[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, February 20, 1997
.0937 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): I would like to call this meeting to order.
As you know, we're considering Bill C-55 and Bill C-254, both of which deal with high-risk offenders. Our witness today is Julian Fantino, chief of police for the London Police.
Welcome, Mr. Fantino. I think you have a presentation for us. Then we'll open it up to questions.
Chief Julian Fantino (London Police): Yes, I do.
Chair and members, first of all, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on matters relating to Bills C-55 and C-254.
Protection of the public from violent and dangerous offenders must take a high priority. Therefore bills C-55 and C-254 are a significant step in the right direction. High-risk offenders must be differentiated from the rest of the inmate population and handled accordingly. The London Police support this legislation. Any suggestions we make are intended only to strengthen it and make it even more effective.
It is highly commendable that a dangerous offender application would not have to be made at the time of trial and that the crown would have a six-month window in order to make the application following trial. However, we would suggest that the government consider extending the time for application to twelve months, and further, that the provision requiring the crown to give notice at the time of conviction be amended to allow the crown an opportunity to make the application without notice in a case where facts that were unknown to the prosecutor at the time of the trial have later come to light.
On high-risk offenders, it is our position that a mechanism should be put into place compelling correctional officials to release the names of high-risk offenders being released from prison into the community at large. Traditionally this has been a task delegated to chiefs of police and there have been no satisfactory means of doing so without some risk of legal liability and certainly a lot of controversy.
We support the efforts made by the government to streamline the process of determining whether or not a convict is in fact a dangerous offender. The reduction in the number of psychiatrists required to testify at a hearing from two to one is a positive step.
Section 810.1 currently allows an application to be made by any person who fears another person will commit certain designated offences. The applicant may lay an information before a provincial court judge, who may then order the subject to enter into a recognizance. We would suggest that the proposed section 810.2 similarly allow any person, rather than the Attorney General, to bring an application if they fear another person will commit a serious personal-injury offence. There is no logical reason to differentiate between 810.1 and 810.2 in terms of who may bring forward the application.
.0940
I wish to make it clear, Madam Chair and members, that section 810.1 serves a very important purpose in the need to address public safety concerns in our communities. Moreover, section 810.1 provides a useful mechanism whose application, in our experience, is resulting in a proactive response to our collective need to better safeguard communities. We are pleased to make very effective use of that piece of legislation.
We recognize that civil libertarians have concerns about the aspect of electronic monitoring as set out in proposed subsection 810.2(6). However, it is our position that the issue of community safety must take precedence over personal liberty concerns, particularly keeping in mind that these conditions will not be arbitrarily imposed and will in fact flow from due process before a judicial official.
The only practical issue for the police is who will be responsible for administering the monitoring program, as most police budgets are presently strained to the breaking point. The resources simply do not exist for most police forces to oversee such an initiative. However, we welcome it.
Moreover, we agree with the Canadian Police Association's position on section 810.2 that the orders be restricted to individuals who are detained pursuant to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. All such cases should be referred to the crown by Correctional Services Canada in a timely manner prior to release for consideration as to whether or not such an order should be applied for. Proposed section 810.2 should provide for residency restrictions and be of reviewable duration, perhaps for three years, as suggested by the Canadian Police Association.
The London police are pleased to see the creation of long-term offender status in this legislation. This addresses police concerns over individuals who may not strictly fit the criteria of a dangerous offender but nevertheless pose a risk to the community. This amendment will allow some measure of control over these individuals. However, given that these orders will deal with individuals who may only be controlled and not cured, we would suggest that there is no rational reason to impose a limit of 10 years on the community supervision orders. Accordingly, we would recommend that these orders have a maximum of life, rather than a 10-year limit.
Moreover, there is no provision in the legislation as it stands to provide for a residency requirement under community supervision orders. Nor is the sentencing court allowed to impose the order at the time of sentence. We would recommend that the sentencing court be given this power.
One issue that is not addressed in this legislation, likely because it primarily affects the provincial sphere of responsibility, is the difficulty and danger to the public that arises when a convict legally changes his or her name, sometimes even prior to release from custody. Although change of name is a procedure within an individual province's jurisdiction, it would be open to the federal government to impose legislation requiring that individuals who are incarcerated or subject to a long-term offender order may not make such application without notification to and approval of supervising authorities.
We would submit that these amendments are long overdue and constitute a positive step forward in improving safety in our communities.
The suggestions that we have put forth here are intended to assist the government in fine-tuning this legislation, which we certainly support in its spirit and intent.
.0945
By way of recap, the recommendations we advanced to this committee are as follows:
1. Allow the crown twelve months rather six months for consideration of a dangerous offender application following trial.
2. Allow the crown an opportunity to make a dangerous offender application without prior notice when facts that were unknown to the prosecutor at the time of trial later come to light.
