Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

COUNCIL OF ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETIES OF ONTARIO

JOHN HOWARD SOCIETY OF ONTARIO

CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION

ST LEONARD'S SOCIETY OF CANADA

CONTENTS

Tuesday 2 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

Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario

Ms Claire Price

John Howard Society of Ontario

Mr Bill Sparks

Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Mr Alan Borovoy

St Leonard's Society of Canada

Ms Elizabeth White

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

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel

Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer, Legislative Research Service

STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE

Tuesday 2 September 1997 Mardi 2 septembre 1997

The committee met at 1532 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. This is a sitting of the justice committee considering Bill 102. Our first order of business is to consider the subcommittee report made Wednesday, August 20, 1997. I would be prepared to receive a motion to adopt that report.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): So moved.

The Chair: Moved by Mr Wood. Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favour? Carried.

Pursuant to the amended standing orders of August 1997, I have the authority to establish the time limit for filing amendments in regard to this bill. I'm suggesting this Friday, September 5, at 3 pm. If there is no objection, that will be the date for filing of amendments.

We will continue with the hearing. We have set aside a flexible one half-hour for representations to the bill by each of the caucuses. As is our tradition, we start with the loyal opposition.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I certainly don't want to take up too much time, as the Liberal Party is supportive of the direction and intention of this legislation. I think it presents some good first steps in the protection of the public from dangerous offenders.

But I would say that just warning the public about the release of dangerous criminals is not enough. The best thing to do would be to keep these offenders behind bars as long as possible, either by aggressively pursuing dangerous offender applications at the time of sentencing, by amending the Mental Health Act to keep high-risk offenders incarcerated after their sentences expire, or by working with the federal government to protect the Ontario public from dangerous and repeat offenders.

I think most members realize that one of the big reasons this bill is before us comes from the outstanding coroner recommendations from the Stephenson inquest. To remind people, Christopher Stephenson was an 11-year-old Brampton boy who was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered by Joseph Fredericks, a well-known psychopath and repeat sexual offender. At that time, the murderer Fredericks was out on mandatory supervision -- parole -- after serving two thirds of a five-year sentence for sexually assaulting a boy in Ottawa.

At that time, the coroner's jury in the Stephenson inquest made 71 recommendations and, if you take all the subrecommendations, 108 all together, to a total of 116 different governments, ministries, organizations and agencies aimed at enhancing the safety in the system, and still many of those recommendations have not been implemented by either the federal government, the Ontario government or many of these agencies. This bill will start to address some of those things.

Periodically, the chief coroner's office issues a progress report on implementation of the recommendations. The latest figure I have, as of May 1995, is that about 20 of the recommendations, about 30%, have not yet been implemented. I take it this bill brings some of that more forward.

To date, the coroner has been very critical of both levels of government as to the lack of special legislation to protect the community, and children in particular, from dangerous sexual predators.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): First of all, I want to indicate that I am here today in place of our critic, Mr Kormos, who is attending estimates committee at this time because the AG's ministry is there. The standing orders do make sure that you can't have the same policy area in the Legislature and in a committee at the same time, but unfortunately, it doesn't stop it from being in two committees. It's probably a rule change we didn't make that we should look to in the future, because I think it's unfortunate when the critic is not able to be here to address this bill. I'm sure he will have an opportunity, however, on the second day of hearings or through clause-by-clause to make his views known on this.

In general, caucus is quite supportive of the direction of the bill. I think on all sides of the Legislature we would find it important to take whatever steps are possible, however small they are, that will ensure greater community safety. Some of the things that I will hope to hear from presenters is how they think this bill does effect greater community safety and, given that much of the detail remains to be pronounced in regulation, what recommendations they have for us as a committee and for the government with respect to the regulations.

In particular, in terms of the changes to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act and to the Police Services Act, changes designed to provide for the naming of offenders who are released into the community, many details which will be dealt with by regulation make it difficult at this point to assess what the consequences of the bill would be.

We will want to hear from people about whether the regulations would allow for release of information regarding persons within the correctional system who are out on parole, for example, mandatory supervision or electronic monitoring etc, or will it only allow the release of information for persons who've completed their sentences and all court dispositions? Those are areas that the government may have a sense of right now in terms of how far the regulations would go, but I think it would be helpful to hear from people who are presenting.

The other area that would be important for presenters to inform the committee of their opinion on is the nature of the protection they feel this provides to communities. Many of us have felt it is an important step to have the ability of naming offenders and of informing communities and ensuring that people have a sense of what's happening in their own neighbourhoods. There are some critics of this, however, who are concerned that it may give the public a false sense of security. There are some advocates against naming of offenders who believe it will drive criminals underground and that we might end up with less ability to appropriately track them. I'm not sure that's true. I think there are ways of addressing those concerns. But, again, these are areas it would be helpful to hear from presenters about.

In general, I think it is fair to say that it is an important step in addressing some of the coroner's recommendations, as my Liberal colleague has set out. It is, along with many other things that are left undone, one of the measures we can take to ensure that our communities are safer. In general we are supportive of the direction of the bill, although after hearing presentations we may want to make some representations that some of the details which appear to be left out, hanging for regulation, be actually brought into the bill so communities can be assured of the steps that will be taken.

1540

Mr Bob Wood: I would like to say that it is my view that there is much more to be done in the area of protecting the public from dangerous offenders. I see this as only one step among a number that can be taken. I think it is an important step, a step that will do some good. I hope we will hear today suggestions about regulations. I see that as an ongoing process, so I hope those who are here today will accept my invitation to have a continuing dialogue with the ministry as to what should be in those regulations.

I think this bill will enhance the safety of our families and our homes by helping us to identify dangerous predators coming into our communities. I think as well that it will make it more difficult for criminals to evade justice by the simple expedient of changing their name.

The bill is based on extensive consultations with police and with correctional officers, with the federal government and with other jurisdictions. Our province does need a strong and effective criminal justice system, one that enjoys the confidence of law-abiding people everywhere. This initiative will help to achieve these goals. It will give the police the tools they need to protect our communities and it will give our communities the information they need to protect themselves.

Under current legislation, police and correctional officers are limited in the information they can release to the public when a dangerous offender has completed his prison term and is about to be released. The only legislated authority for the release of information is the freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation. These laws prohibit the release of information unless there is a grave health and safety hazard to the public. Those sections are not designed to deal with the release of high-risk offenders, especially in cases involving sexual predators, child abusers and other violent criminals. We are all familiar with the public outrage at the inability of our laws to protect or even to warn the public in these cases. Law enforcement agencies are uncertain about their authority to release information in these circumstances and have asked for legislation that makes the situation clear. Obviously, public warnings are not required every time an offender is released from jail, but in some cases they are essential. I think as our justice system finds itself, these cases should become relatively rare.

Bill 102 will provide police and prison officials with the guidance they need to make that distinction and the legislative authority to share essential information with the community. The effect will be to warn our communities, when those warnings are appropriate, and to improve public safety.

This legislation involves no additional costs. It will not increase government expenditures by a nickel. It will have a very real effect in enhancing the safety of our communities and in frustrating the efforts of criminals who attempt to use a legal loophole to evade the scrutiny of the police and the community.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wood. We have not used our total allotted time and we do have a few more minutes. Is there any other member of the committee who would like to make a short preliminary statement? If not, I understand that we do have our first presenter here.

COUNCIL OF ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETIES OF ONTARIO

The Chair: I would call upon Claire Price, executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Ontario. Welcome, Ms Price. We have received a written submission from the Elizabeth Fry Society. I'd ask you to proceed.

Ms Claire Price: Thank you. I'm the executive director of the Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario. The council is a provincial membership association representing nine Elizabeth Fry societies in Ontario. Council works directly with women in conflict with the law and strives to increase public awareness of issues affecting our clients. We also provide member services to the local Elizabeth Fry societies. The local societies provide a range of services for women in conflict with the law, including halfway houses, other forms of housing, group and individual counselling and treatment programs, court programs, prison visits and relief planning assistance, among other things.

The Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario has serious concerns about what we perceive to be the dismissal of the notion of privacy and the erosion of accountability checks put into place to prevent abuses by government institutions and agencies regarding personal information. We also deplore the continued strikes against the continued rehabilitation of offenders made by the increasing use of community notification.

First, we would like to raise the issue and question the constitutionality of the Ontario government using information gathered from criminal records, gathered on behalf of the federal government, for purposes other than that originally intended. At this point I would like to go through a couple of the proposals put forward in Bill 102.

First, it seems clear that section 3 and the proposed amendment to section 3 discuss the situation where if a woman has married, for example, and taken her husband's name, or if any spouse has taken their partner's name and decides after the relationship ends to revert to their original name, they have to go through a police records check. Obviously, this is going to affect more women than men, and we have major concerns about this and also the fact that they have to go through a police records check to essentially return to the identity that was theirs at birth in any event.

