EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 11, 1997

.0935

[English]

The Chair: Order, please. We are meeting today on Bill C-55, and also Bill C-254, Ms Meredith's private member's bill.

From the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime we have Steve Sullivan, executive director; and from Victims of Violence, Gary Rosenfeldt, executive director, and Gemma Harmison, director of research. Welcome.

Steve, have you talked about how you are...?

Mr. Steve Sullivan (Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime): Mr. Rosenfeldt is going to start.

The Chair: Great. Mr. Rosenfeldt, welcome back.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt (Executive Director, Victims of Violence): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning.

We have a brief prepared. I'm not going to read the complete brief. I'm just going to give a few comments with regard to the bills.

To begin with, I would like to mention that Gemma Harmison has worked as director of research at our office for the last year. She is the person responsible for the brief in front of you, so if you have any questions they should be directed to her. She is not going to speak during the opening round, but she will be pleased to take questions with regard to the brief, or any of the comments in the brief.

.0940

First, I wish to say that we're very pleased as an organization to see changes to the dangerous offender legislation in Canada, as proposed. We would like to commend the minister and the government for looking at these changes.

I can tell you that, on a personal basis, over a decade ago I began dealing with a number of victims of crime throughout Canada who felt in their case that the offender should have probably been declared a dangerous offender. They felt there was an injustice in the system and that what we were doing was perpetuating the victimization of individual Canadians throughout the country by not using the dangerous offender legislation. I can actually remember a number of cases, and I think they're very important - I'll just briefly run over them - in which individuals were not declared dangerous offenders for specific reasons, the reason being that in many cases the crown was afraid to ask for a person to be declared a dangerous offender when in reality they could possibly be out in three years' time. This has resulted over the years - we've seen it for the last decade or more - in the further victimization of individuals.

One case that comes to mind is that of a young boy by the name of David Mitchell, who was abducted in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. He was seven years of age. He was abducted by an individual who had a long history of sexual offences against children. He was taken from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, to Ontario, where an alert OPP officer noticed an infraction on his abductor's licence plate. The officer gave chase and seven-year-old David Mitchell, after a high-speed chase, was found in the back seat of this man's car. Further investigation showed that young David had been chloroformed.

David's father had dropped him off at a Moose Jaw swimming pool that morning and this man had come up to David and asked him for assistance in bringing some stuff in from the car. Young David left his swimming trunks and his lunch by the door of the swimming pool and vanished, just disappeared. There was a major search throughout Saskatchewan for young David and the next day he was found in the back of this car - I believe it was in Dryden or North Bay, Ontario - after a high-speed police chase. He had been chloroformed.

Anyway, they brought the offender back to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, to stand trial. I talked to the crown prosecutor there at the time and I was surprised to learn that even though this man had a long history of sexual offences against children here in Ontario - actually in Nepean and Ottawa - the crown prosecutor told me at the time that he would not press for him to be declared a dangerous offender.

I was shocked, dismayed. If this man was not a dangerous offender, who is a dangerous offender, with such a long criminal record? But the prosecutor explained to us in a letter at the time that he would rather opt for a determinate time in prison. He felt he could get a longer period of incarceration by.... In fact, he told me at one time on the telephone that he felt if he had him declared a dangerous offender, he could possibly be back on the streets in three years. That was the real problem with the dangerous offender legislation we've had for the last number of years.

Anyway, to continue with that story, after I moved to Ottawa a few years ago, I was in my kitchen having breakfast one morning listening to this story on the radio. I knew this man had just been released after serving five full years - he did get five years in prison - and the correctional officials refused to release him under parole or any form of early supervision. He served his full time until warrant expiry and was released into the community.

.0945

I was listening to the radio that morning and they said a man had been arrested in Nova Scotia. He had crawled into a tent. You probably remember this case. It's a few years ago. He had crawled into the tent of two young children. The father heard the commotion, came out, and chased him. They caught him in the woods. And here, lo and behold, again we have this same individual who was released just a few months before from the Prince Albert penitentiary after serving his full time, while still considered by the Correctional Service of Canada to be a threat to the community.

Needless to say, what's interesting about this case is that now we had a case in Nova Scotia where he was charged with two more sexual offences, but in that case the crown prosecutor thought maybe the maximum time he could get on this offender was about three years in prison. At this point they asked that he be declared a dangerous offender. He was, and he is and has been incarcerated now for an indeterminate period.

What we really learned from that experience was that here was a case where if a prosecutor thought he could get more than the three years...in Saskatchewan they got five years, and he opted to go with the straight sentence rather than having him declared a dangerous offender. We've seen a lot of cases like this over the years.