3. Put into place a mechanism to compel correctional officials to release the names of high-risk offenders being released from prison into the community at large.
4. Amend proposed section 810.2 to allow any person who fears to lay information before a provincial court judge.
5. Consider who will be responsible for the electronic monitoring program.
6. Apply proposed section 810.2 only to persons detained pursuant to the provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
7. Amend the long-term offender provisions to allow a community supervision order for life rather than for a ten-year maximum.
8. Provide for a residency requirement in both proposed section 810.2 and long-term offender orders.
9. Give the sentencing judge power to impose a long-term offender order at the time of sentencing.
10. Pass legislation requiring that individuals incarcerated in a federal institution, or subject to long-term offender orders, not apply for a change of name without notification to, and consent of, supervising authorities.
Chair, members, those are my submissions with regard to the two bills.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Terrific. We'll move to ten-minute rounds of questioning.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent.
Mr. St-Laurent (Manicouagan): You mentioned releasing the names of high risk offenders. In your opinion, will this help protect society, and if so, what elements, data or statistics are you basing your opinion on?
[English]
Chief Fantino: I don't know that this is a more effective way than any other process or initiative taken to manage high-risk offenders once they are released into the community. However, from a community point of view, and certainly from a police chief's point of view, we are often left in the dilemma of whether we do or don't inform the community and what the community feels is their right to know about who is in fact released into the community.
All we're saying is that there needs to be a process in place whereby persons who are and have been incarcerated for an extended period of time in federal institutions, who have been cared for, who have been supervised, who have been the subject of programs within those institutions, and upon day of release are still determined to be high risk, a danger to the community.... We feel that the community expects that they be notified that such a person is coming to their community. They would expect, and they do expect, that they be vigilant about who - in the case of convicted pedophiles, for instance - is hanging around their school. Who are their children liable to be in contact with? Who is spending time at the local pool?
I agree with you, sir, that this is not a perfect solution, but our difficulty is that we have a dilemma thrust upon us and the community. Some kind of an administrative response has to be taken by government to alleviate these concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent: If I understand you correctly, you are counting a bit on the participation of the public. If the general public knows that such people are in the neighbourhood, they will be more on the lookout and will monitor these individuals in the long term. That is more or less what comes from your position and what leads me to my next question. You say that there is no more money for monitoring individuals once they are released, although there always is a monitoring period. There is no more money in police budgets at both the municipal and provincial levels to carry out additional monitoring.
By linking your first response to the problem we are facing, we could conclude that we may see some type of community group emerge that would, although not systematically, monitor high risk offenders living in their communities.
.0950
Is that an option?
[English]
Chief Fantino: This is certainly an option. We have volunteer parole workers now who are community people supporting the regular parole supervisory folks around the country. Certainly in London we have such a program, and it does help in this regard.
I think we're talking about a situation where high-risk offenders are in some cases allowed to leave custody without any kind of control over where they go. All those issues, and of course some of the provisions that are being sought in Bill C-55 and C-254, help us in this direction. In Bill C-55, section 810.1 is a big help and proposed section 810.2 will be a big help.
What we're saying is if the nature of the situation is such that the community has a right to know. Of course we could debate this issue. It should not be left to a police chief to decide whether or not the community will be notified. Presently, in certain communities we have lawsuits because of this. We have one in particular because the police allegedly failed to notify the community of a dangerous situation.
What we're saying is if the release of such a person constitutes a risk to the community and there are no other available tools or resources, it should not be left to a police chief to disclose this risk to the community.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent: You talked about long-term offenders, but I do not think that we are necessarily talking about high risk long term offenders. I would like you to clarify that distinction. When these long term offenders are released into society, should their names also be made public? If we did that for less dangerous individuals, we could subject everyone to the same disclosure, whether they had committed shoplifting or something else. Where does your request to disclose names stop?
[English]
Chief Fantino: Your question is a very good one. We're specifically addressing our comments, and certainly I am addressing my comments, to the issue of high-risk offenders.
Please keep in mind it is not a police chief who determines these people are high-risk. It is not a community that determines these people are high-risk, dangerous offenders. This is done by the federal authorities, including a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and the corrections staff. They have a long period of contact and involvement with a particular person. When this person is released from custody, they make an expert opinion about this person being a high-risk, dangerous offender likely to reoffend, and they say: ``Police Chief, this person is coming to London, Ontario. Have a good day.''
This is the problem. We're not speaking about offenders who are not high-risk. We're talking about high-risk offenders who have been so declared by the authorities and the experts, not by a police chief.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent: Okay. That is all.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you very much.
Ms Meredith, ten minutes.