We have another major concern around the proposal that puts forward that there must be disclosure of every pending charge, and this is without there necessarily being a conviction registered. Although the law of Canada clearly states that there is a presumption of innocence, Ontario seems to be bucking that trend and presuming everybody guilty until otherwise shown. We also question the constitutionality of that proposal.

It is also not clear to us what is encompassed within the term "personal information." This term is not defined in the original Change of Name Act, nor is it defined in this bill. For example, does the proposed subsection 6(11) allowing an employee of a police force to disclose personal information about an individual for a police records check include information above and beyond that required for a police records check? This is not made clear by this bill.

Also, the proposed new section 7.1 now mandates the registrar general to run every name by the Solicitor General for potential information that would be included in a police records check. This is even where there are no reasonable grounds to suppose that there would be any pertinent information about an individual. In other words, what the government of Ontario is saying is that any citizen who applies for a change of name is to be disbelieved initially and then it has to be proven otherwise. This not only speaks volumes about the government's trust in the citizenry but also speaks to its disrespect to the issue of cost savings. I take issue with Mr Wood's comments that this is not going to cost a nickel more. Obviously, this is instituting multilayers of bureaucracy, and it is going to require more resources to edit this information, to disclose it and to make the proposals in Bill 102 come to life. We take real issue with the fact that this is not going to result in any more cost output. It certainly will.

Also, we have concerns around what would be clause 8(1.1)(b) of the act, the proposal that allows the Solicitor General access to anybody else's records, and this is not necessarily the individual whose culpability is questioned. This could be anybody who applies for a change of name. Their information is open to be disclosed to the Solicitor General too.

Subsection 8(1.2) we believe is much too open to exploitation. This is the section that allows the registrar general, despite any other act, to provide information in the police records to any police force, ministry, agency or institution that in its opinion "should know about the change of name for law enforcement or corrections purposes." There is no definition of which ministries, agencies or institutions are included in this or may have access to this information. Also, it has not set out what the boundaries are for forming an opinion that disclosure of the information is necessary. Furthermore, what is meant by "law enforcement purposes"? That is so wide you could drive a truck through it. If the police, for example, have a reluctant witness and decide to use information gleaned from this process to persuade this reluctant witness to testify, is that for law enforcement purposes? This is not made clear under the act. Currently, I submit that kind of situation can come under this act, and that worries us greatly.

As for the proposed amendments to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, subsection 10(2) of the act falls under the same umbrella of concerns, allowing anyone working in the ministry who is designated in the regulations -- and we are not told what level of employee the government intends to designate in the regulations. Also, again personal information is not defined. What does "in accordance with the regulations" mean? That's not narrow enough for our concerns. Just about any disclosure of information can be justified as being in accordance with the regulations. Prisoners traditionally have been on the receiving end of blanket justifications for actions. Prior to this bill there were official mechanisms in place that allowed for some accountability around that disclosure, but now this right too is going to be taken away under Bill 102.

As to the proposed changes to the Police Services Act dealing with broad community notification of personal information about an individual, we strenuously oppose this concept. Already offenders are sometimes hounded when trying to reintegrate back into the community. These are individuals who are often accepted by the broader community, but who for one reason or another attract the attention of a small but vocal group within the community that has objections to their return.

1550

This section allows the police to either begin a cycle of feeding out information or to feed into the negative cycle and often can result in disclosure of information that may even be outdated or alarmist. It doesn't provide for information such as when an offender has completed treatment programs and may in effect be somewhat of a different person coming out. It doesn't allow the community to know that information. It's alarmist in the sense of, "Here's a person who was in for this particular offence and you should be scared."

Ultimately, I agree with Frances Lankin's comments that this does tend to drive offenders underground. Certainly it creates a lot of pressure on the individual who's trying to rehabilitate back into the community. Traditionally, offenders are without the emotional strength to weather such a public storm. Members of Parliament may be able to do so, but these are people who don't have the same sort of personal resources. This creates a tremendous amount of pressure. They're already having a difficult enough time trying to get their lives together and become law-abiding citizens. This just imposes unbearable strain on top of that.

Obviously, in our submission, this doesn't contribute to public safety, because when you've got somebody who's under so much stress there's always a risk they may revert to behaviours which caused part of the original pattern of offending. So in our submission, this doesn't protect public safety, but goes some way towards endangering it. There's not enough accountability also in this proposed section. Again, the wording is too vague.

One of our biggest concerns, however, is the exempting of the disclosure of this information under subsection 39(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Currently, that section provides that institutions have to disclose to individuals where the information is going and the legal authority for collecting that information, and provide the name of somebody in the ministry who can answer questions about any concerns they have about the disclosure. That's gone now.

This information can be disclosed to just about anybody. But the individual in question doesn't have any right to know where that information is going, how it's going to be used or what's going to happen with it in any way, shape or form. It's yet another example of the loss of an individual's right over control of their own life.

In our information age, knowledge is indeed power. This bill allows for open disclosure of personal information with no checks in place, even to inform the individual about where their personal details are to be displayed. This, in our submission, is one of the greater abuses of power of government. This erosion of personal dignity will ultimately contribute to the decline of the province of Ontario as part of a civilized democracy.

The Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies does not support this legislation which contributes to the further abuse of individual rights.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Perhaps we could start with Ms Lankin. Do you have any questions?

Ms Lankin: Yes, I do. How long do we have, Mr Chair?

The Chair: About five minutes per caucus.

Ms Lankin: I really do appreciate the work you've put into the analysis of the bill. Your comments about sections being too vague I would supplement with a concern about too much being left to regulation and not having enough of a sense of what that regulation may require.

Do you have a sense of whether some of the concerns that you have addressed could be allayed if we had some more detail in terms of what the regulations were going to set out and/or whether we were able to import some of those regulations into the bill: some of the areas that are vague, some of the areas that require more restrictions in terms of who should access, and under what conditions, the information or what type of information should be released and whether or not it should have expanded issues, as you've indicated, like successful completion of a treatment program?

Is there a way in which we could still address the concerns of the coroner and their recommendations and many members of the public about some access to information on the part of the public, while trying to balance that in a better way with privacy concerns of the individuals?

Ms Price: Certainly I think I've pointed out my concerns in each of the sections in my written submissions. Tightening up of the wording would go some way towards addressing those concerns. There are some sections, though, that we have large problems with and would not support in any form. Community notification is one of the big issues for us. Also, a sort of blanket disclosure of information between agencies and institutions is far too open to abuse.

Ms Lankin: Can I ask you a technical question on that? You made reference to clause 8(1)(b.1). That was one of your examples of where the Solicitor General could access information from the Registrar General and there were not restrictions on it.

When I read that section, it sets out that this could happen where the Registrar General was advised under section 7(1) that the Ministry of the Solicitor General has information about the person whose name has been changed that would be included in a police records check. Is that not any kind of a safety on that broad power in your opinion in looking at that? It would have to be triggered in the first place by notification from the Solicitor General with respect to an individual and information that would be contained in a police records check.

Ms Price: I'm sorry. Are you referring to clause 8(1.1)(b)?

Ms Lankin: Yes.

Ms Price: My reading of that particular section is that it would allow the Solicitor General access to information concerning a different individual from the one in question.

Ms Lankin: Maybe we might be able to get some clarification at some point in time from the government on that, because I find the wording confusing myself looking at it, but in referring back to 7(1) and police record checks, it seems to have a bit of a control on it. But some clarity I think would be helpful there.

On the issue of community notification, can you tell me from your perspective and your involvement with Elizabeth Fry and of course with a number of your sister and brother agencies out there what impact you think that might have? I think some of the concerns that have been raised include that there may be certain people who have been released from incarceration or on supervision programs, even voluntary supervision programs, who may disappear into the community and not maintain that relationship as a result of wanting to find some privacy or wanting to not be exposed. Do you have a concern about the effect it will have on people's ongoing rehabilitation or reintegration into the community?

Ms Price: Yes, indeed. When you have intense public pressure on an individual, it makes it more difficult for them to participate in community rehabilitation programs, obviously, because of the attention it attracts from other offenders who may be in those programs, and additionally in trying to put the principles of the programs into practice in an everyday setting in the community. So essentially driving somebody underground does prevent them having access to rehabilitation programs.

That's a huge concern. Basically, it cuts off all support that there is already for them in the community, the links they may have. They're forced to sever ties with them and to be able to try to move away and forge a new life for themselves in a different community.

Ms Lankin: Is there any circumstance under which you think the community should have a right to know that someone who is a dangerous offender has been integrated into --

Ms Price: Ontario is dealing with offenders who have sentences of two years less a day, so you're talking about, generally speaking, offenders who are on the less serious end of the scale. It's hard to talk generally, but generally speaking, they are offenders who are lower-risk than federal offenders. There is not the same level of concerns as there would be about individuals who have a very high profile in the federal system: the Clifford Olsons, for example, of the criminal justice system.

