontario Court (General Division),
"(a) finding that the individual who is the subject of the proposed disclosure is dangerous to the public;
"(b) finding that the proposed disclosure consists only of information that is reasonably required for public safety; and
"(c) permitting the disclosure."
That's exactly the same amendment as it was to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act. I think we thoroughly discussed that, although I wish the government would recognize the necessity to have this have due process. I'm prepared to move to a vote.
The Chair: Mr Wood, I assume the government, to be consistent, is against that amendment.
Mr Bob Wood: I share Mrs Boyd's view that it's basically a companion amendment. For the reasons expressed earlier, we do not support it.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, we are dealing with Mrs Boyd's amendment to section 9 of the bill. Shall that amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The motion fails.
We are proceeding to the government motion, being item 7.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following as subsection 41(1.01) of the Police Services Act:
"(1.01) Any disclosure made under subsection (1.1) shall be for one or more of the following purposes:
"1. Protection of the public.
"2. Protection of victims of crime.
"3. Keeping victims of crime informed of the law enforcement, judicial or correctional processes relevant to the crime that affected them.
"4. Law enforcement.
"5. Correctional purposes.
"6. Administration of justice.
"7. Enforcement of and compliance with any federal or provincial act, regulation or government program.
"8. Keeping the public informed of the law enforcement, judicial or correctional processes respecting any individual."
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to that amendment?
Mr Bob Wood: This is companion to our earlier amendment.
Mrs Boyd: I'd just like to register exactly the same concerns about this as was true under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, but indicate that as it is an improvement on the bill as it stands, we will be reluctantly supporting it.
The Chair: Is there any further comment or discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? It is unanimously carried.
We are now dealing with item 8, which again is a government amendment to section 9.
Mr Bob Wood: I move that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following as subsection 41(1.3) of the Police Services Act:
"Same
"(1.3) If personal information is disclosed under subsection (1.1) to a ministry, agency or institution, the ministry, agency or institution shall collect such information and subsections 39(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and 29(2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act do not apply to that collection of personal information."
This is companion to the previous one and our reasons are similar.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment of the government to section 9 of the act? If not, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.
We are now dealing with section 9, as amended. Is there any further discussion in regard to section 9, as amended? If not, I'll put the question. Shall section 9, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 9, as amended, is carried.
We are now proceeding to section 10, being item 9, which is an amendment proposed of the third party.
Mrs Boyd: I move that paragraph 20.1 of subsection 135(1) of the Police Services Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by inserting "for disclosures that are not to the general public" after "prescribing" in the first line.
The amendment would read under those circumstances:
"20.1. prescribing for disclosures that are not to the general public the nature of the information that may be disclosed under subsection 40.1(1.1) by a chief of police or a person designated by a chief of police to whom it may be disclosed and the circumstances in which it may be disclosed."
The purpose of the amendment is, as it was in the previous situation, to distinguish between information that might be made to the general public from information that might be made internally for some of the other purposes. I would submit that although I'm quite sure the parliamentary assistant will make the same arguments as before, it is extremely important to distinguish between those two kinds of information.
Mr Bob Wood: This is indeed a companion amendment and my reasons for opposition are similar to those expressed earlier.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment made by Ms Boyd? If not, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? I believe the motion to amend does not carry.
Therefore, we are dealing with section 10 unamended. Is there any discussion in regard to section 10? If not, I'll put the question. Shall section 10 carry? All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
We have to deal with the next few sections. I'll just put the questions. Please stop me if you wish to discuss any part of them.
Shall section 11 carry? All those in favour? It is carried.
Shall section 12, the short title of the bill, carry? All those in favour? Carried.
Shall the long title of the bill carry? All those in favour? Carried.
Shall Bill 102, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Carried.
Last, shall Bill 102, as amended, be reported to the House? Carried.
I thank you very much. Is there any other matter that anybody wishes to raise at this time? If not, we are adjourning at the pleasure of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1647.