[English]
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to ask you if you feel putting offenders back in the community is fair to society where these individuals have been assessed and declared by the federal authorities to be a high risk. Do you feel the state is upholding its moral obligation to protect society by releasing individuals such as these back to London and saying ``Have a good day, Chief of Police''?
Chief Fantino: In an ideal situation, when addressing the public safety issues and concerns my response would be to automatically say it is not a good idea and it shouldn't be done. If a person is deemed to be so high-risk, so dangerous and so likely to reoffend, I quite agree there ought to be some state-imposed controls and conditions, some governance of such an individual, to the point where communities are absolutely guaranteed that person will not constitute a risk to anyone. That would be the ideal solution, yes.
.0955
Ms Meredith: Thank you for those comments.
You feel section 810.1 and proposed section 810.2 are going to be a big help in your job as a police chief in handling people who are considered to be a potential risk to the community. We heard experts the other day who felt they would not be a big help. Through their experience, they felt the only individuals where it really worked were people who were going to comply; people who were low-risk, who were basically high on the compliance list. I would assume a lot of high-risk offenders, people who are likely to commit bodily harm to somebody, are not exactly people who are going to comply with the law. Their testimony was that this would give false reassurance, false hope, to individuals, and in effect would not deal with individuals who pose a high risk. Why do you feel it's going to be a big help?
Chief Fantino: It's a big help because we didn't have it in the past and we were in a very serious dilemma before this. I agree, nothing is foolproof, save and except - I'm getting back to your earlier question and my response to the same - that the absolute safeguard would be not to have these people out in the community at all, in any condition whatsoever that would in the least put any citizen at risk. However, from a practical point of view, and if we look at what we didn't have, and what section 810.1 now provides to us, it is a help; it has been a help. It's not a perfect solution to anything, but it is one more tool we have found to be very effective in some circumstances.
You're quite right, it's just like buying locks and alarms. Basically they keep only honest people out. The same with these folks. There are no guarantees to anything, other than, to go back to your original question and my answer to it, that they shouldn't be out at all if they are that high-risk.
Ms Meredith: In this committee we've looked at where it would be a help, and it seems we feel probably domestic violence cases are where the proposed section 810.2 would be most useful. But again, the experts felt all it does is allow you as the law-enforcement body to know this individual was not where they were supposed to be at a certain time. It doesn't tell you where they are; it just tells you after the fact, if something happens, they don't have an alibi that they were at home.
Chief Fantino: You're quite right, with one added situation. We then would be able to act on some court order that, for instance, would compel the person to have abided by certain conditions. What we had before, in essence, is a person would leave the penitentiary and basically be free to roam and do what they wanted once sentence was served. We had no other control. The process terminated until that person actually did something again. What we have now is the ability at least in statute to monitor the activities of that person and engage due process were that person to have violated any of those conditions which are pertinent to an outcome of section 810.1. It's just another tool we have.
Ms Meredith: How far will this tool be useful if there's a violation? If you have somebody who has been processed under this particular section, how much leeway do you have to reincarcerate? What would you do? So you have somebody who has paid their debt to society, as the law sees it. You have a section 810.1 on him. He violates whatever the conditions were. Can you throw him into jail? Can you prosecute him and put him back in jail for an indeterminate time, or is just a...?
Chief Fantino: We would then, of course, be highly concerned and go back to why the section 810.1 orders or conditions were issued. If that person breached those, in essence we then can engage due process and bring that person before the court to deal with them on a breach.
.1000
Ms Meredith: I may be unfair to you when I say this, but I've had a number of people who have peace bonds and orders of separation, call it what you want. They come to see me because nothing is being done. They're still being harassed. They report that the individual is outside their window, despite an order of separation where they're not supposed to be within blocks of that place, and nothing seems to happen. There doesn't seem to be any way of processing or doing anything with this peace bond. Why would this be any different?
Chief Fantino: I suppose every law of the land can be winked at. We have to be proactive. We have to assess the risk. We have to be proactive.
When these people are released and we get these files putting us on high alert with regard to their potential danger, in London - and we're not a perfect community - we take these items very seriously and the management of these cases as well, including the dilemma about whether or not to disclose information to the community. We do a threat assessment. We then decide on a management plan to do our utmost to ensure optimum public safety, knowing full well that we have a situation beyond our control to manage. Then, of course, we would engage section 810.1 and we would do any number of things.
I don't want to be critical of anyone here, because we're not living in a perfect world, but I find it difficult to accept a situation where there is a high risk that the police wouldn't be sensitive to the need to be proactive.
Ms Meredith: You indicated earlier in your testimony that you don't have the financial resources for the implementation of this. We heard from earlier witnesses, from corrections people, that they don't feel they have the financial resources in order to support the legislation. So I guess we're in a quandary. What good is the legislation if the application of it is out of reach of the various people who are going to be left to apply the law?
