JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

0905

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.))

Hon. Ding-Nan Chen (Minister of Justice, Taiwan)

0910

0915

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

0920

Hon. Ding-Nan Chen

Mr. Vic Toews

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

Hon. Ding-Nan Chen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)

Hon. Ding-Nan Chen

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Thomas T.P. Chen (Representative, Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, Canada)

0925

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Hon. Ding-Nan Chen

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Thomas Chen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Thomas Chen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Thomas Chen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)

0940

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

0945

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Douglas Hoover (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière)

The Chair

0950

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Yumansky (Senior Policy Advisor, Corrections Policy Division, Department of the Solicitor General)

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Clifford Yumansky

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Mary Campbell (Acting Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of the Solicitor General)

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Mary Campbell

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Mary Campbell

The Chair

0955

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Mary Campbell

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Mary Campbell

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Mary Campbell

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Mary Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Mary Campbell

1000

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Mary Campbell

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Mary Campbell

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Clifford Yumansky

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Mary Campbell

1005

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Mary Campbell

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Mary Campbell

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Randy White

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Clifford Yumansky

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1010

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Mary Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Mary Campbell

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Douglas Hoover

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Douglas Hoover

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Douglas Hoover

1015

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Clifford Yumansky

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Mary Campbell

Mr. Randy White

1020

Ms. Mary Campbell

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

1025

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Douglas Hoover

1030

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Douglas Hoover

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Douglas Hoover

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Douglas Hoover

1035

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Douglas Hoover

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Douglas Hoover

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Douglas Hoover

1040

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Douglas Hoover

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

1045

The Chair

Mr. Douglas Hoover

Ms. Mary Campbell

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Douglas Hoover

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

1050

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Douglas Hoover

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Douglas Hoover

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Douglas Hoover

1055

The Chair

Ms. Mary Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1100

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

1105

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Douglas Hoover

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1125

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Ms. Joanne Klineberg (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice)

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Ms. Joanne Klienberg

Mr. John McKay

1130

The Chair

Ms. Joanne Klienberg

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. William Bartlett (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice)

1135

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 076

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

It is my privilege this morning, ladies and gentlemen, to welcome to our committee the Minister of Justice for Taiwan. It seems that if you have the last name Chen, you're likely to be successful in Taiwan.

With Minister Chen is Professor Chen, who is the Taipei economic and cultural office representative and who is known to many of us as “Mr. Taiwan” in Canada.

I have a short personal introduction. I met Minister Chen while we were in Taiwan, not the last time but the time before, and I had a delightful conversation with him in his office. He was introduced to me in this way. He was originally a mayor of a city in Taiwan, and what he was most famous for was the fact that he was able to cut right to the point. He took a government that had some difficulties and he basically cleaned up that government. That reputation has accompanied him into his current portfolio.

Taiwan, as you know, is not only an economic miracle in the South Asia region, but it is also a democratic miracle. That is largely due to people like Minister Chen.

I am going to ask Minister Chen to address the committee, and then perhaps we'll open it up to a few questions after that.

Welcome to Canada, and welcome to the justice committee.

Hon. Ding-Nan Chen (Minister of Justice, Taiwan) (Interpretation): Mr. Chairman, Members of Parliament, ladies and gentleman, today I am very honoured to be able to visit the justice committee of the House of Commons of Canada.

Even though I am in a different country and a different place, I am very familiar with the justice committee and it makes me feel very much at home. Before I became the Minister of Justice, I was a legislator in Taiwan’s Parliament, or Legislative Yuan, for ten years, and I was a member of the justice committee. One of the delegates here with me today, the director general of the Department of Prosecutorial Affairs, Ms. Tsai Pi-yu, used to work under my monitoring during my time in the justice committee. Since then she has become my colleague and a very capable assistant to me. The other delegates here with me are my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. Olivia is my niece as well as an executive assistant.

Taiwan’s Parliament is different from the Canadian Parliament. During both the first-half and second-half sessions of each year, our Premier, accompanied by the ministers from different ministries, will give a report in the Parliament, as well as taking questions from legislators. The process takes about one month to one and a half months. This meeting takes place in the Legislative Yuan’s main assembly hall. In addition to this meeting, ministers from different ministries--Councils and Commissions--must also attend relevant committees to take their questions. These committee meetings will occur approximately ten times during each session. The Legislative Yuan in Taiwan is currently in session, and I had to ask for permission to be absent from the meetings in order to be here today. I had also asked my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to represent me in the committee meetings.

When my old colleagues in the Legislative Yuan heard that I would be visiting Canada, especially the justice committee in the House of Commons, they were all very supportive and understanding of me taking a leave of absence. This is because the Taiwanese government, both the executive branch and the legislative branch, is very aware and grateful to the Canadian House of Commons and the Senate for passing the motions in support of Taiwan’s bid to join the World Health Organization. The people of Taiwan and our government will forever be grateful to the Canadian Parliament’s act of friendship. Although I cannot represent the Ministry of Health, before my departure our Premier, Mr. Yu, specifically asked for me to thank all of you for your support.

¿ (0910)

Of course, today’s visit to the justice committee also concerns some topics that are related to my ministerial affairs, in which I would seek your support. On March 26 last year, we signed the Agreement on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters with the Government of the United States, which allows both governments to work cooperatively through formal channels to combat international crime. The focus of this agreement is on combating the international drug trades, economic crimes, and the ever-growing threat of terrorism. Since we signed the agreement, the Government of the United States has already sought help from our government on several cases. The two countries can assist each other with investigation and providing documents, records, and articles of evidence. This agreement also facilitates the governments of both countries to send their investigators or prosecutors into each other’s country to help with the proceedings related to criminal matters.

Taiwan has a very close relationship with Canada, and I believe the trade and investment between our two countries will continue to grow in the years to come. There are more and more transnational crimes, and no country can escape the influence of terrorism. Taiwan has faithfully performed its duties in the international community, especially in combating terrorism. Today I seek your support in signing an agreement with the Government of Canada, similar to the agreement that Taiwan has with the United States, in order for the governments and people of our two countries to fight together against international crime and terrorism.

Once again, I would like to thank all of you for taking the time to receive us. I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have for me.

¿ (0915)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Minister. This committee just loves to ask questions. We have about 10 minutes left. Does the official opposition wish to ask any questions?

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Chen and Professor Chen, for coming here today. The translation, I assume, is going on simultaneously, is it? Thank you for briefing us on the operations of government and the Ministry of Justice in Taiwan.

We note your request for support for future agreements between Canada and Taiwan. I, for one, will certainly look very favourably upon developing further relations between your country and our country.

Contrary to what the chairman has said, I will not bother you with questions today, but I do want to thank you for coming here. It has been a pleasure to hear you and to meet you yesterday. Of course, I want to say how important a role Professor Chen has played over the last number of years during which I've gotten to know him. He is so thoughtful, he even remembers my birthday.

Thank you.

¿ (0920)

Hon. Ding-Nan Chen: Thank you, Mr. Toews. I just talked with Mr. Chen, and I will ask you a question. Has anybody told you that you look like LBJ, former President of the United States?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Ding-Nan Chen: You are handsomer than he.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much. But I don't pull my dog's ears.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Minister, you've witnessed a minor miracle. Not only is Mr. Toews without questions, he's at a loss for words.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd too like to welcome the honourable minister and his delegation. I haven't had the opportunity to visit Taiwan. I have always been impressed with the country, and with its democracy and its role in the world, because I know Taiwan does have a role in the world, despite living, as we do in this country, beside a huge giant. Again, on behalf of the party I represent, thank you for taking the time to come before the justice committee. Have a great visit.

Hon. Ding-Nan Chen: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Pat.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

Professor Chen, thank you for being here today. Unlike my colleague, I have not yet had the opportunity to visit Taiwan, though I've been invited and would certainly look forward to visiting Taiwan in the near future—I hope. The reason I haven't been there is my schedule; it hasn't been a lack of hospitality on your part.

I just have one question on how the agreement works with the United States. When you have people who want to visit the United States on an international crime problem, is it always the federal government that is approached? If you specifically wanted to go to an individual state, let's say Texas or, in our case, an individual province, would you be able to liaise directly with that particular province or would the logistics and etiquette be such that you would approach the federal officials first?

Hon. Ding-Nan Chen: We negotiate directly with the federal government, directly with the Department of Justice. Pi-Yu Tsai was in charge of that business.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I thank you for that.

What I'm wondering, though, is if your officials wanted specifically to visit, let's say, Ontario or Alberta, would they be able to go directly and make that request there, or would the request still come through our federal government? Will there always be a place for federal government involvement, or could you go directly to the province?

Mr. Thomas T.P. Chen (Representative, Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, Canada): The window is to go through the U.S. federal government, and then they would instruct or notify the local government. So it is a central agency, the U.S. Department of Justice.