We have a problem with the idea of community notification in that it does impede the offender's rehabilitation. I think we would have difficulty with the idea of a blanket notification. I understand that the public has concerns about some individuals, but our concerns are around how you put checks upon that process so it doesn't become the thin end of the wedge and become more of a subjective process where the police can decide, if they don't like somebody essentially, to put that information out into the community and to make life difficult for that individual. We have concerns around that.

1600

The Chair: We will now proceed to the government caucus.

Mr Bob Wood: If indeed we are going to proceed with the notification part of the law, can you suggest any way that you feel that should be limited in the statute?

Ms Price: I guess from the viewpoint of our organization we don't generally agree with the concept of community notification. There probably are informal mechanisms in place for the police to be able to supervise that person more closely in the community without them making it some kind of witchhunt, if you will, which it does become in communities. It already happens on a more informal basis that the police closely monitor the movements of that individual if it's an individual who is extremely high risk. As I say, in the Ontario system, I think there are relatively few of them.

I would advocate going along with that more informal supervision process. I think that's easier for the individual to reintegrate and for the community not to be unduly alarmed by that, but also for the police to provide some supervision and accountability.

Mr Bob Wood: We have a couple of days. I think there's a good chance there's going to be a notification provision in this act. You might want to think over if there's a way in which you would limit or constrain the notification that's permitted under the act. I'm not asking you to answer that now necessarily, but you might think that over, and please send us a fax if you see a way you think that should be constrained.

The second question I wanted to ask you: Would you give the offender a chance to look at the information that's going to be released before it's actually released, in effect invite their comment on it?

Ms Price: I don't have a problem with that. It's information about them in any event. It's information that they would presumably know. My concern around the exemption from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is that the offender is not notified that this information is going to be disclosed or where it's going or the nature of the information to be disclosed. I think an accountability check would be to allow the offender to know where that information is going and to whom it is going, and to give them a chance for some input.

There's also no appeal process built into this. Part of the problem with exempting something from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is that there is no appeal process essentially, so there's no way for that check to be built in there.

Mr Bob Wood: What I was coming to of course is that obviously there's going to be bad news in any of these releases. That's the purpose of the release. Do you think it might be useful to draw any mitigating factors to the attention of the police before they do a release?

Ms Price: Certainly I think it's important for the police to know the other side of the coin as it would be in terms of the offender having participated in and completed successfully treatment programs or counselling, what they have set up in the community as addressing any concerns the police may have. There are a lot of things on the other side of the balance sheet that should be taken into account. If there's going to be community notification anyway, it's certainly important to know both sides of the story and not have it be a one-sided tale.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): About two and a half years ago in Burlington -- I represent the northern part of Burlington -- a convicted paedophile was rereleased into the community. I found out through a conversation, through community policing, with police officers. We had no notice in the community, and the Halton Regional Police had the presence of mind to have two officers follow him, at a cost of I guess $6,000 a day. He was rearrested inside a public school. I just thank God that they didn't go take a lunch break when he went into that school, because what often happens is that there's an assault, there's a kidnapping, and then to cover up the crime, there's a murder.

I'm trying to understand how you can balance the terror of that situation and the reality against the convicted paedophile's stress. Surely you have to recognize that everything we can do to protect children, including their parents' awareness, is critical. I don't understand how you can balance that.

Ms Price: I think you have to look at the general concept of community notification, and certainly there are going to be cases that are going to raise more public concern than others. A convicted paedophile is one, as opposed to somebody who is in on a fraud offence for example, but the concept is still there that notification can be used for either offender. So our organization has to approach it from a general concept point of view firstly.

As I said to Mr Wood, certainly there are informal procedures in place, which you've mentioned. The police did monitor this individual, and this individual was stopped in his tracks, so to speak. I think that's appropriate supervision in the community, and we don't have a problem with that supervision in the community. It's just the way that it's dealt with in the community. It often becomes a witchhunt rather than a fair process where the offender is monitored and allowed to continue in treatment programs and in resuming a life.

Mr Ramsay: Ms Price, thank you very much for your presentation. In the earlier part of your presentation, you questioned the parliamentary assistant's assertion that this would be a low-cost program. I'd like then to direct my question to the parliamentary assistant: Do you have a sense of the cost? Have you done some studies of this? What's the basis of you making the statement that this should be a low-cost program?

Mr Bob Wood: I'd prefer to answer that very briefly now, and in more detail later. We think if it's properly set up and the costs indeed can be charged to those applying to change their name, the net effect will be virtually and effectively nothing. It does not have to impose significant new costs on the government. We think that, net, it will end up at nothing. There are also certain advantages to a freer flow of information that may actually cut costs. We can't say for sure, but on balance we're reasonably confident that there will be no net cost.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good afternoon, Ms Price. How long have the Elizabeth Fry societies been in existence?

Ms Price: All the individual agencies are autonomous and they've been up and running for different periods of time. The longest-running one has been running I believe since about 1934.

Mr Crozier: So for some time, obviously.

Ms Price: There's a long history.

Mr Crozier: Then the process of education has been going on all this time, public education, which is really what you are about?

Ms Price: That's correct.

Mr Crozier: That's one of your responsibilities.

I understand the points that you brought up today and they make me think about it, because what applies to a criminal also could apply to me. I may not have a criminal record but, as you've pointed out, you have to go through that process anyway. Gosh, I can't think of a thing, but there may be something that each of us as individuals doesn't particularly want to be public knowledge.

I can understand the concerns you've raised today. How do you feel about the fact that my sense is that the general public would support this bill because it appears to protect the public as a whole? Do you understand why the general public may support this and not quite understand, even after 60 years of public education, where you're coming from?

1610

Ms Price: I think you've made the point, in that increasingly the public, however the public is defined, is involved in a lot of fear that comes out of, I think, a small but very vocal segment of the population who are active on these issues and they're often unaware of the backgrounds of individual offenders, the efforts they've made at treatment and rehabilitation and any plans they might have in the community, or why people get involved in the criminal justice system in the first place.

Part of our work is educating the public about that, but in the last five to 10 years, probably 10 years or so, it's been increasingly difficult to fight the tide of public fear. I think it largely stems from unawareness about a lot of the issues involved. We'll continue to try and educate the public about where offenders come from and how they try and make their lives better and fit in better with the larger picture, but it certainly is difficult these days.

I understand where the committee is coming from in terms of probably identifying a lot of that public fear, but I don't think the answer is stepping in with very heavy-handed legislation to appease the public on a short-term basis with things that are not going to effect a solution to the longer-term problem.

The Chair: Ms Price, thank you very much for your thoughtful presentation.

Could I request of the legislative counsel that members of the committee be provided with section 3 of the Change of Name Act and any other applicable section of that act that might govern when an election can be made by an individual to change his or her name.

Ms Lankin: On that point, I actually had a couple of questions along the same line that I would like to add at this point.

I would be interested in information from both the registrar general and the Solicitor General with respect to the expected costs associated with these police checks and a sense from the registrar general of what the volume of activity in any given year is going to be and what the cost would be.

I have a sense from what the parliamentary assistant said that the intent would be to spread those costs across the users of the system; ie, that those people who make application for name changes might see an increase in the user fee for that service.

I would also like to know if the registrar general has any statistics broken down in terms of the profile of people who ask for name changes and what the reason given most often is. I don't know what information they collect.

What I'm getting at is, I'm wondering if there will be a minor increase or a substantial increase in costs and whether it will have a differential impact on any particular group of citizens. For example, if the largest users of the name change provision are women who are going back to a maiden name, there could be a very negative impact of this legislation on a group of people inadvertently. I'd be interested if, between the two ministries, we could get a bit of a profile of the use of the change of name, a sense of the volume and any statistical breakdown, an estimate of the cost of the police record checks that will be imposed as a result of this legislation and what that might mean on a per-user basis.

The Chair: You've asked a question of both the Solicitor General and Mr Wood. Mr Wood, are you taking the question that is asked of you under advisement?

Mr Bob Wood: The answer is, yes, we will attempt to get that information for you to the extent that it's available. The registrar general's office is of the view that any increased costs will be minor. Whether we can put more definition on that, I don't know. We'll find out.

Ms Lankin: Thank you.

JOHN HOWARD SOCIETY OF ONTARIO

The Chair: Our next presentation will be the John Howard Society of Ontario, Mr Bill Sparks, acting executive director. Welcome. You have provided the committee with a written submission. I'd ask you to proceed.

Mr Bill Sparks: My name is Bill Sparks. I'm the acting executive director of the John Howard Society of Ontario.

The focus of this submission is on the proposed amendments to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act and the Police Services Act. The primary concern of the John Howard Society of Ontario is the release of personal information about offenders through the use of community notification and the impact of this legislation in continuing and even expanding the practice of community notification.

This submission focuses on the current use of community notification, why the release of identifying information about offenders through community notification is ineffective as a strategy of public protection and what alternative strategies should be adopted to minimize recidivism of the serious offender.