Chief Fantino: There's no escape from responsibility. Someone has to take charge and responsibility and be accountable for what's happening. All I'm saying to you is that considering the difficulties we have and the way the laws of this land are structured, it should not be downloaded to the police. We just cannot be the janitors of society. We cannot be held accountable for all the failings or shortcomings of the law, of society, or for the lack of resources.
We assume responsibility and we do the best we can, but we seem to be the caboose on a long train. Keep in mind that these people are literally dumped on communities, much like a live grenade with the pin pulled out of it, and they are dumped in our laps. We have no other recourse but to do the best we can. If we're going to truly be conscientious about public safety, community safety, citizen safety, and we're truly conscientious about balancing all of these issues, then we have to be very proactive and we have to put our money where the need is and not expect that someone else will do it or that it's someone else's problem.
I think the problem belongs to all of us, not exclusively the police and not exclusively corrections. Maybe what we're trying to do here is deal with the symptom, as opposed to the problem. I go back to your earlier question. If these people are so dangerous and we can't build an infrastructure to ensure that communities are not threatened or made unsafe, then we shouldn't let them out.
Ms Meredith: My point exactly, sir. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Rideout, for ten minutes.
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few questions, more for clarification than anything else.
Your first two recommendations, one to extend the six months to twelve months.... I gather from the second recommendation that if any new fact appears you can make an application at any time, so there's never an ending to the circumstance. You could continually be in a position to make an application for a declaration of dangerous offender, no matter what passage of time. Is that right?
.1005
Chief Fantino: That would be a very important criterion that we would be proferring, in that there has to be ongoing management of these cases. You can't be just a little bit unsafe, or you can only be unsafe for six months or a year if the situation presents itself. Where a high-risk offender constitutes a severe danger to the community beyond the limits of time, the statutory limits offered here, then we have to have some ongoing ability to deal with that person.
Mr. Rideout: I would presume that it would be triggered by an event. Surely a person shouldn't be subject to this possibility of an application for dangerous offender forever, even if they never do anything else. Just because a prosecutor didn't do his job and get the information or whatever, two or three years down the road you can make an application then?
Chief Fantino: I would suggest that the application for dangerous offender should be available to us at any given time.
Mr. Rideout: Do you think that would survive a charter challenge?
Chief Fantino: I'm not here to argue charter; I'm here to argue public safety.
Mr. Rideout: Right. I recognize that, but -
Ms Meredith: Does it matter?
Mr. Rideout: If you create a situation in the legislation that won't survive a challenge by tacking on that the person is going to be subject to an application for a dangerous offender at any time during his or her life, then I think you're going to see the whole thing go down the tube.
Chief Fantino: We've gone through these suggestions over many, many years. The ideal scenario would be that at jailhouse door, upon release, if these people are determined at that time to still be dangerous and a high risk to communities, my submission to you would be that we should initiate a dangerous offender application before they're released into the community. Absolutely.
Mr. Rideout: Another change you've suggested is to amend proposed section 810.2 to allow any person who fears to lay an information. What do you actually mean by that?
Chief Fantino: If you look at section 810.1, we have now the criterion that any person who fears can in fact lay an information. We see proposed section 810.2 to be in the same kind of category, the same kind of an intent, the same intended outcome. So we would suggest that the two really should be with the same initiating criterion that any person can begin a process, not necessarily just the Attorney General.
Mr. Rideout: Just any citizen, anybody who fears?
Chief Fantino: Yes. And now, as you are aware, due process begins by any person initiating a process. We would think that should be the same.
Mr. Rideout: That's all the questions I have.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): There's some time, Mr. Maloney, if you'd like to.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): How does that section 810.1 work?
Chief Fantino: When we have reason to believe that the person being in the community constitutes a danger and we do a threat assessment and so forth, we then initiate due process to bring that person into court and there are some conditions placed upon the person by a judge that would control movements, curfews, any number of things. That addresses the fear factor, the concern factor, the danger factor.
Mr. Maloney: How often is this utilized?
Chief Fantino: It's not used that often. We've used it a number of times. There are other steps that we take, even before we get into this kind of scenario. But it is used. We make use of it on a number of occasions. Metropolitan Toronto has done it very effectively on a number of occasions. It's there, it's important, it's an option. It's something we didn't have before, and we value it.
Mr. Maloney: In proposed section 810.2, you're suggesting that any person be allowed to start the process to have them enter recognizant, notwithstanding there's been no charged laid of any consequence.
Chief Fantino: That's correct, sir. We're dealing with the public danger factor before. It's a proactive measure; it's a prevention issue, not having to wait for something to actually happen. There could be circumstances that cause us to develop a high anxiety, high risk, high concern, which needs to be actioned.