¿ (0925)

Mr. Pat O'Brien: There're always part of it.

Hon. Ding-Nan Chen: Yes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Are there any other questions, colleagues?

Just for my own information, I'm assuming you've made approaches to Canadian authorities about some similar parallel arrangement. What's the state of progress with respect to that arrangement?

Mr. Thomas Chen: I can answer that question for you.

We have approached DFAIT, which doesn't seem to be too anxious. We talked to the Department of Justice officials, who were substantively interested, but they have to look up to DFAIT for approval, so the ball is in DFAIT's court.

Of course, we will not submit a formal request unless we are sure the Canadian party is interested; but so far, your foreign affairs department doesn't seem to be too interested. But there are other ways in which we can do it without a formal agreement.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): At this point, there is no way in which Canadian authorities can respond to a request from the Taiwanese government for the removal of an alleged Taiwanese criminal?

Mr. Thomas Chen: I can answer that question for you.

We have received from our home office at least half a dozen cases requesting the arrest of criminals who have committed economic crimes in Taiwan, but who were immigrants or illegal immigrants here in Canada. Our only procedure is to send our government's request to the RCMP, but normally it's like a rock sinking in the ocean; we don't get much response.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): A lot of us experience rocks sinking in the ocean.

Mr. Thomas Chen: I think Canada has more to lose, or as much to lose, compared to us, because you are receiving our criminals. You are helping us get rid of them. But I think the ultimate solution is cooperation and bringing them to justice.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to say, Minister, since I think I'm the only member on this committee sitting here--no, Randy is too--from the west coast, that I think we have some of those folks and we'd like to give them back.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): On behalf of the committee, I want to thank the minister and Professor Chen for coming before our committee this morning. In a very brief period of time, you've hit on an issue that is of great significance to both of our countries. I hope you enjoy your time here in Canada and have some fruitful and useful meetings. Thank you again.

We will suspend for a couple of minutes.

¿ (0929)

¿ (0935)

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call the 76th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights back to order. This morning, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, we have before us Bill C-23, an act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Here, from the Department of the Solicitor General, are Mary Campbell, acting director general, corrections and criminal justice directorate; and Clifford Yumansky, senior policy adviser, corrections policy division. And coming from the Department of Justice is Dave Whellams, senior counsel and deputy director of criminal law policy section; and Douglas Hoover, counsel, criminal law policy section.

Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada): May I make a brief statement in explanation. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, if I could take a few moments, I'd like to give an overview of the government motions to amend Bill C-23. Obviously, as each one comes up, as with the opposition motions, detailed information will be given, but the motions do fall into four categories.

The first category is motions that respond to comments that this committee heard during our proceedings or from other partners, such as the provinces and territories, or the police. For instance, there are proposed amendments in clause 5 that will specify in greater detail, as was requested, the kinds of information that may be collected when an offender registers, such as height and weight or the taking of photographs.

The second category is motions to incorporate persons already in the Ontario sex offender registry but no longer under sentence at the time of coming into force of Bill C-23. The members who were here when Minister Easter appeared before the committee on this bill...indicated that there had been agreement amongst the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers last spring to incorporate into Bill C-23 the Ontario registry and registrants.

The third category of motions is those to incorporate specified sex offenders under sentence at the time of coming into force of Bill C-23. Some of them will be Ontario registrants already on the Ontario registry, and others will be sex offenders under sentence in other provinces or territories. That's the retroactivity model that all federal, provincial, and territorial ministers unanimously agreed upon at their last meeting, less than a month ago.

As you see, it's a limited form of retroactivity because it includes offenders still under warrant or sentence at the time the bill comes into force, but it doesn't attempt to reach further back because there was no agreement amongst the ministers. There are also amendments that will add in procedural protections to make the model charter viable. For instance, offenders will have to be personally served with a notice of obligation to register and they will have an opportunity to challenge the registration in court.

The last category of motions is those that are technical or housekeeping in nature. There are always some cleanup motions, and there are in this case.

That's basically the statement I'd like to give on this, just to give some clarity to the members.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. White would like to respond to the statement.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Rather than respond, would you like me to cover the intent of our amendments as well?

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Randy White: Okay. We have 11 sets of amendments that cover allowing for an up-to-date photograph of the offender to be provided for inclusion in the database.

Removing the words “in ordinary court” allows for the young offenders to be added to the registry. We've also recommended the removal of the words “on application of the prosecutor”, thus allowing the offender to be placed directly on the registry.

Another amendment changes the bill to allow offenders who have been charged with a sex offence under the statutes of another country to be placed on the registry.

We have an amendment to allow for the retroactivity as well. We wanted to remove the sections that would allow the offender to have his or her name removed from the registry based on the argument that it would be unfair to the offender.

We want to remove the section that would allow the offender to appeal the registration order; remove the provision that would allow the offender to apply for the termination of the registration order; remove another section that would allow the appeal of the registration order; and increase the maximum term for non-registration of an offender from two to ten years, which is actually in line with the gun registry, if you can imagine. From the actual form that requires the offender to report, we want to remove the ability for the offender to appeal or terminate the registration order.

They're all very similar.

The Chair: I'm going to go to clause-by-clause.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Before we do that, I want some clarification. The parliamentary secretary has given some summary. I only want to understand what the process actually is now under this new legislation. Does this then mean that in respect to every sex offender who will be eligible to be placed on the registry, there will be the requirement of a court hearing in order to place the sex offender on that registry?

I see the parliamentary secretary suggesting no, that is not the case. But in fact, if someone is ordered to be placed on the registry, there then is the right to go to a full, formal court hearing in order to challenge that registry.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I think we've embarked on an area, with all due respect, that is quite irregular. We have someone purporting to speak for the government who is a member of the committee, which is quite appropriate as she is the parliamentary secretary. But if she's with the government moving amendments, then she should sit with the witnesses and manage that process. Then we have the opposition, which has a list of described-in-advance amendments that they care to put at clause-by-clause. Now we're getting into a debate, apparently, with questions and answers about what the statute contains.

We're going off the rails here. If we're going to put questions to witnesses and have explanations from the government, we can do that, in my view. Otherwise, we go to clause-by-clause, and the debate on particular clauses and policy can happen at that point.

All of this is respectfully submitted. Let's get back on track.

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: On the same point of order, I only thought this would be an expeditious way. I didn't raise the issue that the parliamentary secretary should be sitting with the witnesses. I only want to get a summary of a response in respect to what I have, so that I sort of know where we're going. Otherwise, we'll go on to clause-by-clause and debate each clause. If I know where we're going, then I don't need to hear an explanation of every clause, speaking for myself.

The Chair: We're going to clause-by-clause now, because our expeditious argument has been, in fact, by definition.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: The agenda clearly shows that we have witnesses in a portion of our meeting dedicated to the general issue of the bill.

If Mr. Toews wants to put a question, I think that would be in order, but if it's the will of the committee to go right to clause-by-clause, we can do that too. It's not out of order for someone to ask questions of the witnesses.

The Chair: I clearly understand, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I was looking for members of the committee who wished to put questions to the witnesses to do so. I recognized Mrs. Jennings. I recognized Mr. Toews. Neither has chosen to do that, so I'm going to clause-by-clause.

That was the entire point. If there is anyone who has a question of a general nature that cannot be contained within any of these clauses and would like to put questions to the witnesses, please do so, or indicate to the chair your desire to do so, and those questions will be put. This is not the time, as Mr. Lee has pointed out, for debate.

Mr. Mark.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Inky Mark: I have one question to our witnesses. Could you explain what change or retroactivity will take place with the government amendment?

Mr. Douglas Hoover (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Are you asking in general how it works?

For the retroactive aspects, again, the FPT agreement indicated a broad outline of how we were to approach the drafting. The agreement basically suggested that the preference of the provinces was that they were looking for a cost-effective methodology and charter-viable methodology of bringing in those offenders under sentence at the time of the coming into force of Bill C-23. Thereby, we determined that they could in fact be charter viable if they were provided with a notice of the disability and if they were provided with an opportunity to exercise their section 7 charter fundamental rights of justice, which requires a court process, including appeals. The other available procedures under Bill C-23 would apply to them equally once they were on the registry.

Perhaps a key aspect of that, in order to maintain a charter viability of the retroactive application, was to ensure a cost-effective manner so that the provinces did not have to process each one at their onus, cost, and expense.

Once they get notice, if the offender wishes to apply, he has one year to make that application. Basically, there is a bit of a pause going on until he applies, whereby he cannot actually be charged with the offensive breach of Bill C-23.