The issue of community notification is often described as relating to a choice between public protection and civil liberties, but the position the John Howard Society of Ontario has consistently taken is that the issue of civil liberties is not relevant unless the effectiveness of community notification as a strategy of public protection can be established.

With regard to the current use of community notification in Ontario, the Community Safety Act will confirm and likely expand the current practice of community notification. Within the past few years and with increasing frequency, public alerts concerning the release of an offender have been issued by some police services in Ontario. The chief of police ultimately decides whether to issue an alert and, where it has been issued, has done so with the understanding that current legislation gives him or her the authority to release the information. Generally, the media have cooperated in publicizing the alert issued by the police, ensuring wide distribution through the community. A case in Kingston where the media released the information after the police decided not to do so, however, points out that the police do not have total control in the process. As well, some media outlets have expressed concern about involvement and have indicated they will refuse to publicize some or all of the information.

Typically, the public alerts by the police have been issued for offenders released from a federal prison at the end of their sentence, usually for a sexual offence. Alerts issued about offenders under provincial jurisdiction have also occurred, even though these provincial offenders, on a community sanction or released after serving a sentence of less than two years, have been judged by the courts as lower risk and the offence as less serious than those given a federal sentence. The naming of offenders under provincial jurisdiction is likely to increase as this proposed legislation will permit provincial correctional officials to release identifying information to the public.

The issuing of public alerts by police has largely been a response to the impact of detention, particularly as the provisions of the federal legislation related to the release of offenders convicted of sexual offences. Up until 1987, all federal offenders who were not granted parole were released on mandatory supervision at two thirds of their sentence, or at a later date if they lost some time because of some breach of the prison rules. They returned to the community on their release under supervision until the date of the expiry of their sentence. Supervision required that the person remain in the area and report to the parole officer and to the police. Other conditions such as participation in a treatment program may be imposed. A breach of these conditions could mean the individual's return to prison.

A period of supervision allows officials to know the whereabouts of the individual and to have some measure of control over the activities of that individual, as well as the authority to intervene should there be indications of problems.

In 1987, in response to growing public criticism about offences committed by individuals on mandatory supervision, Bill C-67 was passed, and later amended, expanding the criteria, giving the National Parole Board the authority to detain individuals to their warrant expiry date if they are found to be "likely, before the expiration of their sentence according to law, to commit an offence causing death or serious harm to another person, a sexual offence involving a child or a serious drug offence." If one is detained in prison until the end of his or her sentence, that individual is released under no form of supervision.

While the intent was to use these detention provisions in a small number of exceptional cases -- 50 to 100 per year was the estimate at the time -- there has been a steady increase in the number of cases where detention has been ordered. In the year 1995-96, 483 prisoners were detained in Canada under the authority of the National Parole Board, almost five times greater than the largest projection made at the time of the passage of the detention provisions.

1620

With few exceptions, these 483 individuals will be released at their warrant expiry date, on the last day of their sentence, and therefore under no form of supervision. All of these individuals will leave prison with the label "likely, before the expiration of their sentence according to law, to commit an offence causing death or serious harm to another person, a sexual offence involving a child or a serious drug offence." Research from Correctional Services of Canada shows that sex offenders are more likely to be referred for detention, and of those referred, more likely to be detained. Increasingly, because of the detention provisions, sex offenders deemed to be likely to reoffend are being released under no form of supervision.

Generally, police are relying on the assessment of the National Parole Board that the individuals detained represent the highest risk of serious reoffending to justify the use of public alerts in particular cases. A recent study by the Correctional Services of Canada, however, showed that those who were not detained and released at their statutory date, two thirds of their sentence, had a higher reoffence rate than those who were detained. The study concluded, "Therefore, it would appear that the selection process for detention has not resulted in the highest-risk offenders being detained."

With regard to community notification as a strategy of public protection, some points to consider:

We do not feel that the naming of offenders constitutes an increase in public protection for the following reasons. The simple fact of naming offenders in many cases results in them hiding and/or moving to a new community. By virtue of going underground, the person is forced to live the life of a fugitive, and police have less opportunity to keep tabs on his or her activities and whereabouts.

Because people avoid being the centre of controversy, they will almost inevitably end up living in communities where they have anonymity. The communities where the named offender eventually settles are likely to be those which offer no personal support by way of family or the advantages of a person living in a community where he or she is known. Many individuals appear to be gravitating to major downtown areas in order to achieve anonymity, even though this environment often presents the person with significant difficulties.

The research with respect to sex offenders in particular and the relapse prevention strategies associated with reduced recidivism, with reduced reoffending, recognize that high levels of anxiety, fear, persecution and other stresses such as the inability to find work or a place to live are likely to increase the propensity to reoffend.

The fear of all inmates that they will be identified after release means that they may not make plans for post-release relapse prevention programs or community settlement because they fear that in doing so they will simply identify their potential destination. Some inmates are reluctant to discuss release planning with their case management officers in the institutions or anyone else.

Community notification works against those factors that we know can reduce reoffending, particularly with respect to sex offenders. Treatment in the community after release is vital and, for some, access to long-term treatment is necessary. Public protection is not served by policies and practices that undermine treatment in the community. Further, community notification is not an effective strategy of public protection because:

It is unlikely, particularly with the increasing number of offenders being identified, that many individuals would recall a photograph and identifying information. In Seattle, Washington, last year there were 87 community notifications, more than one per week.

If the individual feels compelled to move because of the notoriety, community notification merely transfers the risk to another community or may even increase the risk that the individual poses. The police may lose track of the individual and therefore lose the opportunity to be aware of his activities. The person will leave behind family and community supports and any treatment programs he may have been attending. The individual likely will be reluctant to seek out help, support or treatment for fear of being named again.

Other points to consider:

Individual citizens may well take vigilante action and subject themselves to criminal charges resulting from the heightened emotions and fear arising from the knowledge that a serious sex offender lives in their vicinity.

Other people may be victimized by virtue of being misidentified or being related to the named individual.

It may become necessary to use police resources to protect the offender and the relatives of the offender from a hostile public.

Police and delegated correctional authorities may be more subject to criticism by virtue of starting a process premised on public protection, which will inevitably be seen as incomplete. Where sexual offences do take place, arguments may well be presented that police and correctional authorities were negligent in not giving adequate warning.

With community notification, more is lost than gained in terms of public protection. Some recent illustrations: The points that we have made with respect to the costs of community notification are not conjecture but are based on actual experience. Quoting from media reports of incidents relating to community notification, we find that:

"The mother," age 71, "of a 33-year-old sex offender says that she has been threatened with death and forced to leave her apartment building since police issued a bulletin warning Metro residents that her son was leaving prison."

"The wave of vigilante activity set off in England," by public identification, "led to a pensioner with senile dementia being beat up and covered in blue paint by a gang that mistook him for a convicted sex offender. In another mishap, a burglar who was ordered to wear a tagging device was brutally attacked after a news story indicated that a known sex offender was wearing a similar tag."

In Washington, "The state stopped giving out detailed, often graphic, information in 1993 when a man's house was burned down."

"RCMP are warning residents of this northeastern BC community that a convicted paedophile run out of at least three other towns is living among them."

"Three months after a known sex offender fled the Waterloo region because his name and photograph were broadcast on TV, he was charged with beating and sexually assaulting a 17-year-old in Kingston.... After the publicity" -- in the Waterloo region -- "the man moved to Toronto and Metro Toronto police were notified. Earlier this month, the Waterloo regional police received a tip that the man had moved to Kingston." The Kingston police "said Waterloo police told his force that the man was in the Kingston area on the same day that the alleged offence took place. 'We took steps to find him and that's when we learned about this assault.'"

A story described in another recent media report tells a predictable tale:

"A man released after serving his full sentence for sexual offences against children returned to his home community in the Maritimes where he has family. He was the subject of a public alert by the police. After less than one month in an apartment, he moved when the media published his name and address. He stayed briefly at a motel and then fled when reporters discovered his whereabouts. Police say that he is now in a major city far from the Maritimes."

Consider this press release from the John Howard Society of Thunder Bay, March 12, 1997:

"Nine months ago we had a similar situation when the police released the photo ID of a sex offender who had come to settle down in his home town.... The publication mounted obstacle after obstacle in the reintegration of this person in the community. He was kicked out of several apartments, rooming houses and motels. He was kicked out of a college and a school and is now reconciled to studying in his room with a tutor and is following a correspondence course."

I spoke with the executive director of the John Howard Society of Thunder Bay today regarding this story, and he indicates that this person has now been lost track of and is supposed to have moved to another city.

Perhaps the most shocking story is the recent story of an Ottawa man who was named by the police. After being forced to move because of his notoriety and hounding by the media, his whereabouts unknown for a time, he was assaulted by an individual who recognized him, and the assault was photographed by a local newspaper. His family members have been subsequently harassed and they have publicly pleaded to be left alone.