.1010
Mr. Maloney: If I can refer you to another section, you also agree with the streamlining of section 752 in terms of there being only one expert. A dangerous offender designation is a pretty significant designation. Do you feel that one individual, one expert, whoever it may be, should have that responsibility, or should there be a second opinion?
Chief Fantino: Invariably there will be, no doubt, on behalf of the person involved, submissions made and other evidence led to offset, I would say, what is endeavoured.
Mr. Maloney: That's the way the legislation is now, is it not?
Chief Fantino: It is. But what you also have is that before you can get to a process, an extraordinary amount of history, records and documentation is also relevant to these issues. You just don't appear in a forum and have a psychiatrist say certain things. There is other history and background. Usually this goes on for people who've been in for a good length of time. All kinds of evidence is led to these issues to form part of the record.
Mr. Maloney: The actual legislation says ``expert''. Are you suggesting that the psychiatrist is the proper individual? Should it be a psychologist, criminologist? What are your thoughts on that? You refer in your brief to psychiatrists.
Chief Fantino: Invariably, when we talk about the state of mind of a person or their ability to deal with certain of these issues the courts traditionally have accepted the expert evidence of psychiatrists and psychologists, although psychiatrists more so. They are the people our courts have determined to be capable and competent to make those expert determinations on the basis of their discipline and their expertise. A psychiatrist is, in my experience, an appropriate person.
Mr. Maloney: Is the brief you presented today your personal brief or is it the brief of the London police force? How did we get to this stage?
Chief Fantino: I'm also a member of the law amendments committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I'm also vice-president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. So I can tell this committee that my position as proffered today would be supported, and is supported, by those two bodies as well.
Mr. Maloney: Are you saying you're speaking on behalf of these bodies?
Chief Fantino: As a member I am, but my presentation is specifically as chief of London, Ontario.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Chief.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent, ten minutes.
Mr. St-Laurent: No, I have no further questions. Thank you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
I want to go back to your submission. I have to thank the hon. member for pointing something out. I didn't realize that you'd said, first, extend it to the 12 months for consideration, but second, at any time prior to release. Why do you feel that changing it from six months to twelve is even a good idea? What was your reasoning behind that?
Chief Fantino: Any extended time would allow us more opportunity to make a more educated and more informed assessment. The ideal situation would be upon release or prior to release, absolutely. I am aware of the issues of charter arguments - we've gone down this road before - but surely twelve months is better than six. Far better and more ideal would be at any time prior to release.
Ms Meredith: With this extension to 12 months, as I understand the legislation, the offender or his counsel has to be advised at the time of sentencing that a further consideration of application for dangerous offender is being considered. As a practical way of dealing with this, do you feel that wherever there's a question as to the offence being a serious bodily injury offence that people are automatically going to be making this suggestion to the offender and their counsel just to protect themselves?
Chief Fantino: That's a risk that I think is inherent in this particular piece of legislation. It's a difficult item. It's basically looking into a crystal ball and trying to factor into that decision what may or may not be known six months or a year down the road, or whatever. I can see that people would, as a matter of caution and concern, being conscientious, probably opt to serve notice, and then maybe it does follow through or maybe it doesn't. But I would say it would be expected. Certainly I would expect that people would err on the side of caution and use that as an automatic.... I would encourage it anyway.
.1015
Ms Meredith: When you talk about dangerous offender legislation and its application now, do you find that in its present form the dangerous offender application is used so much that there needs to be a fear in society that it will be abused?
Chief Fantino: As you know, there's some controversy about how often it's used in certain parts of the country and not others, and on it goes. It goes back to what is intended by the laws of the land and what we are all mandated to do, and that is to ensure optimum public safety. We have to rise to the challenge that some people are just beyond redemption and some people are just so dangerous and so volatile. We then have to switch to what I think the charter allows us to do, and that is, notwithstanding everything else, we have to ensure optimum public safety. I think the dangerous offender application should be used.
I envision that more use will be made of it. All it will take is a few more horror stories. People are just getting fed up.
Ms Meredith: Between Bills C-55 and C-254 the main difference is the belief in post-sentence detention. I have argued in the past, and I still argue, that it's far fairer to the offender to give them the opportunity of counselling within the prison system, of having some means of changing their way of living and their attitudes. By making the designation at the time of sentencing you're really not taking into consideration that they may respond to counselling, that they may respond to some of the treatment programs the corrections system does provide. It's far fairer to that individual to give them the opportunity of treatment, counselling, or whatever is provided and make the determination at the end whether or not the counselling worked, whether or not they took it.
Do you feel that's a fair comment to make?