Once the one year is up, he is basically deemed to have exercised his section 7 rights, and then he is available for prosecution. If he in fact applies for exemption from ordering under the proposed statute or proposed provisions for a retroactive application, then he can.... If he loses the application, if he's not successful, then he is immediately under the obligation to register and in fact can be charged with a breach. He has 15 days upon the hearing of the application to actually register, consistent with the general provisions of the SOIRA.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mark.

We'll go to Mr. White.

Anyone else? Any questions to the witnesses? If not, Mr. Lee and I will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.

(On clause 2--Purpose)

The Chair: I see an amendment identified as G-1. Ms. Jennings, would you like to speak to amendment G-1?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

The government amendment G-1 is basically, one, a technical amendment to the French to bring it in line with the English, and two, to respond to comments that were received.

If you see in the amendment for paragraph 2(2)(b) where it says “the collection”, that is the change that responds to comments we received from witnesses.

Subparagraph 2(2)(c)(i), that “there are reasonable grounds to suspect”, as well was in regard to comments received from witnesses that it shouldn't be that the police “believe” that there are reasonable grounds; it should be “suspect” and not “believe”.

Perhaps the witnesses might wish to add something.

The Chair: No? Okay.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 3--Definitions)

The Chair: Under clause 3, I see amendment G-2. Perhaps you could indicate if it's a technical amendment, Ms. Jennings, and we needn't belabour the point if it is.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. They're miscellaneous amendments that are all sequential to other substantive amendments that are made throughout the bill.

The Chair: On amendment G-2, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière): Mr. Chair, you asked earlier whether people were for or against. On behalf of the Bloc, I want to let you know about my dissidence on the amendment to the first clause and on this one too.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. Okay.

On amendment G-2, is it basically technical, Ms. Jennings?

Sorry, Mr. McKay.

¿ (0950)

Mr. John McKay: The difference between “main residence” and the “home address” seems to play throughout all the amendments. I just want to know from the witnesses what the substantive difference is between “home address” and “main residence”.

The Chair: Mr. Yumansky.

Mr. Clifford Yumansky (Senior Policy Advisor, Corrections Policy Division, Department of the Solicitor General): The term “main residence” was suggested as a more accurate term to describe where the person actually lives most often. It's a more accurate term than “home address”.

Mr. John McKay: Is there any substantive judicial unpacking of that phrase “main residence”, or is this a new phrase in the Criminal Code?

Mr. Clifford Yumansky: I don't suspect it's a new phrase in the Criminal Code. I think in terms of working with government drafters this is a term that clearly more accurately describes.... It works better than “home address”.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: I'm having a little trouble following this, Mr. Chairman, on amendment G-2. It says:

“information” includes characteristics recorded and photographs taken under subsection 5(3)

Do you follow where I'm at here? I'm having trouble finding “subsection 5(3)”, for one thing, but is this saying in there that photographs are actually taken? In other words, my amendment introduces that. I'm not sure what this amendment is actually getting to. Do you see what I mean?

Ms. Mary Campbell (Acting Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of the Solicitor General): New subclause 5(3) refers to a motion of the government, so that's why you don't see it in Bill C-23 right now.

Yes, there's a government motion that adds a requirement that photographs be taken at the time of registration, normally in the police station when the person is registering.

Mr. Randy White: So new subclause 5(3) is coming later. Okay, so then how do we approve this one before we look at new subclause 5(3)?

The Chair: Well, ultimately we could go at it from the other way and have the same problem. It happens from time to time that you have amendments that bear on other things and they're inserted.

Mr. Randy White: I realize that.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 4--First obligation to report)

The Chair: We have amendment G-3.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: For the government amendments there are two groups, and it completely restructures clause 4 due to the inclusion of Ontario and national registrants. If there are questions on the details, the witnesses can certainly respond to that.

The Chair: Are there questions?

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Do you mind explaining “the registration centre that serves the area in which their main residence is located”? The registration centre is a police service centre, right? It's a police station, is it not?

The Chair: Ms. Campbell.

Ms. Mary Campbell: Yes, normally it will be a police station, but the provinces specifically ask for some flexibility in this regard. For example, the registrant may have to register not at the police station closest to their residence, but rather at a centralized...or simply at another police station. So this particular wording was exactly what the provinces were looking for so they would have flexibility to designate which police stations were registration centres.

Mr. Randy White: Through the chairman, this could be RCMP, municipal police, or OPP?

Ms. Mary Campbell: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5--Obligation to provide information)

¿ (0955)

The Chair: We have amendment G-4.

Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Here again it concerns, as the members know, the information that's to be collected and to be provided by individuals who are subject to Bill C-23. It clarifies the scope of information that can be collected from the registrants. It adds things like height, weight, and the address of any school the person is attending.

All of the additions that are being made through these groups of amendments are in response to recommendations that witnesses who came before the committee made through the committee to the government.

The Chair: Questions? Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Would you explain proposed paragraph (1)(c) of clause 5:

the address of their main residence and every secondary residence or, if there is no such address, the location of that place....

Would you just explain that?

Ms. Mary Campbell: Mr. Chair, a number of offenders have more than one residence. They may have a principal residence and a summer cottage. We have some offenders who have up to five residences, I've heard.

We had to cover off the main and the secondary residences. But also, if there is no such address, we wanted to be sure we covered everyone. There are people who, in fact, have a residence but no address. They may be homeless people or people who are fairly mobile and tend to spend their time at places that simply don't have an address but qualify as a residence.

Mr. Randy White: That same concept applies to where they work, I guess, if there's “no such address” for a workplace.

Ms. Mary Campbell: That's correct. Then it's simply the location of that workplace.

Mr. Randy White: Could you give me an example of that?

Ms. Mary Campbell: It might be a bush camp, for example, or something in a remote rural area potentially, or an isolated community that doesn't have a precise address.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

The Chair: If there are no other questions, shall amendment G-4 carry?

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: The additional information, when we go back to proposed subclause 5(3), I guess, and the next page, CA-1, which was my amendment on photographs, is different. Are we able to do one before the other? How are you going to handle this?

The Chair: We'll see more of it later, but there are a number of instances where one amendment would, in fact, negate consideration of the balance. This is not the case here. We would hear G-4, and then we would go to CA-1 to see whether—it would, in fact, require some numbering changes with the substance of the amendment—it is admissible.

Mr. Randy White: That's fine.

The Chair: Mary.

Ms. Mary Campbell: I wonder if I might just explain that the government motion provides that the police services may take the photograph themselves at the time of registration, whereas motion CA-1, as I understand it, puts the onus on the offender to supply a recent photograph.

The provinces and territories preferred a method whereby the police would actually take the photo, because there may be identification issues when the person shows up to register. That's why you'll also see some further details about taking of fingerprints, if necessary, to make sure the person who has shown up actually is the person who's required to register. The notion of police taking the photograph was seen as, perhaps, a better way of ensuring they have the right person on site.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: If you look at the government's amendment, it's an optional amendment, isn't it? It “may” require that their photograph be taken. Wouldn't you want the photograph to be taken? Why would you put that option in there?

The Chair: Ms. Campbell.

Ms. Mary Campbell: Again, the provinces wanted some flexibility on this. The jurisdictions are quite different in how they will potentially manage this. Some jurisdictions may have a photograph already of the offender—they may be well known to the police service—and they're quite satisfied with the photograph they have. There's no need to take an additional one. In other jurisdictions where perhaps there's less anonymity, they will certainly want to be able to take the photograph on site.

À (1000)

Mr. Randy White: The difficulty I have with that, this being a national registry, is either you set the standard nationally or you just let the registry break down among the provinces. Some may, and some may not.

If this registry is to apply nationally, one would expect that if you went to one province versus another, or one location versus another within a province, they would have the same information, i.e., a photograph. Whether you're in Truro, Nova Scotia, or somewhere in downtown Toronto and you're looking for a particular sex offender, the photograph is a critical aspect of that search. If it is optional, then in certain areas.... I think it's a mistake to make it an option. It should be a requirement.

The Chair: Ms. Campbell, and then Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Mary Campbell: Allow me to further clarify. We're always trying to walk a fine line and an appropriate line in terms of responding to the request for some flexibility. I think, given the provincial interest in photographs, I would be fairly confident that there will be photographs everywhere.

This clause refers to every time the person reports. Of course the person has to report annually, has to report any time there's been a material change, so if we were to make it a requirement that every time they report, a photograph must be taken, there are jurisdictions that don't see that as necessary every time. So this leaves some discretion for them to make that judgment.

I think there's certainly strong interest in all jurisdictions we heard from that there be photographs.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: To add to what Ms. Campbell mentioned, the registry, as it's being constructed through the legislation and these amendments, is in direct response to what the provincial and territorial governments have requested. Therefore, as Ms. Campbell mentioned, there's definite interest on the part of the government to have the photographs, but there may be cases where they feel that to make it mandatory every year is not appropriate. This would allow them that flexibility.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to clarify the same point again. When a sex offender reports to the registration centre that already has a picture on file, a picture that the police officer or whoever has access to, and the sex offender comes into the registration centre where the officer realizes his appearance has changed, perhaps drastically, can they mandate that a photograph be taken and put on file at that time?