But what is the alternative if community notification does not increase public protection? Rather than pursuing policies and practices that provide only illusions of public protection, the society believes that an alternative strategy should be implemented, one that is based on research related to what works to prevent reoffending. The elements of this strategy are:

(1) Gradual release supervised as a statutory part of every sentence;

(2) Community-based treatment and residential services which are available, specialized, professionally operated and adequately funded;

(3) A focusing of community supervision and treatment resources on those with the greatest need and who pose the greatest risk; and

(4) An end to those policies which undermine the gradual release process, such as detention and community notification.

1630

While we are opposed in general to community notification of released offenders, it should be noted that we have not objected to the release of identifying information under the following circumstances:

(1) Where the person is a fugitive, ie, where the police have sufficient evidence to lay charges and are unaware of the person's location and a public alert is issued; and

(2) Where specific individuals have been identified as victims, the police should divulge the information only to those individuals who are at risk of being victimized.

Our recommendation: We urge the committee to recommend that the amendments to the Police Services Act and the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, which will expand the use of community notification, not be passed and that action be taken to end the current practice of community notification by police, except in the circumstances described above.

The costs of community notification are clear: increased levels of public fear; vigilantism; the victimization of families of named offenders; and reduced opportunities for reintegration of the offender into the community, which contributes to reducing recidivism and ultimately makes us safer. What we are buying is merely the illusion of public protection.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We only have three minutes per caucus.

Mr Young: Just one question: I'm still trying to understand this balancing of rights and privacy etc. You say that where specific individuals have been identified as likely victims, you agree that community notification is all right, so I assume you agree that the safety of the individual supersedes the privacy of the convicted paedophile. Yet we know that with many offenders there likely will be a victim. We may not know who it is. We know some offenders even put themselves back in prison because they know they will reoffend. So there will be a victim. When we know who the victim is, you agree that we should notify the community, but when we don't know who the victim is, you don't want to notify the community. I don't understand that.

Mr Sparks: We're saying that first of all public identification is not necessarily a strategy for increased public protection. In fact, if you don't have identifying information that there are specific victims involved here, then you very well may be increasing the propensity for future victims if you go against the "what works" literature, against what the research is, against the community supervision and the police being able to keep tabs on the person.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Wood.

Mr Bob Wood: Assuming --

Ms Lankin: You cut off his answer.

The Chair: I thought he was finished. Were you not finished, sir?

Mr Sparks: I'm fine at the moment.

Mr Bob Wood: Assuming that we are going to proceed with the notification provision, and that's a fairly good assumption, would you give the offender the chance to comment on the information that is going to be released before it's released?

Mr Sparks: I haven't looked at that in detail at all. We are against the Community Safety Act amendments being proposed.

Mr Bob Wood: I understand that. I'm saying to you in a nice way that we're going to proceed with it, so we're going to accept that particular point of view. I'm inviting you to comment on whether or not -- I know we're out of time now, so you may want to think about this. My executive assistant is behind you and we'd be happy to hear your answers later. We're probably out of time now. But I'd like you to address that issue and tell me whether or not you think there would be any merit in that.

The second issue I'd like you to address: Is there a way in which you think the notification should be limited by the statute? If we are going to go with notification, would you limit it in the bill? I think, unfortunately, we probably have no time for you to answer that right now, but I invite you over the next 24 hours to give that some thought. Give us a call. Geoffrey Hale would be glad to give you his card so you can give us a call.

The Chair: Yes, Mr Sparks, if you wish to put in a further submission, the committee will receive it if it is sent to the Clerk.

Mr Ramsay: Thanks, Mr Sparks, for your presentation. You make a very good point on about the third page of your presentation where you talk about what is the alternative and you talk about gradual release, treatment and supervision. It is interesting to note that while you say the government is putting on this bill to give an illusion of public protection, it is true that at the very same time government has cut the community supervision programs that are very important in our criminal justice system. We have the examples of the community resource centres, the halfway houses and the community supervision programs being cut by 50%, from $4 million to $2 million.

I believe some of that is still under negotiation, but you make a very good point, that we probably put the public at greater risk by cutting out these programs and no longer funding them, while we tend to go to this sort of program that gets a lot of community satisfaction. As you can tell from around this table, all the politicians are feeling the same sort of community concern about their safety and there's general support for this legislation in principle. But I think it's fair to say that all of us should be demanding of this government that we don't gut all the other community supervision programs that help the offender reintegrate into the community. I think we have to keep that fight up and I'm glad you made that point in your presentation.

Mr Sparks: I think the only comment to that is that what works in correctional effectiveness is known. Community supervision works and it reduces recidivism, so we need to follow what the research is rather than to go with public fear.

Ms Lankin: I think your presentation, similar to the Fry presentation, is very thought-provoking. I am disturbed. As someone who generally supports a bill that is intended to increase public safety, I am quite disturbed when I hear experts in the field say that there are certain provisions they think are going to run counter to that and have an opposite effect. I'm even more disturbed when I hear a parliamentary assistant at public hearings, where we're supposed to be getting input from the public, the government that is supposed to be listening, say, "We're going ahead with it anyway, whatever you think." But that's what we're getting used to.

There are two specific areas I wanted to ask you about, leaving the Change of Name Act, because I think there's more general consensus around that, while there are some concerns about how it is administered and the breadth of checks etc. On the notification, you raise the point about provincial offenders. I spent several years working as a jail guard in the correctional system in Ontario and I don't recall a time in which there was someone I dealt with, at the Don Jail in particular, where I thought it would have been appropriate for any kind of community notification.

Mr Young speaks often of the paedophile, and I think that's the person we are most, as a community, concerned about because we're concerned about kids. Those people, once convicted and sentenced, don't do two years less a day. They do penitentiary time. Is there any way you can enlighten us in terms of what you think the Ministry of Correctional Services Act provisions would do or do you think they should be scrapped altogether? Irrespective of your opposition to the general notion, looking between federal and provincial jurisdictions, is there a need for the Ministry of Correctional Services Act to be contained within this bill?

Mr Sparks: I can't see it. I can't see that authorizing provincial correctional authorities to release the names of people coming out of provincial institutions is going to provide anything more than the illusion of public protection. It should be absolutely to the contrary until we know what works.

Ms Lankin: Perhaps I'll ask the parliamentary assistant why the MCS act is included here. I heard some scornful remarks across the way, but genuinely from my experience, which is real experience in the system and not just as a correctional officer, but as a temporary absence program coordinator and working with the release of prisoners, I can't imagine a circumstance in which I would have thought that there was an appropriateness to notification with respect to provincial offenders. Why is this being included in your bill?

Mr Bob Wood: We think there may be some rare cases where it's necessary and we want to err on the side of public safety, is the bottom line.

1640

Ms Lankin: The problem is, without knowing what you're talking about, because it's all being left to regulations, we really have no idea whom you're even thinking of as an appropriate candidate for release of information. Do you have any draft regulations under this section that might give us a better idea?

Mr Bob Wood: I don't think any are drafted at the moment.

Ms Lankin: Who are you thinking of then? Who is a candidate?

Mr Bob Wood: I'm supposed to answer your question, but maybe you'd better ask it first. Let me make sure I know what question you're asking.

Ms Lankin: Who is the target criminal offender in the provincial jurisdiction you have envisioned might be appropriate for this kind of release of information?

Mr Bob Wood: You can have dangerous people in the provincial system, those who are known to be dangerous, but the evidence before the court did not justify a sentence of more than two years less a day.

Ms Lankin: For someone who perhaps in the past has done federal penitentiary time but is currently serving a sentence for probably a more minor criminal offence -- I don't know, it could be anything, passing a bad cheque or something -- because in the past they have been determined to be a dangerous offender, that provision for notification would kick in again, even though the current life and the current crime and the current sentence didn't, by community standards, warrant labelling them as dangerous enough to be in a penitentiary.

Mr Bob Wood: That's a possibility. The other possibility is that the person is known to be dangerous but the sentence they got was two years less a day or less.

Mr Young: Plea-bargaining.

Ms Lankin: Who makes that determination now?

Mr Bob Wood: The court has to make it.

Ms Lankin: No, no, somebody in corrections. Who in the correctional services system in Ontario, these designated people -- we don't know who they are -- who are they going to be and on what basis will they make a determination that someone who was tried, convicted and sentenced under the justice system is more dangerous than what the justice system determined and therefore there should be notification? It worries me about the potential for abuse.

Mr Bob Wood: I guess we're out of time.

The Chair: Excuse me. This is the time for hearings. If you want to pursue that at the end of the day, once our presenters have made their presentations, that may be --

Ms Lankin: Thank you, Mr Chair.

The Chair: I thank you for attending here today, Mr Sparks.

CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Our next presentation is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Mr Alan Borovoy, general counsel, and Stephen McCammon, associate counsel. Welcome once again, sir.

Mr Alan Borovoy: Thank you once again. At my left and your right -- I'm speaking physically and not politically -- is my associate Stephen McCammon.