Chief Fantino: I think it's fair. You would certainly have a lot more time and experience and more relevant factual information with which to deal, because you would know whether or not the person participated in any of the rehabilitation programs and their attitude and response to the period of incarceration. I think all of those issues would be critical to making a more informed decision down the road. I agree with you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Kirkby.
Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): My question has been asked.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you.
You've suggested a long-term offender order be for life, as opposed to the ten-year designation that's suggested in the legislation. Could you elaborate on why you feel that way?
Chief Fantino: Experts can explain these issues much more, but quite clearly there are some people who are just beyond hope, beyond help, beyond control. Really, these are the folks we have to worry about and deal with.
Mr. Maloney: But would these be folks who should be dangerous offenders; who should have that designation? Where do you draw this distinction, then?
Chief Fantino: I guess circumstances. I don't know that you can write a prescription.
I have a bit of a problem with time designating outcomes. I think the activity and the dangerousness of the person and all the other factors should be really what determines what action you take.
.1020
The time limits, to me, are just encumbrances. At any given time you should be able to avail yourself of what tools, what laws, what resources are available to us as a society to control an outcome, and not just be restricted by timeframes. We're not talking about indiscriminately throwing the book at anyone for no apparent reason; we're talking about justified application of the laws of the land to better safeguard the public.
Mr. Maloney: If someone stays clean for 10 years, what do you feel is the likelihood that they will be a problem after that 10-year period?
Chief Fantino: I don't have expert evidence or facts to present to you. All I can tell you is that in this land situations have arisen where we have been slow off the mark and have reacted only after tragedy has happened. All I'm saying is that as a society we should have in place the necessary laws and resources to deal with issues in a proactive way. We should not be restricted or encumbered by a timeframe or time constraints. We should be more focused on the issue of the dangerousness as opposed to the timeliness.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Rideout.
Mr. Rideout: Quick question. On your last recommendation, about the change of name, that really isn't within the purview of the federal government. Have you approached any provincial governments with that recommendation? If so, what's their response been?
Chief Fantino: Your question is a very good one. Thank you for asking it. I was hoping somebody would raise this issue.
In Ontario the provincial government has endeavoured to address this issue, but I think we need to look at it as a national concern. Something needs to be put into place so that these things don't fall through the cracks or otherwise be problematic in terms of what is in one province and isn't in another.
Information is critical, the right kind of information at the right place, so that the right kinds of decisions can be taken. We don't have that opportunity available to us. A change of name could be the very drastic outcome to something that should have happened, didn't happen, and on it goes.
We have national crime data banks in this country, such as CPIC. We should have that information on a national level right across the land, available to one and all. As it is now, it's helter-skelter. There's no obligation on the part of corrections people to notify us when an inmate changes their name while in custody, while doing life. We do have a few of those, by the way.
As well, there's no requirement on the part of anyone to notify the crime computer, through fingerprints, of the change of identity. It's done as a practice, as a courtesy, sometimes, but we have to worry about those cases where this isn't being done, something falls through the cracks, information isn't known and a disaster happens.
Mr. Rideout: Your recommendation seems to be more on the basis of whether or not they could even apply for a change a name, which really throws it into the provincial jurisdiction. If it was an information situation, it might be more applicable to the federal government.
Chief Fantino: I guess I'm moved in that particular area by a case about which I have personal knowledge. An inmate serving life for the murder of a police officer was allowed not only to change his name while doing life but also to obtain a Canadian passport. I guess I have to ask why.
Mr. Rideout: Good question - but I don't know whether this would solve the problem.
Chief Fantino: It solved it in that case. That person has since been released. We don't know where he is.
It's a very serious problem. I should elaborate only to this extent: it's one more item to which some of these people are running to avoid the accountability issue, the hereafter or the controls we're seeking to ensure optimum public safety.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Ms Meredith.
.1025
Ms Meredith: I want to follow up on that. Come on; we have somebody who's been given a life sentence, but because he's been allowed to change his name there is no way our system can enforce that life sentence. Even though he's been released on parole, he's still serving a sentence. Yet we don't know where he is.
Chief Fantino: We're trying to find him - vigorously.
Ms Meredith: I see why you raised that issue.
Chief Fantino: It's a serious issue.
Ms Meredith: It is a serious issue. With all due respect to my honourable colleague across the way, if we seriously considered restricting the rights of inmates to have an ordinary kind of life - although they live behind bars - the federal government does have a responsibility to start looking at the rights of offenders, and whether or not they have too many of them.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Can I ask a question? Clearly, if you don't know where a person is, they changed their name and got a passport once they left the federal institution. Is that not correct?
Chief Fantino: They were able to secure all of that while they were in the institution.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Their passport included?
Chief Fantino: Yes. The application was made while in the institution.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Provincial government legislation in Ontario allowed them to do that?