Ms. Mary Campbell: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Are there any other questions on G-4?

For my own clarification, is there any other clause in the bill where, in identifying things such as fingerprints, or other things such as that, it's a “may” or a “shall”? Is everything else “shall” and the photograph is “may”?

Mr. Clifford Yumansky: I know with respect to clause 9 there's a motion about the taking of fingerprints. That is only in a situation where there's a need to confirm the identity of the individual. Otherwise it is optional that it relates to the identification of the individual.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): So that is “may” as well.

Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: To clarify what Kevin asked, if a person shows up and has changed significantly, there's still no requirement that a photograph shall be taken. It's still left to the discretion of the police officer if it's to be taken. So if a person has changed in appearance significantly, there's nothing that mandates them to supply a new photograph or that a new one has to be taken. Is what I understand correct?

Ms. Mary Campbell: That's correct. The police officer would have the discretion, but if they make the decision, then it is a requirement on the offender at that point.

À (1005)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Are there other questions on the amendment?

Mr. Randy White: Oftentimes we find when crimes occur that it's this discretion that falls back on the police, where somebody didn't take a picture and so on. Is the reporting mechanism still at least once a year, that they report in once a year?

Ms. Mary Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Randy White: Then why wouldn't you say it shall be updated at least once a year?

Ms. Mary Campbell: Again, this is the model the provinces wanted. They wanted some degree of flexibility. They will ultimately have some resource issues of their own that they'll have to manage. So this was the model they asked for.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): That's all the questions.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. John McKay: May I ask the clerk, is CA-1 still in order? Yes, it's still in order. The clerk advises me that the numbering may have to change, but we'll deal with the substance before we get to that.

Mr. White, do you want to speak to your amendment?

Mr. Randy White: I'm convinced that the picture should be taken by the authorities at the time they register. This amendment was designed to take out that discretion, for one thing, and to be more precise in exactly what we were looking for.

But I think I could go with the other way and take that out.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Okay, the amendment is withdrawn.

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 6--Notice about absence)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): There's a government amendment on clause 6, G-5. Does the parliamentary secretary wish to speak to that?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: This is a technical amendment to clarify when and how to report absences from main or secondary residences. Perhaps the witnesses would like to provide further detail.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Is there anything the witnesses wish to say on this?

Mr. Clifford Yumansky: Not really. Again, I think it's consistent with the changes that have been recommended thus far with respect to clarity and consistency in the definitions of main residence and secondary residence.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Are there any questions or comments on G-5, the government amendment on clause 6?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 7--Young sex offender)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): On clause 7, there's an amendment, G-6. Does the parliamentary secretary wish to speak to that?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's an amendment that will make reporting by a young offender who is subject to the sex offender registry consistent with those of adult sex offenders.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Are there any questions or comments on what the parliamentary secretary has said?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 8--Registration of information in order)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Clause 8, government amendment G-7. I recognize the parliamentary secretary.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: There are two groups under this government amendment. The first completely restructures clause 8 in order to cover the registration of information by original Bill C-23 registrants, Ontario registrants and national registrants. The second expands the scope of information that can be registered. Again, that's in response to recommendations we heard from witnesses before this committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Are there any other questions or commentary from witnesses or members on what the parliamentary secretary has said?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 9--Information to be given to sex offender)

The Chair: Under clause 9 we have amendment G-8. Would anyone like to speak to G-8?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Part of the amendment adds the authority to take fingerprints if there is uncertainty that the person presenting himself for registration is actually the offender. The other amendments to clause 9 through G-8 are largely technical amendments that are consequential to substantive amendments that we find before and after.

À (1010)

The Chair: Are there any other comments? Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Yes, I'd like an explanation of subclause (3), the last part:

they shall not be disclosed or used for any other purpose and shall be destroyed without delay.

We are talking about the fingerprints of the offender, are we not? Why would you destroy them?

The Chair: Ms. Campbell.

Ms. Mary Campbell: That's correct, but in this case the taking of fingerprints is simply to establish that this is the precise offender who is required to register. It doesn't affect any other collection of fingerprints that may be done pursuant to any other law or purpose. So those fingerprints that would be on record somewhere else will remain there. It's simply the collection for identification purposes that would be destroyed.

The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: It's not so much the amendment, but what the clause says. It says that a copy of all the information that is collected on the sex offender registry of the offender goes to the offender. Is that correct?

Ms. Mary Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Okay. Then my question is why is it imperative that the individual who collected the information sign that document and then hand it to the offender? Why would it be important that the offender know the officer or whoever it is who collected the information on him?

Mr. Douglas Hoover: This clause is essentially to ensure the integrity of the information from the perspective of police and for the offender himself in terms of privacy rights. The signature of the collecting officer is basically a certification at the time. It's basically a paper trail, which we were advised by our privacy experts at Justice Canada--and accepted by provinces--was the appropriate methodology to ensure that the clause is in fact followed closely. Privacy rights are in fact elevated to charter rights if one chooses to challenge these in court. Maintaining the paper flow and being able to track the paper as an audit procedure is quite important. Without that signature we may not be able to determine exactly who took that particular information if in fact it is challenged by the offender under a privacy challenge. That would actually be beneficial to the prosecutor, to the Crown, and to the attorney general of the province more than it would be to the offender.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Is there a risk to the officer?

Mr. Douglas Hoover: No province actually made that an issue at all, and certainly in our consultations directly with police, they have no problem. That's pretty much how they do it in Ontario.

Again, for the most part the offender will come into a registration centre. They will be meeting with police. As a matter of fact, in offender management theory, certainly that contact, the offender getting to know the police, the police getting to know the offender, is a great benefit to the long-term reduction of reoffence rates.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: My concern is that if we have a registration here...and having met with some offenders in penitentiaries or corrections institutions, they're always questioning the evidence. They shouldn't be there; they're always questioning it. Again, I think having the police officer sign as the collecting agent, or whatever you want to call it, as to this information being in here, may be a real point of contention with that offender and could pose a risk to the officer.

Mr. Douglas Hoover: We are cognizant of that and have discussed with provinces and consulted with police on that particular aspect. There didn't seem to be a concern, either by, again, the senior justice officials from the provinces or the police we did talk to about that. Again, they deal with these guys as professionals on a day-to-day basis.

If you talk to the guys who are operating the sex offender registry in Ontario, they'll tell you that they pretty much know every offender in their district, and the offender knows them, and they view that as a positive. I think if you took a look at all of the international sex offender registries you would find very quickly the same thing. If there's one outstanding beneficial feature of sex offender registries universally, it is the fact that you maintain this contact on an annual basis. The offender basically is brought into the system as opposed to being pushed to the margins of society, and this is part of that. Again, this is one of the features where I personally believe the benefits outweigh the negatives of the registration system, that offender contact.

All I can suggest is that while I think your concern is legitimate in the sense that there is a potential for those psychopathic offenders to try to track down the police, in the same way they would probably know that police officer anyway, and they would know the judge, the court workers.... They are in contact with these guys, and if they choose to take that path, I don't think the signature of an officer on the actual sheet would push them over the edge.

À (1015)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 10--Registration of information provided by sex offender)

The Chair: Amendment G-9, Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: They're largely technical amendments that are consequential to the amendments we just adopted to clause 9.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 11--Copy of information)

The Chair: I go now to amendment G-10. Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Clause 11 deals with copy of information for the offender. The government amendment, G-10, is four groups of amendments, technical amendments and making the English and French concord.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 12--Request for correction of information)

The Chair: We will go to government amendment G-11.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Clause 12 deals with correcting information on the database. The government's amendment G-11 is a technical amendment that will deal with the incorporation of the Ontario and national registrants into the registry.

Mr. Randy White: Could you explain subclause 12(1):

A sex offender or a person served with a notice under subsection 490.021 of the Criminal Code

Mr. Clifford Yumansky: It's just to ensure that we're capturing this third category of sex offender, a person who is served with a notice. This is essentially part of the scheme to capture those under sentence at the coming into force. The initial step is that you're served with a notice. We want to make sure we have information, that we include this category of individual in this clause.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 12 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 13—Access to database for research)

The Chair: We will to now go to government amendment G-12.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Government amendment G-12 clarifies the process for people to access the registry information for research purposes.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: The Commissioner of the RCMP may authorize a person to consult information that is registered in the database. This is very limiting. Royal Canadian Mounted Police may authorize a person. What about the Commissioner of the OPP? How does that fit in?