I will launch right into the discussion, since I know there are time constraints. The main problem, from our point of view, with this bill is that it asks the public to buy a pig in a poke. It simply delegates to the government the power to decide by regulation what personal information may be disclosed, to whom it may be disclosed and under what circumstances it may do so. It contains no guidelines, no limits, nothing -- whatever the government wants to do.

Even if there are MPPs here who are disposed to trust this government with this power, what we have to remember of course is that this is going to apply to all succeeding governments as well of no matter what stripe or what character. If this is enacted, it will remain as is until it is repealed or amended, till the end of time for any and all succeeding governments to use or misuse as the case may be. We would think it is most unreasonable to repose this level of trust in governments as yet unidentified and even unknown. That, from our point of view, becomes the key problem.

We are aware that there has been some discussion, I think it was on second reading of the bill, that this was designed as what a lot of people have in mind is the situation when a paedophile or other dangerous offender may be coming out of the penitentiary, coming out of a jail and there's some concern as to what are the police powers to disclose that information to various members of the public. Let me say for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that from our point of view this is a perfectly legitimate concern -- of course it is -- but nowhere does the bill mention these circumstances or any other circumstances. This is not the kind of thing that should be left merely to regulations.

The statute should set out at least the broad parameters within which this kind of power has to be exercised. Of course there can be regulations dealing with details, but there has to be much more indication in the statute itself. In our view, personal privacy is too important a value to warrant such cavalier treatment. So the statute, in our view, the bill, should be amended in order to indicate what kind of information and what kinds of circumstances we're talking about. It should also specify that the amount of information to be revealed and the number of people to whom it's to be revealed should be no greater than is reasonably required to protect members of the public from serious bodily injury or serious assaults on their persons. The statute should say that.

In addition to that -- that's what it ought to say from a substantive point of view -- it should also not repose in the police or in correctional officials the unilateral power to determine in specific cases how to apply this power. Correctional officials and police are under enormous pressure to provide protection to the public. In recent years we've even seen some indication that they may be vulnerable to lawsuits. That being the case, it's understandable, particularly with the police, that they are likely to inflate dangers to public safety and correspondingly neglect the interests of personal privacy just because they're going to feel the pressure to be extra careful so they're not vulnerable.

In fact, we look at a case a couple of years ago, when a prisoner was about to be released on parole. I think he was a paedophile in one Ontario community. The police gave the information with a picture to the newspaper and the newspaper published it on page 1. The prisoner decided not to accept the parole and stayed in jail longer because he was afraid to go into the community with the mark of Cain on him.

We might very well ask the question, was the public safer as a result? Which way is the public going to be safer: if the prisoner is released earlier, subject to restraints and supervision, or if he's released later, subject to no restraints and no supervision? Why, in any event, do we have to choose between putting his picture on the front page of the newspaper and alerting nobody? Those are not the only two alternatives.

As a result, we recommend that the bill ought to be amended to provide that in specific circumstances not the correctional officials, not the police, but the courts should have the power to determine what information will be released and to what categories of people in specific cases.

1650

This is the kind of power we ask the courts to exercise all the time. They are in a much better position than the police, subject as the police are to these pressures, to balance the interests of public safety on the one hand and personal privacy on the other hand. We are more likely to get a reasonable balance struck if judges make that decision than if police do.

As a result, and this will then summarize the points made, we recommend that you amend the bill to provide a more reasonable indication as to what the circumstances are in which this power is to be exercised, that it provide that there be no greater disclosure of personal information than is reasonably necessary to protect members of the public from serious injury and that you provide that the decision to be made in specific circumstances be made by the courts on warrant applications and that apart, of course, from imminent perils, emergencies -- imminent perils are another story -- but apart from imminent perils, the courts make those decisions and not correctional officials or the police, all of which is, as always, Mr Chairman, respectfully submitted.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have five minutes per caucus.

Mr Ramsay: Mr Borovoy, thank you very much for your presentation. It's very valuable to have you, as you always do, come before our committee and offer your very valuable advice. In this case, I think you've really pointed out an oversight by both the government and, in my case, an opposition critic whereby we would allow this to be set by regulation. I really hadn't put my mind to it as well as I should have. You make a very good point here, that we should spell out exactly when this act would be enacted in statute and not just in regulation. Probably with too much legislation nowadays much of the detail is left in regulation. Maybe some of the very best intent in a lot of legislation can somehow change when much of the content is left to regulation. This is a very valuable point.

I would ask you then maybe to suggest to us, if you would, in what types of cases this sort of notification to the public should be used and, in your suggestion, by the courts to the community.

Mr Borovoy: I feel no wiser than the members of the Legislature who participated in the debate. As for indicating the circumstances, if I read the materials clearly enough it appears that what was on people's minds is the situation when somebody is being released from jail and that person is considered dangerous to the community. Then I see nothing wrong with specifying that that's what we're talking about in the bill and not just anything at all at any time.

Then there's the other business, that it be no more than is reasonably necessary to protect members of the public, and thirdly, that the courts make the decision on warrant and not the officials themselves.

Ms Lankin: I truly appreciate your presentation. For me, you have hit the nail on the head in terms of my concern about the bill. When I spoke earlier in opening comments, I said I had a general disposition to support the thrust of the bill because I can think of the circumstances that Mr Young and others have brought up in which, as a representative of the community, I would want some notification of the public. But my concern was that I couldn't find anywhere in the bill how that was going to be done and where that was going to be done. Too much was left to regulation.

I think what happens then is, when you have a debate about it, if you raise any concerns, you're accused of being soft on criminals and not wanting to support public safety when what we should be debating is not the hot button issue of public notification, but as legislators we should be debating the whens, the whys and the wherefores. There's a really important debate to be had there. I think your suggestions are excellent and I would support them.

What I would like to ask you technically is with respect to your third recommendation on the use of the courts for making that determination. I don't know enough about how the justice system would work. Who would bring forward the warrant applications? Where would they emanate from? What kind of a process would be put in place, how time-consuming, how costly? All of those sorts of things I think the committee would want to know if we were going to contemplate that kind of an amendment to the bill.

Mr Borovoy: Since I realize that cost is on everybody's mind these days, I would suspect that we're not talking about a big cost in any event because we're not talking about that many people who are going to fall into this category. The impression is so often conveyed from a newspaper clipping or story that it's a much greater problem than it is when it's usually just one or two cases that tend to come up. From that standpoint, I don't think we need to worry.

I would see it operating very much the way search warrants would operate, or electronic bugging authorizations. The correctional officials or the police -- usually it would be the police -- would make an application. They might want to make it through a crown attorney. They would feel the need to do it because they're on the front line to protect the public, so it would fall to them to take the initiative. They would have enough time because they would be alerted in advance that somebody's going to be released. Then they could prepare an application, go to a court, just as they go to judges now for search warrants, ask for a warrant and set out how broad they think it should be.

The other person might even have a lawyer there because he could receive notice -- this isn't a secret -- and they could then appear before a judge. I think we'd be talking about a pretty expeditious hearing. You wouldn't be talking about days and days. You'd probably be talking about, at the most, an hour or so, or something like that, and then the court would decide how broadly to issue the thing or how narrowly. He might say, "Yes, you can contact these people but not those people. It doesn't have to be on the front page of the newspaper, but you can contact these agencies," something like that.

Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to come back to the question of limiting what the regulations can say in effect and you modestly deferred to us, suggesting that we might consider what that should be, but I'd like to invite you to give me a little more substance. How would you change the statute to give guidance and restraint to those who are drawing the regulations? Tell me what you would put in it, because ultimately of course that's what we've got to do. We'd like your view on that, if we could.

Mr Borovoy: That's fair enough, but I didn't realize that I might have to draft it right here on the spot.

Mr Bob Wood: I might emphasize, I'm not asking you to do that. I understand you can't do that. Give us the substance of what you'd put in it. How would you do it?

Mr Borovoy: Mind you, I should tell you I have done things like that before, so you better be careful.

Mr Bob Wood: So have we and they haven't always worked that well.

Mr Borovoy: I would think we might say something like, "Where it is believed on reasonable grounds that a person released from prison constitutes a danger to members of the public." -- we can spell out what we mean by danger -- "it is believed on reasonable grounds that this person, notwithstanding the fact that it's the end of a sentence, is likely to commit acts of serious bodily injury or some such words." Then there will be a power to reveal information about this person to members of the public. My drafting is somewhat declining at this point, but I think you get the idea. And a specification that "There will be no greater disclosures of personal information than is reasonably required to provide this protection and in any event an application must be made to the courts" etc.

1700

Mr Bob Wood: Let's assume we do not go the judicial route. What would you think about inviting comment from the person who's going to be released? Suppose we said, "We're not going to have a judicial process, but since you, sir, are about to be released in 10 days, we're informing you that we're going to make a release. Do you have any comment to make on this?" Let me just explain why I'm asking this question so you'll see my point. There's going to be bad news in these releases, for obvious reasons. There may be some mitigating factors that might change the story a little and we may not know some of those if we don't ask. I'm inviting you to comment whether you think that would be a good or bad idea.