Chief Fantino: No, this person was a federal inmate.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): The name change is provincial. How can we be passing the buck here if we don't control the legislation to change names? He used a piece of provincial legislation to change his name, did he not?
Ms Meredith: But, Madam Chair, the federal government can enact legislation that disallows these types of things to happen to federally incarcerated inmates.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Okay.
Chief Fantino, Ms Meredith had asked a little bit about this, as did one of my other colleagues. I need to understand what's happening now for those people who are in fear of their former spouse or partner coming after them in terms of restraining orders and the use of proposed section 810.2.
I seemed to hear, in your response about people you already know about who are leaving federal or provincial institutions, how this would apply in terms of predictability of risk and dangerousness, and that you don't use section 810.l very often. I wasn't really sure if we were talking about domestic violence situations there. Can you elaborate on what's really happening in London with domestic violence?
Chief Fantino: If charges ensue in a situation involving domestic violence, in essence court orders are sought as a condition of release from custody of the accused. Of course, those orders are monitored and so forth, but that's the extent of it. Prior to any kind of conviction, that's all we have, in essence.
If the case isn't going forward, there are opportunities for peace bonds and things of that nature, but if a criminal charge is laid, one of the conditions invariably sought is that there be some type of judicial control over the activities of the accused and then maybe to stay away, or whatever other items may be pertinent.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): But what if charges haven't been laid? Let's say I come to you, the police force, and tell you that I think my former spouse is going to kill me; I'm living in fear; I want him electronically monitored; and these are the reasons why I think this is a problem. In proposed section 810.2 you would ask the Attorney General to allow a situation where we could proceed to electronic monitoring.
That's one of the ways in which proposed section 810.2 could work. What's happening in terms of section 810.1, which is also about peace bonds?
Chief Fantino: I can only tell you that in the case of domestic violence, not arbitrarily but invariably, I would suspect, in most situations we would initiate some kind of criminal proceedings. We have adopted a very proactive policy in that regard. It seems to be working out. We certainly do listen and take into account the victims' wishes in many of these situations. We act independent of that as well, depending on what we assess to be the concern. We have the opportunity to go forward and seek peace bonds and all of that as well, but invariably in London, I can tell you, 99 times out of 100, the police would take proactive action.
.1030
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): So peace bonds are frequently used in London.
Chief Fantino: I can't say how frequently. We more frequently bring the person before the courts. If there is this fear you were alluding to and we can capture that on reasonable and probable grounds, we would put the suspect, the perpetrator, or whatever before the courts, and we have found this proactive approach to be very effective.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): But we all know there are cases across the country, such as the case in Vancouver where the entire family was shot.... It seems from the media reports that no charges could have been laid. In other words, there was a situation where there was reasonable fear, yet nobody could do anything. A peace bond initiated by the police force might have been helpful on that case, or electronic monitoring, if it had escalated in some way or there was reasonable fear. Would you have done that in London?
Chief Fantino: It's very difficult to second-guess. I can tell you that as a matter of policy we take a very serious, very proactive approach to domestic violence. That having been said, once we determined there was a concern here we would probably avail ourselves of whatever is in fact available.
The electronic monitoring thing would still require a judicial process. But invariably, again, what we have found to be very effective - and of course one needs the grounds - is to put these people before the courts by seeking a court disposition on the issue of the criminal activity alleged.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): My only other question on that point about wanting to.... I think there were two things. I wasn't sure there wasn't a hidden message there.
You wanted the people who are under electronic monitoring under proposed subsection 810.2 to be monitored by corrections officials or somebody other than the police force, because you don't have the resources. I wasn't sure by moving it to more of a section 810.1 system you weren't hoping to move some people off into that other system, which someone else would be paid for. Was that maybe some of your reasoning?
Chief Fantino: On the issue of who pays, the taxpayer pays anyway. I think what we have to do is to define core functions, clear responsibilities, and hold people accountable for outcomes.
We just can't assume, in today's environment, any more responsibilities for electronic monitoring, for instance, We're not equipped. We don't have the resources. A whole new field of technology is required. I've seen some of the demonstrations. We're just not able to get into this.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): But would you see a situation evolving such that, let's say, fine, it's set up, electronic monitoring is put in place, and somebody else's budget is paying for it.... Granted, the taxpayer pays, of course, but would you see a situation where if there were a lower test, not going to the Attorney General for proposed subsection 810.2, you would quickly move a lot of the people from 810.1 into the 810.2 system, so you could clean up your budget for perhaps community policing initiatives or something else?
Chief Fantino: One would have to do what one can to secure an optimum outcome, which would not be the budget issue as much as optimum public safety. That's how I would envision any decisions made about how we effect process and outcomes, how we seek outcomes.