Ms. Mary Campbell: The authority to allow access would rest with the Commissioner of the RCMP. If the Commissioner of the OPP wanted access, for himself or on behalf of someone, he would still have to apply through the Commissioner of the RCMP, because the database is under RCMP authority. So that's the avenue of access.

Mr. Randy White: Could you give me an example, then, of a person who would want access for research and statistical purposes? To whom would you be referring? Would it be a university person?

À (1020)

Ms. Mary Campbell: It could be a university person. It could be anyone who is doing research and may want to know, for example, how many people registered in a particular province or a particular jurisdiction, and what was the nature of the predominant offence that people were registering for. We do want to track how the registry works, and so at some point it will be important to be able to have people who can access and provide that kind of statistical information and do some kind of evaluation.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 13 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 14--Maintenance of database)

The Chair: We will go to clause 14 and government amendment G-13.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It would have been interesting if perhaps we had gone to amendment G-13. That would have answered Mr. White's question about why it is the Commissioner of the RCMP.

Amendment G-13 is a technical amendment that clarifies that the database is indeed operated by the RCMP without the need to specify exactly where in RCMP operations.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 15--Retention of information)

The Chair: Clause 15 has government amendment G-14 and NDP amendment NDP-1. We will go to government amendment G-14.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: These are two government amendments to clause 15, parts (a) and (b). They are technical amendments in the most part and clarify the application of the retention provisions to the Ontario and national registrants, but they also clarify the impact of acquittals and free pardons on retention. That's the retention of information on the database and what the impact of a free pardon or an acquittal would have on that information.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: On NDP-1, Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): This is on clause 15 as well. This deals with an offender who is either acquitted or pardoned. If that person is acquitted or pardoned, to get their name off the database, they have to first apply, regardless of the eligibility.

What my amendment does here, Mr. Chair, is make it automatic that the commissioner provide the offenders with notification of their eligibility to be removed from the registry. If someone is pardoned or if someone is acquitted, instead of having to apply for it, it becomes automatic. In other words, the offender ought to be given reasonable notice of the state of the relationship with the registry, and the offender should not have to apply to be removed if the offender is acquitted or pardoned.

The Chair: Are there any questions on NDP-1?

Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I don't actually see the need for the NDP amendment, because G-14, which we just adopted, and G-18, which we'll be dealing with later, actually cover this. They make it mandatory for all information that's been collected and registered to be removed or destroyed in the circumstances that Mr. Nystrom is talking about, acquittal or free pardon. So it's redundant; we've already dealt with it.

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: It's already dealt with because of the two government amendments you're referring to?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: When I drafted this, those amendments weren't there. That's why that is there.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Now that you agree it is redundant, do you intend to withdraw?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes. We just got this information a very short period of time ago.

The Chair: You're going to withdraw?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I understand. I've been assured that this is already covered, or will be in moments.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Part of it has been. The other part was under Bill G-18.

The Chair: Specifically, Mr. Nystrom, I'm withdrawing amendment NDP-1?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Thank you.

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 16--Unauthorized persons)

The Chair: We are going now to government amendment G-15.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's largely technical. It reflects other substantive changes regarding who, how, and where information is registered. It also ensures consistency with the treatment of information from Ontario and national registrants.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Jennings.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 17--Offence)

The Chair: Government amendment G-16.

À (1025)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's a technical amendment--for example, English-French concordance.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 17 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 18--Authorizations and designations)

The Chair: Government amendment G-17.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: This is the government amendment that deals with what the provinces and territorial governments have requested. It will allow them greater flexibility to make regulations and therefore responds directly to the concerns they raised.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 19--Regulations)

The Chair: Government amendment G-18.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: G-18 provides more detail about the federal regulation-making authority and its interaction with the provincial regulation authority.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 19 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 20)

The Chair: Now, we have a number of amendments to clause 20. I will go through them in the order in which they are presented, understanding that many of them are in conflict with other amendments so passage of one would in fact negate a consideration of a number of others. I will bring to your attention each of them in each case.

Under clause 20, the first amendment we're considering is government amendment G-19, which is in conflict with the following: CA-2, CA-3, BQ-2, CA-6, BQ-5, CA-7, CA-8, BQ-6, and CA-9. If you haven't got that, I'll repeat it. Do you need me to do that again? If we pass G-19, we will not be considering CA-2, CA-3, CA-6, CA-7, CA-8 or CA-9. Understood?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Were you including number CA-6 in your list, or did CA-7 replace CA-6?

The Chair: The following amendments will not be considered if G-19 is passed: CA-2, CA-3, CA-6, CA-7, CA-8, and CA-9, and BQ-2, BQ-5, and BQ-6. Is that understood?

Mr. Randy White: Are you going to go through yours, or do you want to hear CA-2 and CA-3 first?

The Chair: No, we're going to do them in the order in which they're presented in the context, so it's G-19 first. It's the order in which they appear, Mr. White, so we're going to consider G-19 as an amendment to clause 20.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Amendment G-19 is a group of 16 government amendments that amend Criminal Code provisions. The larger number of these amendments make technical changes, incorporate the Ontario and national registrants, and respond to recommendations that were made throughout the committee proceedings on Bill C-23.

The Chair: I see no questions.

Oh, Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: In here somewhere is an aspect of clause 20—lines 5 and 6, on page 16 of the original bill, wherever that is in this amendment G-19; I don't know—but my question to the witnesses concerns the provision for a young offender who is a sex offender to be placed on the register. Would you explain why they are excluded from it?

The Chair: Mr. Hoover.

Mr. Douglas Hoover: Originating with the FPT process, there was a lot of discussion of the benefits and negatives of including young offenders convicted as young offenders, as distinct from those transferred to adult court. The consensus that emerged from FPT was in fact to exclude young offenders who weren't transferred to adult court. That would be consistent with the current federal government objective regarding the handling of young offenders and seemed to be consistent with the views of most provinces. At the end of the day, all provinces agreed that is how it should be handled.

Internally at Justice this was consistent with the new youth legislation as well, so there didn't seem to be a lot of impetus to go after the young offenders to register them—at least those who were convicted in youth court.

À (1030)

The Chair: Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The amendment will ensure that those youths who were convicted in ordinary court under the Youth Offender Act will come under this provision and those youths who are sentenced as adults under the new Youth Justice Act will come under it. Under the new Youth Justice Act, they're all heard before the youth tribunal, but some will be sentenced to adult sentences. Under the YOA, they had to be sentenced in adult court.

So it brings both of those groups under this scheme.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: My concern is with those young offenders who are sex offenders, having interviewed and talked to a number of them, who carry that problem through to adult life. We actually don't have a tracking of them, basically; they're not in the sex offender registry if they're 15 years old, for instance.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's clear that if you have young people who are convicted of a sex offence under the youth justice system and are not sentenced to an adult sentence, they will not be captured under this. As Mr. Hoover explained, that is due to the fact that the consensus and the whole development of this national sex offender registry was based on consensus between federal, provincial, and territorial governments through their ministers.

On this particular issue—the treatment of young offenders who have been convicted of sex offences—this model is based on that consensus. There was not consensus to bring in youth convicted of sex offences under the youth court and given youth sentences. There was, however, consensus that youth convicted of sex offences and sentenced to adult sentences will be brought in under the scheme and those convicted in adult court under the old Young Offenders Act will also be brought in. That's what the consensus was.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: To the witnesses, is the analysis Mrs. Jennings just gave consistent with the Ontario registry system--that a youth cannot appear on an Ontario registry system unless that youth has been sentenced in an adult court, or sentenced in a youth court with an adult sentence?

Mr. Douglas Hoover: I don't actually have the statute with me, but I'm pretty sure my recollection is correct that this is how it works. Young offenders do not become automatically registered under the Ontario system.

Mr. John McKay: As a starting premise, they don't get registered, period.

Mr. Douglas Hoover: That's correct.

Mr. John McKay: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll stick with that question. Please give me some of the rationale that was used to make that argument. Why are young offenders who are not convicted as adults not included? What came forward at the FPTs?

Mr. Douglas Hoover: I think there were a number of opinions provided as to the treatment of youth in the general context of sentencing and offence management, and I think there were other provinces that expressed the concern that certainly your party has expressed here, in the sense that if the offenders are not included, there seems to be a bit of a gap.

But after weighing the positives and benefits of the options regarding the handling of youth offenders, again the consensus was that there is probably more harm to be done by registration, given the fact that if they get a registration order it may impede their chances at rehabilitation. And while there is some debate as to how young offenders are handled, I think just about everybody would agree it's probably more important for young offenders to have the opportunity for rehabilitation than it is for adult offenders.