Mr Borovoy: Off the top of my head, I would see no reason not to notify the person, but in fact I had that in mind when I suggested the warrant-granting mechanism to the court. The person could be given notice and could make representations through a lawyer or whatever as well.

Of course, I am pushing for that because I'd like to strike the balance. We realize we have a conflict of two values, both of which we want to uphold. Better somebody less committed to the front-line struggle, someone who can sit back and is freer of the pressures to which police are subjected. Then the judge could made that decision and certainly invite representations from the affected person.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Could I inquire, sir, with regard to the judicial procedure -- conducted in open court?

Mr Borovoy: Not generally. A warrant-granting usually isn't conducted that way.

Mr Guzzo: That's correct. You would not conduct this in open court, you would follow the procedures?

Mr Borovoy: I would think not.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation.

ST LEONARD'S SOCIETY OF CANADA

The Chair: Our last presentation of the day is St Leonard's Society of Canada, Ms Elizabeth White, executive director. Welcome. Members of the committee should have received a written submission and I'll ask you to proceed.

Ms Elizabeth White: Good afternoon and thank you. As always, we welcome the opportunity to take part in these hearings and to make comment on proposed legislation. We also welcome the invitation made earlier by both Ms Lankin and Mr Wood that we should turn our heads towards participation in the regulation process. We would note that good regulation does not make good legislation if the legislation is not appropriate to start with, and that's the concern we bring to you today.

Before I begin, however, I must note for the record my regret at the earlier comments of Mr Wood to Mr Sparks in stating that regardless of the input given, the legislation would go ahead. On behalf of those who are invited to comment on legislation and to take our time, it feels a trifle insulting to be told that the input is to be dismissed before being heard. I simply make that comment for the record and now I will continue to make my comments so you may dismiss them as you will after the fact.

The first point I would like to make has to do with the plethora of legislation we have been seeing lately to deal with high-risk offenders. It seems we turn to legislation in all instances to meet all needs. Federally, we now can track individuals for 10 years after warrant expiry. It's not that we're not paying attention to the very serious offenders who, though few in number, do exist in this country. The issue for the St Leonard's Society, which has worked with high-need, high-risk men for the last 35 years in transitional housing and community-based programming, is whether more legislation would be useful, whether this legislation would be useful or whether we are better off increasing community wellbeing and safety through the direction of resources to bringing up children safely, to preventing crime and to reducing recidivism. Given what our mission statement is, you might well guess where we fall on that one.

In addition, before turning to my written comments, I would like to turn briefly to the matter of notification. Knowing that it was being addressed by both the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry, I did not focus on it in my written notes, but today it is clearly the focus of this committee.

The example used by Mr Young raised a very serious situation. However, the legislation alone would not necessarily avoid such situations. The incident itself was resolved by good policing, and good policing is essential to the safety of our communities, but you don't make legislation to address the "rare" incident, the word that was used by Mr Wood earlier, or to try by a sweeping net to get those very few people you might catch in that way; better to come up with programs and services that directly reach the target group you are concerned about.

I would also add that we found Mr Borovoy's comments to be very helpful and would offer our support to those submissions to this committee.

Turning to my written notes, it is our submission on behalf of the St Leonard's Society that the legislation will not appreciably improve the accessibility of the desired information, that it is excessive in its powers and that the resources involved in its implementation could be more effectively utilized.

I'm turning my comments to three areas: target group, utility, and the fiscal and human costs because you can't consider the one without the other.

Simply put, if the intention of the applicant for a change of name is to deceive, why would they undergo the registration process for a change of name? It's a point of contact with authority that one might be expected to avoid, even under the current disclosure provisions in the act. It's easier to build an identity with documents obtained illicitly and less likely to result in unwanted attention.

We've already noted in the committee hearings today that a great many people would be caught up in this because of a domestic change. That's a very gender-biased impact on women and one that should be avoided if at all possible.

Also, the comment that I make in this section is about people avoiding going for a change of name because of fear of an embarrassing public situation. We're turning a lot in this province and in this country to using shaming as a way of dealing with those who have offended against us and against our laws. It would be most unfortunate to continue to augment that by using shaming devices in civil proceedings such as a change of name.

There are no limits set as to which agencies disclosure may be made, as there is no test of the reasonableness of the opinion of the ministry staff. Further, there do not appear to be any checks and balances on the use of the information other than the very vague -- I think Ms Price said you could drive a truck through it -- "for law enforcement or corrections purposes."

In the absence of clear definitions and legislative guidelines accessible and clear to all, this provision is subject to abuse and uncertainty. We are discussing very personal information and its spreading by persons unknown to the individual in ways and times and to individuals unknown to the subject individual. We submit that there would not be a good reason that an individual should not be informed of the state's involvement in such an exercise.

The vast majority of individuals who have criminal records or are charged with same, and we do note they are presumed innocent during the pending period before those charges are heard, have neither the financial resources nor the inclination to undergo the bureaucratic procedure of formally registering a change of name. Given that user pay is now going to be part of the whole system, it becomes even more unlikely. The cost for a change of name has been a certain amount; it will clearly go up if you're paying for all the additional checks.

It would be very interesting to the St Leonard's Society to be informed of the degree of the problem which the legislative drafters have intended to address. We are unaware, through anecdotal or other sources, of significant use of the provisions for change of name as a means of hiding one's identity or evading detection.

1710

Usefulness of the provisions: If the purpose of this bill is to improve law enforcement investigations before the fact as well as just after the fact by expanding the provisions of a civil proceeding, we would suggest that the existing tools of the criminal system are adequate. By and large, the information collected for the purposes of the change-of-name applications is not particularly useful in the criminal justice context, but it is intrusive in nature when taken out of the context for which it was collected. We submit that the invasion of privacy aspects outweigh any potential utility.

Current technology is most effective in immediate identification of individuals in criminal circumstances when a criminal investigation is under way. We're all well aware of how much fingerprinting and DNA are being used in the criminal justice system and how immediately accurate they are. A name being presented is essentially irrelevant for identification purposes. As you speak, you can change your name. Technology that has been developed ensures it's almost impossible for an individual to hide from legitimate inquiries of our criminal justice system.

On the other hand, if the purpose is to augment a mechanism to ensure that individuals are tracked through the community regardless of their names, this means seems cumbersome. We have effective monitoring for people under bail. We have effective monitoring for people on early release. It's difficult to conceive of ways in which the present provisions would enhance that active involvement, that dynamic involvement with an individual as they proceed about their business in the community. To me, it's even less apparent how these provisions would affect the situation of a prisoner.

Turning to cost, the wholesale dismissal of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act protection constitutes an unwarranted expansion of the powers of a very broadly defined group of individuals in the employment of the government to handle personal information and publish it in the absence of an individual's knowledge. The essence of this type of action, in our opinion, is that the citizenry is not be trusted, that someone else will manage our affairs. We as individuals don't need to know where and how our personal information is being disseminated. Worse still, it suggests that we're not to be trusted as to our motives for undertaking essentially procedural changes in our own lives, and we need not know what steps our government is taking to protect our fellow citizens from us.

This type of legislation encourages the mistrust of one another that leads to a society built on fear. St Leonard's position is that we have enough of that type of concern in our society and that it is unwarranted. We are essentially a safe society and our endeavours should be to counter the proposition that we are an unsafe society, not to further it.

This has the earmarks of legislation being drafted to cover a very minute group of individuals who may seek to evade criminal responsibility and liability through a change of name. As previously stated, the majority of those involved with the criminal law have neither the resources nor the inclination to do so. The legislation, therefore, supports the creation of a very broad power to remove the privacy rights of an individual for no identifiable good.

We believe there will definitely be a fiscal resource issue to be addressed by the various government players should these steps be implemented. Mr Wood noted that it would be very minor. But without seeing those regulations, without knowing how you're going to do this, without knowing what's entailed with legislation that is this vague, I don't believe, sir, respectfully, that you know that to be the case. I fear that without a tight system from the top we can lead to additional expenses underneath that are hidden and will not further the good that is being aimed for.

It is the submission of the St Leonard's Society that the resources that will be expended, no matter how minor they are, would be more effective and provide a greater degree of community safety if put at the provision of appropriate services for individuals in conflict with the law to enable them to live crime-free in the future. The thrust of this legislation relates to the current enthusiasm for community notification procedures which have been mentioned earlier.

The cost-effective nature of reintegration and prevention measures is well known to all of you. Rather than approving legislation to gather and spread information of questionable utility in the prevention of crime, we recommend that you devote your resources to preventing recidivism, to assisting victims and to educating the community about the positive state of community safety in Ontario.

It is therefore our submission that the legislation not go forward. Thank you, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms White. We have five minutes per caucus.