Look, today we are spending a tonne of money in resources in, for instance, monitoring the activities of high-risk offenders who have literally dropped in on our communities, because nobody else is doing it. If there is no other clear-cut initiative we can take, we do it, because we're concerned about what would happen otherwise. Yes, the budget is a concern, but we have to keep in mind that the level of public safety is not so much determined by the police as by our ability to provide it, given the core mandate we have, the resources available to us, and also the quality of service the people expect and deserve and are willing to pay for.
I wouldn't see us using any legislation as a short cut to anything, other than seeking the desired outcome, which should be optimum public safety.
.1035
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Ms Meredith, I think you had another question.
Ms Meredith: Yes, thank you.
Because we have you here as a chief of police and because we are dealing with legislation and process, I'd like to ask you this: how effective is any of this if the courts don't do their part? Do you find that the courts sometimes are not supportive enough in the application of the law?
Chief Fantino: I don't want to dump on the courts. Really, the courts are part of due process and part of the system. The system has failings in many different areas. Certainly, the courts are having a very difficult time. They're labouring over many issues, including resources and speedy outcomes and on it goes. You know, the courts have limited tools with which to do their work, too.
Ms Meredith: I'm bringing this up because I've been told - and it may be different in different jurisdictions - that your crown prosecutors have so much on their plate they start off by getting rid of a third of what's on their desk. They physically can't process it.
I would assume that some of the stuff that gets dumped at the bottom would be domestic violence, things that are a little more difficult to process through the courts, where the person may not testify against the spouse who supposedly is abusing them and this type of thing. A lot of the problem is that the courts are not in a position to deal with the volume and with the severity of some of the issues of prioritizing.
Chief Fantino: There's no doubt that the courts are very much strained, as are those who work in that system, such as crown attorneys and on it goes. I do believe, though, that of recent time the issue of domestic violence has been a high priority, certainly in my experience, with the police, with the crown attorneys and with the justice system generally. However, I do agree that the courts are labouring. They're basically not being effective because of many issues that impact.
To give you an idea, on a national level, 82% of the time that a police officer in this country goes to court on a criminal matter he never, ever gets called to testify. That's an extraordinary amount of wasted resources.
Police services are so strained, police officers should be on the street doing all the kinds of things we're mandated to do rather than having their time wasted. But that's the reality, and it needs to be addressed. We can't have our men and women spending an extraordinary amount of time - and 82% is what it works out to on a national scale - going to court just waiting around for what is, as far as we're concerned, no outcome, because we never get called.
Ms Meredith: Do you mean that 82% of the time they spend in court they never get called or do you mean that 82% of the general time a police officer is working is spent in court?
Chief Fantino: No, I mean that 82% of the time when we are required to attend as a result of due criminal process our police officers never get called to testify.
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): I think you have to pay them overtime while they're doing that, don't you?
Chief Fantino: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Regan.
Mr. Regan (Halifax West): How often does it occur that they're at court, ready to testify, and the person pleads guilty so that they don't have to?
Chief Fantino: Terribly often. We call it ``witness poker''. That's how the system works, I guess, because if we didn't have that, we'd be bogged down for trials that would be even more time-consuming. If all the witnesses are there we call it witness poker; there's no outcome other than a quick resolution and getting out of there. That's invariably what happens. If I were a lawyer,I probably would be in that kind of mode, too - but I'm not.
Mr. Regan: Of course if the crown prosecutor showed up without the witness, then the defence attorney would probably argue for a verdict of not guilty, since no evidence could be called by the witness there.
Chief Fantino: That's why we refer to it as witness poker.
Mr. Regan: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): If you have this figure that 82% of the time they don't have to testify, then you must have the corollary figure based on Mr. Regan's point - that is, of those 82% that didn't get testified, how often were you satisfied with the outcome that the person was in fact convicted?
.1040
Chief Fantino: I suppose there is that other side to this, most definitely. The issue for me is that if the guilty plea was acceptable and appropriate at the eleventh hour, then my officer should have stayed on the street - if all else fell into place. The criteria isn't whether or not witnesses are there; it's that justice be administered in terms of the guilt or innocence of the person.
Mr. Regan: But until the lawyer or the accused pleads not guilty in court, you don't know.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): All I want to say is that in 1986, I wish the police officer for the parking ticket I got hadn't shown up.
Voices: Oh, oh.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): That was in Toronto. You were probably there.
Chief Fantino: That's why I laughed. I knew they were after you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): At any rate, I thank our witness for coming from London.I hope you make it out before the ice storm hits this afternoon.
Chief Fantino: Thank you for the opportunity to appear.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Colleagues, we're adjourned until 11:15, at which point we have to come back for a quick but important meeting on gun regulations and a steering committee report. So have fun, but don't go too far.
The meeting is adjourned.