At the end of the day, the consensus of the FPT seemed to be based on that fact. There is the realization that young offenders have a long career ahead of them as responsible members of society or not, and as such, every effort should be made to invest the resources in the rehabilitation and restorative justice aspects of handling young offenders. The sex offender registry, while only one small piece of the puzzle for young offenders, became quite integral to the consensus of the FPT groups, the ministers, and the deputy ministers in reviewing this particular provision.

À (1035)

Mr. Chuck Cadman: The only other question I have is how was it explained that it would hinder their rehabilitation?

Mr. Douglas Hoover: In reviewing the specific registries of other jurisdictions, we did find, for example, that a large number of rights-based challenges were brought forward on behalf of young offenders, given that the disability seems to be pronounced for a young offender. In other words, if a young offender were to be charged with sexual interference, convicted, and forced to register as young as 14 or 15 years old, I think the mental stigma of being forced to register for 10 years, regardless of rehabilitation, carries a lot of problems for that offender in terms of overall management.

Again, all I can suggest is that the evidence is weighted in favour of not registering, at least for those young offenders who appear manageable, which in most cases you would assume would be those who were in fact treated under the conventional youth system as opposed to the adult system, or sentenced under the new regime as an adult.

Again, I don't think the group came at this with a predisposed notion whether to include or not include offenders. There was a lot of debate. There was a lot of debate by deputy ministers and by ministers, and at the end of the day it seemed there was unanimous consensus that the registration requirement should be applied to only those young offenders who were in the adult system.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: We could go to page 16 and the question of the order, in proposed section 490.03. It says: “A court shall, on application of the prosecutor...”. Could you confirm that the interpretation of this would be that a person has been convicted of a sex offence but will not go on the registry unless the Crown applies for them to be on it? Is that right?

Mr. Douglas Hoover: That's correct.

Mr. Randy White: Why would we leave that to the discretion of the Crown? I've seen, in so many of the issues I've been involved in, with DSO designations, etc., that at times it's just a plainly unreasonable approach to the application. Where application should have been made, they didn't have the time. It was going to tie things up and it was so much work, it just wasn't done.

If a person is convicted of a sex offence and the sex offence is on a schedule, don't they automatically go on the sex offender registry? Why wait for an application?

Mr. Douglas Hoover: Again, a critical aspect of this feature is its charter viability and specifically its section 7 viability. We saw a number of issues regarding due process, if it was lacking. As such, the option was presented to provinces as to general model features early in the game, regarding the opportunities for due process. We looked again at international registries.

There are a number of different ways to handle this. The provincial and territorial officials and ministers ultimately decided to go with a system that was very efficient in terms of what we already had in the Canadian judicial system. As such, we give it to the crowns and the crowns have all kinds of discretion to prosecute, including the same discretion for DNA orders, for guns orders, etc. So this fits in very well with that system.

Now, in terms of discretion, I can tell you that some provinces were very adamant that this discretion be part of this; otherwise, they would explore ways of not participating in the registry. Whether you legislate this or not, if you don't have provincial participation at the AG level you're going to have problems, as you pointed out already. You don't want a patchwork of registries; you want a national registry.

As such, the other provinces did not seem to have a lot of problem with allowing their crowns the discretion of whether or not to actually go for registration. Or, as we experienced with the DNA orders, certainly every time there is a sexual offence after sentencing, I don't think you're going to find many examples of crowns not exercising their discretion when there is a sexual offence.

À (1040)

Mr. Randy White: I would disagree with that. I've seen it, for instance, in dangerous offender applications where there should have been applications and there weren't.

I would suggest to you that this is going to be a significant flaw in this registry. You will find, in some areas within a province or various provinces, where an individual charged and convicted of the identical crime, a sex offence, in one area or another is not on the registry. Eventually you're going to find great gaps in the registry, where one crown counsel , for one reason or another--it could be workload, it could be a lot of reasons--didn't make the application; and yet they're registered in Ontario, and the same type of crime is not registered in another province--in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, or whatever.

I would suggest to you that this is going to be a great flaw, ultimately, in this registry.

Mr. Douglas Hoover: Again, this was debated, and the unanimous consensus of all provinces and territories was that this discretion was acceptable. Again, some provinces were very adamant that this be included in order for them to support this registry at all.

As to the effectiveness in the courtroom, where the crowns exercise their discretion, all I can say is this. When I was practising as a defence attorney I wished some crowns perhaps exercised less discretion than more, because I never had the opportunity not to argue something like this when the crowns had discretion. Generally crowns would pursue this, especially in a sex offence matter. They're quite sensitive, I think, to the opportunities for sentencing aspects.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: I know where this is going, but I can tell you that down the road this is going to be a problem.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Having carried amendment G-19, amendments CA-2, CA-3, BQ-2, CA-6, BQ-5, CA-7, CA-8, BQ-6, and CA-9 are all negatived.

So we go back now to amendment BQ-1.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Randy White: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. On the CA amendments, you did say amendment CA-2 and amendment CA-3 originally, and then you added a couple of others in there.

The Chair: I said amendments CA-2, CA-3, CA-6, CA-7, CA-8, and CA-9.

Mr. Randy White: You didn't state those originally, and I want to--

The Chair: Yes, I did.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Randy White: You would do that? All right.

The Chair: Okay, so we're back to Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chair, with the amendment, the Bloc is saying that the offences provided for in proposed paragraph 490.02(1)(b) are not offences directly related to the perpetration of a sexual type of offence. So the requirement to register for these offences is an additional penalty which does not seem to us necessary for achieving the goals of this legislation.

The scope of this legislation is far too large and it becomes a concern to see that we could require the registration of a sexual offender for an offence which is not really of a sexual nature. The purpose of our amendment is to specify that the offences provided for in proposed paragraph 490.02(1)(b) will not be considered as justifying the imposition of the registration penalty. We believe that the committing of an offence provided for in proposed paragraph 490.02(1)(b) with intent to commit an offence provided for in proposed paragraph 490.02(1)(a) is sufficient to impose this registration penalty.

À (1045)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hoover.

Mr. Douglas Hoover: So you're saying the test is too broad for the paragraph (b) offences, and you'd want to narrow it.

I hate to have to restate this, but certainly the consensus of the FPT senior justice officials, deputies and ministers, regarding this particular aspect was....

I should explain the purpose again. This was used to cover those convictions where there would have been a sexual component or motivation to the original act, yet it was not an actual conviction for the sexual offence because they never got that far--for example, a burglary or an entry where perhaps on the facts the reason the offender attempted to burgle was for a sexual offence, but for whatever reason, there was no conviction registered for the sexual offence for the intent.

The objective of the provincial justice officials was how to get those particular offenders into the registry, because they can be just as dangerous, if not more so, than somebody who is actually convicted of a sexual offence. So we have provided a prescribed list under paragraph (b), and then the tie-in through subsection 490.012(3), which provides that there has to be a sexual intent in order for a person to be moved onto the registry and be subject to an order.

Ms. Mary Campbell: I would just add that there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a sexual component to the offence, that otherwise appears to be non-sexual.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It is because the Bloc considers that the imposition of registration for these offences is an additional penalty, Mr. Chair. This is mentioned in this clause. This is what we think.

You said earlier that this was not considered as a penalty. We are saying that this is an additional penalty which should not be there. It is already provided for in this legislation. It does not aim at meeting the goals of the legislation.

[English]

Mr. Douglas Hoover: Again, the goals of the legislation are in fact to cause offenders to register not as a penalty but in order to prevent future offences through rapid investigation. Rapid investigation, in theory, can only occur if police have access to full information, including current address, modus operandi, and physical features. So again, this is not intended as a punishment.

While it may be that in fact there's a disability attached in the same sense as there's a disability attached to the possession of a driver's licence of somebody who needs to register their current address annually, the disability itself is not intended as punishment. It is intended to provide police with an investigation tool.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I am sorry, Mr. Chair, but I do not know whether Mr. Hoover understands what the Bloc means.

It says: “the intent to commit” one of these offences. We are saying that the scope of this clause is far too large. It opens the door to additional penalties. This would not go in the direction of this legislation. “The intent to commit” opens too many doors. As we are not in someone's head we do not know his intents.

We feel that it is too broad and that it is unnecessary to include this clause in the bill.

[English]

The Chair: I think Mr. Hoover has answered this one. Now we're engaged in a bit of a debate, and I don't think that's what the witnesses are here for.

À (1050)

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Fine, thank you.

[English]

The Chair: So I'm going to put the question on amendment BQ-1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I'm now going to amendment BQ-3, on page 78.2.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: As far as this amendment is concerned, Mr. Chair, the Bloc states that the court must keep the flexibility it has to impose or not a registration order. The judge has the jurisdiction to decide, in the light of the facts presented in the proceedings, to impose the said sentence if appropriate. We are of the opinion that the decision to impose such a sentence should not be the sole responsibility of the prosecutor.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hoover.