Ms Lankin: Thank you very much. I'm thinking back to your opening comments, "Here I go with my presentation; dismiss it as you will." There is an unfortunate tone that has been set that no matter what presenters have to say to this government, there are certain aspects they are going to proceed with no matter what. Having said that, perhaps focusing on what can improve the bill from your perspective, even though I understand you would prefer to see it not go ahead, would be important for those of us who will be engaged in the amendment process to hear.

I was particularly struck by the commonality of the comments made by all the presenters today. They don't know what this bill actually does. So much is left to regulation. We don't know who are the dangerous offenders who might be in the circumstance of needing public notification. We don't know who is going to make that decision. We don't know what guidelines the person is going to use.

It seems to me, if there is a public desire, in the circumstance of dangerous offenders and particularly paedophiles, for community notification upon release of those people, surely we can draft a bill that says that, instead of one that leaves it all open. I was wondering if you could comment on how you would like to see the bill amended, if, as the parliamentary assistant says, it's going to go through with the notification process in any event.

Ms White: Anything that brought the bill closer to working in a public forum rather than behind the veil of bureaucratic procedure would improve it immensely. Starting from zero, it's got a long way to go. The court procedure that was mentioned by the previous speaker, that would be a way of keeping it in the public forum, that would assist.

I think we are not talking about the Change of Name Act here, right? Yet that's the guise under which most of this work is being done. It becomes more complicated than necessary when we mingle a whole assortment of legislative amendments into one piece of legislation rather than directing our attention to the particular concern.

There's no doubt that there are specific instances where it would be important for an individual or several individuals to be informed that another individual was coming into their community. I can certainly agree that might well be the case. Do it in a public way, do it in an open and honest way and do it through your court system.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): Good afternoon. I want to explore with you, if I may, an issue that you raised and that also was raised in a previous submission this afternoon by the Elizabeth Fry Society, and that is the fact that the amendment to section 3 would require a criminal record check on behalf of an applicant seeking a change of name who was charged with an offence before trial, and how that is offensive, I gather, in the view of those making those submissions because those persons are presumed not guilty pending trial.

My concern with that is that the Bernardos and Olsons of this world may wait a long time for trial after they're charged. We all know that in the criminal justice process. Many of the steps in that process are there to protect the rights of persons charged with criminal offences, that is, preliminary inquiries and disclosure before trial, and then setting an appropriate time for a trial date and appeals and so on.

It seems to me, with respect to those who hold different views, that the greater public good is clearly on the side of requiring such persons, if they try to change their names from the time they are charged until the time of trial, which could be two years, if they try to change their names during that period of time, the greater public good, it seems to me, is clearly on the side of the community saying: "No. We're not taking away your right to change your name at some point. You can change it after your trial perhaps, if you want to, but during this period of time while you're charged, the greater public good is served by your not being permitted to take that step." The harm, I guess, is that this individual so charged has to endure a delay in making a procedural application. Don't you think the greater public good is clearly served by the former, that is, the community has the right to say, "No, you'll just have to wait a little while"?

1720

Ms White: I'm not sure the community good is served. By the way, you referred to Mr Bernardo or Teale and Mr Olson, both of whom from the time of charge through the time of incarceration under sentence were in prison so I'm unclear what community safety would have been --

Mr Flaherty: One of them, after committing offences, went through a change-of-name procedure: Mr Bernardo.

Ms White: I'm not denying that Mr Bernardo -- that's why I referred to the name "Teale." He did put in a change of name. But from the time of charge to the time of disposition he was imprisoned, and I'm not sure what community safety would have been enhanced by the failure to allow him to change his name. That's my only comment, Mr Flaherty.

Mr Bob Wood: I think you were here when I asked Mr Borovoy the question as to how he would constrain in the statute the release of information about offenders. You were here when he answered that question, I think.

Ms White: Yes.

Mr Bob Wood: In answer to a similar question earlier, you talked about some process issues; in other words, you'd have the courts deal with this. I wondered if you might address what Mr Borovoy said about what he would put in the actual statute, that it had to be believed on reasonable and probable grounds that a person released from prison is likely to commit acts of serious bodily injury. Do you think that makes sense or do you think that's not a good idea?

Ms White: I would never say that Mr Borovoy did not make sense. I think the phrasing is very good.

Mr Bob Wood: What's your reaction to the suggestion that the offender might be notified prior to the release of this information? Do you think that's a good idea or a bad idea?

Ms White: I think if we were talking about a procedure that would happen in chambers through the court process, it would be essential that the individual was informed and allowed to make representation. If we are talking about the alternative, the regulatory manner --

Mr Bob Wood: I don't want to interrupt you; I just want to clarify my question. Let's assume we don't go the judicial route.

Ms White: I was assuming that in getting to the second half of my answer. If you go the regulatory route, it would be as imperative that the individual have input, but I do not support its being done in a regulatory fashion.

Mr Bob Wood: But I gather that if we went that route, you would support them being notified as opposed to not being notified.

Ms White: Yes, that's correct.

Mr Young: Paul Bernardo's wife, Karla Homolka, will be out on parole at some point, I think relatively soon.

Ms White: I don't know that.

Mr Young: Everybody knows her crimes; everybody knows she had a shorter sentence because she made a deal with the crown attorney. Would you agree that she should be allowed to change her name when she's released from prison? Would that be a good idea?

Ms White: I see no reason for Ms Homolka to not change her name.

Mr Young: I wanted to ask you, have you ever had a heart-to-heart conversation with parents of children or seniors who live alone in the communities that these people might move into because there's a lot of housing that's affordable in those communities?

Some of us live in communities where paroled criminals or criminals having served their sentence couldn't afford to live, but there are lots of people, particularly in Metro, in communities where they could afford to live and they might readily become their neighbours. Have you ever had a heart-to-heart conversation with these people and asked them how they feel about it?

Ms White: In fact, I've spoken often and in great depth with Priscilla de Villiers, who I think you would acknowledge is someone with some personal experience in this area.

Mr Young: No, I'm talking about parents who are profoundly afraid to let their children play in the park alone because of the kind of people we let out, and they don't know where they're living.

Ms White: I was going to qualify my response by saying heart-to-heart discussions with individuals are not the subject of public discussion.

Mr Young: I'm asking you.

Ms White: You may take it that I would not do my work without informing myself of its environments or of the concerns of all involved with it. I am aware that mothers can be very concerned about where their children play. I am a mother.

Mr Crozier: Good afternoon, Ms White. I am selecting some points you made from page 2 under "Anticipated Target Group." You commented that the vast majority of individuals would not have the inclination to undergo the bureaucratic procedure of formally registering a change of names and that you are unaware of any significant use of these provisions. When anyone comes before these committees, at least those that I've sat on, if you don't start to think differently from an opinion you may have formed before you listened, then I don't think you are listening.

I want to preface what I am going to ask you by saying that because you have made me think a little bit more about this bill. With those points you've made, and I am going to make a comment and then maybe you'd like to respond to it, I might think to myself the way this bill is drafted now it is much ado about nothing in that the name of it says it's going to improve community safety, but maybe it really isn't. This might be the kind of a bill where we could go out into the community and say, "There, we've made a significant move towards protecting our community," when really it hasn't. Now I've made that comment.

Ms White: I would agree with that comment. I would agree that it is not very helpful to the public at large to suggest that there is any way of achieving total public safety, that we can legislate our way to 100% safety and that every child will play safely in every street from now until they die of old age. I do think that we can do many things to enhance our public safety, and I do not think this legislation is the way to go about it.

The Chair: Thank you very much for assisting the committee, Ms. White.

Just before we finish, are there any questions of the parliamentary assistant anyone wanted to ask him before we break for the day?

Mr Ramsay: Does he anticipate any government amendments coming forward?

Mr Bob Wood: There will be some.

Ms Lankin: I anticipate a government amendment which says we are going to notify them. You have asked them some important questions that would signify that that is an area you are looking at. I hope there may be some other areas.

Mr Bob Wood: You should make no assumption as to the influence of any individual member.

Ms Lankin: I am not going to comment on that, but I understand exactly what you are saying. I ask, perhaps in addition to the information I asked earlier around some statistics and numbers from the registrar general and Solicitor General, if you could provide the committee with some better sense of your intended use of the provision with respect to the Ministry of Correctional Services. I am genuine in my request about this. It's hard for me with my experience in the system to see the usefulness of that particular set of amendments.

The other thing that would be useful for us to explore as a committee, if the government is willing to go down that road, whether we might be able to find a general willingness to bring a little more definition into the act and not leave as much to regulations. There might be an opportunity over the next few days for us to actually do some collective work before we get into clause-by-clause next week on what kinds of provisions should be contained within the act. I think the next time the committee meets our critic will be back, but it might be helpful if you could give the committee an indication on that.

Mr Bob Wood: I am certainly open to any suggestions that anyone might make, and we invite you to come forward with them.

The Chair: If there no further business, we will adjourn for deliberations on clause-by-clause to Tuesday, September 9, at 3:30 pm.

The committee adjourned at 1730.