Mr. Douglas Hoover: I'm not sure if there was a question there, but this was extensively discussed by FPT officials as to the test and specifically whether it should be a “may” or a “shall”. Certainly the consensus of that group was that this works with a “shall”. It would work with a “may”, but I think perhaps the consensus was based on the prosecutor's ability to make this case in an effective and efficient manner.

We saw at Justice Canada that this was charter viable, and as such, we did not have objections to it.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I think I know where the Bloc is going.

[Translation]

I think that I know where the Bloc is going, and I think that we find a little further this discretion that the Bloc wants, in proposed subclause 490.03(4), on page 17 of the bill, where it says:

The court is not required to make an order under this section if it is satisfied that the person established...

And the conditions are mentioned. So, the court keeps the same discretion to take or not an order if the accused or the person concerned demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, that such an order would have a really disproportionate effect in relation with the interest that his registration would have for the protection of society, etc.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We'll now go to amendment BQ-4, on page 78.3.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This goes in the same direction. We want that clause 20 be amended by replacing line 8 page 17 with the following:

(3) A court may, on application of the

We believe that the court should keep its flexibility to impose or not a registration order. This goes in the same direction as the other proposed amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We'll go to amendment CA-4, on page 79.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, this could already be done at this point, but I want confirmation that proposed paragraphs 490.02(1)(a), 490.02(1)(c), 490.02(1)(d), and 490.02(1)(e) were items included in the retroactivity.

The Chair: Mr. Hoover.

Mr. Douglas Hoover: Yes, they are.

Mr. Randy White: They are? Then I would withdraw that amendment.

The Chair: We're now on amendment CA-5.

Mr. Randy White: Amendment CA-5 provides for allowing for offenders who have been charged with a sex offence under the statutes of another country to be placed on the registry. I recall that when talking to the minister at the time he was here, we had quite a debate on this issue. It would be a significant concern to see someone on a prisoner transfer come into the country and be a sex offender and not on that registry. So I just want confirmation that it is in there.

Mr. Douglas Hoover: It's an interesting issue. It was explored fully by senior Justice officials as to whether or not it was desirable and, if it was desirable, how to include it. I think the unanimous consensus was that this is extremely problematic. It brings in all kinds of issues.

While I appreciate your amendment on its surface and it looks like it's viable, we foresaw, again, a number of extreme difficulties. Again, I would point to some of the international experiences, for example, that the U.K. is going through and a number of the United States' registries were going through when they actually tried to crack this egg and started to bring in offenders from other jurisdictions.

I think primary for Justice Canada's concerns is the charter viability of such an issue. For example, given that we are requiring, first and foremost, that a conviction be registered for a sex offence or for a non-sexual offence where there was a sexual intent, we would, in order to be consistent and charter viable, feel that we'd have to make the same type of disposition for a foreign offence.

Unfortunately, you have to look at every single country and closely examine their conviction system as to whether it's viable in the same sense as we have registered a conviction. For example, if someone has a sexual offence conviction from China, are the same section 7 protections in there? I would suggest it's unlikely that we'd be able to determine if that was charter viable without some type of court process, and without some type of full examination of the nature of the charge and the nature of the conviction.

Again, the U.K. has gone through this process now for the past five years. They have to keep going back to the drawing board because they find it so full with inherent fundamental rights issues and procedural issues, etc. What they've done instead is draw up individual treaties to exchange sex offender information with other jurisdictions. They have to make sure, again; it's the same problem.

For example, they've recently completed one with Portugal. They had to go through each offence to determine if, in fact, they had the same elements to determine whether or not it could be included and not be challenged as a rights-based argument.

While I'm not suggesting that it's impossible for us, based on further discussions with the provinces, to go back and attempt to do this, it's not a cheap process for each offender to make sure that it's viable from a charter perspective and a “crim pro” perspective. It is possible, but it would take further discussions.

Certainly, I think the federal government has already indicated--the Solicitor General, Wayne Easter, has already indicated--that we're open to further discussions. I suggest that we probably will have further discussions over the coming implementation and post-implementation period. But again, it's difficult, especially when we're looking for a consensus approach from the provinces, because they're the ones who will pay for this. They're the ones who will implement this. It's going to be difficult. It's not impossible, but it will be difficult.

Unfortunately, again, while I think that perhaps your amendment is something that we could use as a basis for discussion, as to how we can start the process of determining who might be eligible for further processing and for some type of court application, I think we would have difficulty in determining whether this particular section would be viable from a charter perspective.

À (1055)

The Chair: Ms. Campbell.

Ms. Mary Campbell: To add to that, Mr. Chair, I think it's important to remember that under the Transfer of Offenders Act, the Canadian comes home to Canada. We administer the sentence, but the conviction remains in the foreign jurisdiction. The conviction is not transferred per se; it's the administration of the sentence. That's really what causes the problems that we would have to try to overcome.

So, like Mr. Hoover, I think it's not something that we would say could never happen, but it would really require a lot of working through and discussions with international partners as to how that could be managed.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Finally, we have amendment CA-10 on page 85.

Mr. Randy White: Well, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned this when I opened. This increases the maximum time for non-registration of an offender from two to ten years. You only have to look at the non-registration of firearms to see what the relevance of this may be. That's what it does.

The Chair: Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I appreciate the sentiment, Mr. White, but the unanimous agreement of the FPT as to a maximum penalty for failure to comply was not more than two years.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: One wonders why we sit here and discuss this if the FPT has made all the decisions. Basically the witnesses come in and say, well, that's the way we've agreed on it and so you guys get your act in gear. Surely suggestions from a committee are relevant at times.

The Chair: We will decide on amendment CA-10 right now.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 20 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 21)

The Chair: We have amendment G-20. I bring to the attention of the committee that amendment G-20 is in conflict with amendment CA-11. Amendment G-20 is on page 86.

Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: There are nine groups of amendments. Clause 21 deals with form 52 for the “Order to Report and Provide Information”. So amendment G-20 contains technical amendments to the form and reflects previous substantive amendment that this committee has already agreed to.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: If I'm not mistaken, the NDP's amendment deals with it too.

I have to be honest. My parents would kill me if I wasn't.

The Chair: I like to be honest too, and we'll do clause 21 and then we'll go to their new clause.

It's a new clause, Mrs. Jennings.

(Clause 21 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: Now we will go to Mr. Nystrom and new clause 21.1, and it's referred to as amendment NDP-2 on page 93.

Mr. Randy White: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I must have been talking here. Amendment CA-11 obviously has gone by the wayside? Why?

The Chair: Yes. As I said, it was in conflict with amendment G-20.

Now we're going to new clause 21.1, amendment NDP-2. Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I think it is an extremely positive amendment. Bill C-23 does not contain any statutory review of the registry once it's in effect, as it is written. My amendment would include in Bill C-23 a mandatory review after two years by a parliamentary committee to evaluate the operation and efficiency of the registry, Mr. Chair, and Parliament would strike a committee to do that review.

It seems to me that this would be worthwhile. We've had a lot of questions today, and on the international question we were just talking about, in two years' time we may have more evidence on that. It might be very worthwhile, Mr. White and others, to review this operation of the registry after it has worked for a couple of years.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Those thoughts and sentiments are noted, but I think we should actually mandate that the FPT do a mandatory review and report back to us in two years and six months.

Actually, that's tongue in cheek, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I saw the tongue.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 22)

The Chair: Would anyone wish to speak to amendment G-21?

Á (1105)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Government amendment G-21 clarifies that fingerprints are exempt from ATI Act requests.

The Chair: I don't see any questions.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 22 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 23)

The Chair: Government amendment G-22, page 96, Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Technical amendments sequential to the substantive amendment that we've already adopted, including, I guess, NDP-2.

The Chair: (Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 23 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 24)

The Chair: Shall clause 24 carry?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No. We need to vote. We need to not support this, because it's now redundant. Now that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is in effect, clause 24 is redundant.

(Clause 24 negatived)

(On clause 25--Bill C-20)

The Chair: I'm going now to government amendment G-23, page 98.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's a technical amendment to cross-reference and it's sequential to substantive amendments that this committee has already adopted.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 25 as amended agreed to on division)

Mr. Derek Lee: I have a really picky point of order here. We've gone through all of these amendments and I noticed that amendments submitted by the Canadian Alliance have come in on one page. Our parliamentary council have been able to put both the French and the English on one page, but the amendments coming from the government side take a whole page for one line.

Wouldn't it be possible for them to adopt the same paper usage? We could cut the paper use down by half.

I'm making the point. It's technical, but it's an exhortation to the government side to think in terms of environmental awareness. Has the point been made?

Mr. Douglas Hoover: I'll speak to our drafters about that.

The Chair: I don't think it's going to get in the way of the sex offender registry, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I think that the point is made.

Mr. Derek Lee: That was a serious comment, and I hope the witnesses will understand.

The Chair: If we see amendments in future, those skimpy amendments on one page, I'm sure Mr. Lee will have something to say. Let the record show that.

(On clause 26--Coming into force)

The Chair: I'm going to NDP amendment NDP-3, on page 100.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Amendment NDP-3 was to have the registry come into effect on January 1, 2000. I think that is now redundant because of the agreement of the FPT. I did table this back in June. The intent that I had here, of course, now is covered, so I withdraw it.

The Chair: Amendment NDP-3 is withdrawn.

(Clause 26 agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Let's remember the Derek Lee amendment, all the people in drafting.

I'm going to suspend as we go to our next order of business.

Á (1110)

Á (1124)

The Chair: I see a quorum. We are going to proceed now to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (capital markets fraud and evidence-gathering).

(On clause 1)

The Chair: Mr. Lee is, I'm sure, quite interested in clause 1.

In the case of the Bloc amendment, BQ-1, has anyone made arrangements with anyone to introduce that amendment?

Mr. John McKay: Given Mr. Marceau's standing in this committee, I'll move it, just because Mr. Marceau is a hard-working member of this committee and I think his work needs to be recognized. So I'll move the amendment. I don't pretend to be able to speak to it but I'm sure there's a response.

Á (1125)

The Chair: So under clause 1, Bloc amendment BQ-1, Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr. Chair, this is an issue of concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute under the Criminal Code, and as a matter of fact, it is a federal statutory policy and traditional practice. This is not a division of powers and therefore not a constitutional issue, and accordingly, we would not be supportive.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5)

The Chair: We have amendment NDP-1.

Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'd like to move this amendment. It replaces the lines in the existing bill that read as follows:

(b) could reasonably be expected to significantlyaffect the market price or value of asecurity of the issuer.

We replace it with the following wording:

(b) might reasonably be expected to affect the material value of any of the securities of the issuer.

I think this would tighten it a bit, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: With respect to this, rather than tighten it, we believe it broadens this in a way that is very unsatisfactory, because at least market price is a defined price. Material value, quite frankly, is undefined.

I will defer to Ms. Klienberg to further expand on this concept.

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom and then Ms. Klienberg.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: What this does is it parallels the language in the Canada Business Corporations Act. It's some symmetry in terms of bicycle peddling in the same direction.

The Chair: Ms. Klienberg.

Ms. Joanne Klineberg (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Actually, I have the language of the Canada Business Corporations Act here. It's a little bit different. It says:

confidential information that, if generally known, might reasonably be expected to affect materially the value of any of the securities of the corporation

It may just have been that it was transcribed not entirely correctly. The “materially” goes to “affect”, it doesn't go to “the value”.

It's also the case that the Ontario Securities Act, the B.C. Securities Act, and the Alberta Securities Act have language that is much more similar to what we have proposed in this legislation and it refers to “expected to have a significant effect on the market price”. So there is that qualification of the effect. It has to be significant or material in some way, more than just negligible.

In our view, what is currently in the bill is consistent with securities regulation across the country.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: You also add “market price or value of a security of the issuer.” Doesn't that indirectly address Mr. Nystrom's point? Am I reading this correctly? Page 4, lines 15, 16, and 17, the amendment reads: “might reasonably be expected to affect the material value of any of the securities”

Mr. Nystrom wants “material value.” The government wants “market price or value of a security.” It seems to me you cover indirectly what you didn't cover directly.

The Chair: Ms. Klienberg.

Ms. Joanne Klienberg: I'm not sure I can see exactly what the concern is. What I can report is that the concept of “material value” is not one that is found in security statutes across the country, whereas the notion “market price or value” is a phrase that is in security statutes across the country. I'm not sure that I know what material value of the security means.

Mr. John McKay: I can't tell the difference between the “material value” phrase and the “value of a security”. Most reasonable people would say that's the same thing.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Ms. Klienberg.

Ms. Joanne Klienberg: I can't answer that question. What I can say is that “market price” is the term that is used across the country; it is the term that is understood. “Material value” is not a term that is known or used, so I'm not sure exactly how it would be interpreted. The other difference that is made is that “significantly affect” is taken out, so that all that is left under this motion to amend is “affect the value of a security”. That takes away this slightly increased level of “affect”, which would render this provision a lower standard than what is in securities statutes across the country and effectively make a criminal offence out of something that is not a regulatory offence. In our view, that would lower the bar far too low.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 agreed to)

The Chair: We're now going to new clause 5.1. Mr. McKay has been busy. He has an amendment, BQ-2.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I'll move this amendment on behalf of Monsieur Marceau. If I could explain it, I would. I expect Mr. Macklin to explain it, since he studied it all night.

The Chair: So, Mr. Macklin, I'm sure Mr. Marceau will be satisfied with your explanation.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Well, Mr. Chairman, the reality is that what is being proposed is already covered by section 400 in the Criminal Code, so in fact, it is quite inappropriate, I would suggest, that we do it again.

The Chair: The question is put on Bloc amendment BQ-2, which would have created clause 5.1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Now we go to amendment BQ-3, new clause 5.2.

Mr. John McKay: Now I know what it feels like to be in the opposition.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Not completely. Occasionally you have pyrrhic victories.

Mr. John McKay: On behalf of Mr. Marceau again, I'll move amendment BQ-3.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin, briefly.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Quite frankly, there's a very similar answer to this one, and that is that this amendment actually covers the same ground as section 380 of the Criminal Code. We would comment that the drafting is a little less precise and that it actually lowers the sentence currently applicable in section 380. Accordingly, we do not think it's appropriate.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 6)

The Chair: Now I'll go to amendment NDP-2.

Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: This would change the wording under paragraph 425.1(2)(b), which now reads: “an offence punishable on a summary conviction” to the following, after the word “summary”: “conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months”. My understanding is that this brings it to the same wording as one finds in the Criminal Code.

I know Mr. Macklin, as a very prominent lawyer, would like to have moved this himself, but he is the parliamentary secretary.

The Chair: So we have Mr. Nystrom representing Mr. Macklin and Mr. McKay representing Mr. Marceau. The moral of the story is don't miss a meeting.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: It's very important not to miss meetings.

I will defer to the officials on giving you the general explanation, but what we're dealing with here is an element of consistency.

The Chair: Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. William Bartlett (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Mr. Chairman, there are some offences under the Criminal Code for which there's a penalty of eighteen months as opposed to the normal six months that applies unless something more is stated. But generally they're violent or sexual offences--threat to cause death or harm, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, forcible confinement--the kind of offence to which the higher maximum prison sentence on summary conviction has been applied. Comparable offences, such as the intimidation offence, provide for a five-year indictable or simply summary conviction to which the normal six months would apply.

It would, I suggest with respect, introduce an anomaly into the code. In addition, there is a federal-provincial process that is looking at all of these hybrid offences and the relationship between the maximum for the indictable and the penalty that should apply in the case of the summary conviction offences. So this kind of issue is being looked at in that federal-provincial forum, but this particular amendment, I would suggest, would introduce an anomaly in terms of what that kind of sentence is currently applied to in the Criminal Code.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are you voting for Mr. Macklin too, Lorne?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to)

Mr. John McKay: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I've moved these motions on behalf of Mr. Marceau with the intention of being accommodating. I would, however, not like Mr. Marceau's or the Bloc's position to be prejudiced when the bill goes back to the House in the event that he wishes to make similar amendments. I'm wondering whether I am too late, as a matter of fact. In doing Mr. Marceau a favour, I may have possibly prejudiced his party's position.

Having thought about that for a second, I wonder whether it's appropriate that I withdraw those amendments--I take some guidance from the committee here--on behalf of Mr. Marceau in the event that I may have inadvertently prejudiced his position in the House.

The Chair: Actually, given the Speaker...it isn't whether or not they were dealt with in committee, it's whether they could have been. Clearly, you have a strong “could have been” case. Consequently, whether they were attended to or not, it would have been ruled that they could have been dealt with in committee; therefore, your problem, I think, is resolved.

Mr. John McKay: So we understand, then, I've done Mr. Marceau no inadvertent prejudice.

The Chair: It's understood. So he'll thank you twice.

(Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: And shall we order a reprint of the bill? But that's unnecessary; there are no amendments.

I will report tomorrow.

Now, just before we break, it is my intention to have the clerk check with the Conservatives and the Bloc as to whether or not we can go to Bill C-20 tomorrow afternoon, but after we do Bill C-33. I do not believe they have any outstanding amendments, but just in case, I want to give them the chance to finalize. If not, be prepared to go to Bills C-33 and C-20 tomorrow.

The meeting is adjourned.