I guess the difficult part we've had in dealing with dangerous offenders over the years, as in the case of Larry Takahashi, back in Edmonton a number of years ago.... He was considered Canada's worst rapist. Again, the crown prosecutor, Arnold Piragoff, told me at the time when he was prosecuting him that his greatest fear was that if he were declared a dangerous offender he might be back on the streets in three years. Here was Canada's worst rapist, and he could possibly be released by a board; somebody could let him out in three years. This was the problem.

I remember at the time the prosecutor opted for individual sentences. I think he ended up with a total of three life sentences and a total of sixty-some years in prison, which is what they got on Larry Takahashi. In reality that meant Larry Takahashi would serve seven years before possibility of parole, rather than the three-year option that was available under the dangerous offender legislation.

So for us, and with the number of victims we have dealt with over the years who have seen such frustrating situations...many victims have said to us, if this person is not a dangerous offender, then who is? It has been frustrating explaining to these people over the years that the problem is that three-year period. So we're very pleased to see the seven years being brought in here.

We would, however, suggest a possible amendment to the legislation. It would be that the review thereafter be every three years rather than the time specified in the bill. But generally speaking, we're very pleased this bill is before the House and finally something is being done with it. We have lobbied for a long time on the bill.

In our brief we've mentioned some other changes about long-term offenders and dangerous offenders. I won't go into detail on them now. As I say, you have our paper before you.

There's one other issue I would like to touch on. We didn't put it in our brief for a specific reason. We didn't want this discussion today.... Since we have fought so long and hard for the dangerous offender legislation to be overhauled, and since we feel so good about some of the changes being made, we didn't really want to bring into our brief the whole issue of chemical castration.

We feel it's another option. We've enclosed just a small comment in the back of the brief that was presented. It's not part of the brief. We're simply stating this.... I stuck it in there this morning. We weren't even going to talk about the issue.

We feel the State of California now has gone for chemical castration as an option in dealing with the type of offenders we're talking about under the dangerous offender legislation. I feel it is something we would like to recommend to this committee.

.0950

As you are aware, independent MP Jan Brown has a private member's bill on chemical castration before the House now.

As I said, I really don't want to really get into this issue this morning. I thought, though, it should be mentioned as another alternative this government should look at in the future.

California has recently gone ahead with legislation. I'm sure in a few years we'll have some statistics on their success.

At this point, as we mention here, in a Danish study the recidivism rate for 900 sex offenders given weekly injections of Depo-Provera fell from 70% to just 2.2%. I don't have all the details on the actual study, but Texas also ran similar studies and saw the reoffending rate for 40 hard-core pedophiles drop from 75% to just 16%. So I think it is an option that should be considered in the future.

I know many people have grave concerns the minute you mention the term chemical castration. But, number one, it is not what most people imagine it to be. I would also like to state that a couple of months ago I was watching a talk show on CBC television and a convicted pedophile phoned in. He said he had been out of prison for three and a half years and he was on Depo-Provera on a voluntary basis.

Listening to this man talk, I was surprised and I felt good for him. He said he was a convicted pedophile. He had a long history of sex offences against children. He said Depo-Provera is a wonder drug and it has changed his life completely. Since he was released from prison three and a half years ago, he has had two intimate relationships with adult women. He doesn't look at children any more. For him, it was the cure and the answer. It provided a solution for him, enabling him to live in the community. He felt it gave him the ability to live a normal life. I think it bears looking at.

In the latter part of our brief, we also bring attention to another issue. This issue is supervision in the community. It is of grave importance to us as an organization. Again, it is something we've talked about for a long time. We do not have an awful lot of faith in the National Parole Board and the manner in which they supervise people in the community. I believe there are better ways, especially when you're dealing with pedophiles. We're talking about some of the most vile characters who prey upon innocent children. I believe the community has a right to be protected from these individuals.

Over the past few years we have seen police departments, in frustration, put out into the community pictures of pedophiles. I'm not convinced this is a solution, because as happened in a recent case here in Ottawa, it simply means the offender packs up and moves.

I think there is one solution we have seen. In the state of California, the onus is placed upon the offender to report to a police department when he leaves a specific area. This throws the onus back on the offender rather than having the offender go once every week - or every two weeks, or every 30 days, depending on how they set it up - to report to the National Parole Board.

What Clifford Olson did was report to his parole officer, then take off for a month to California and come back to report to his parole officer. It didn't really make an awful lot of sense.

We have known of many such cases over the years. We know of one case in Vancouver where Terrance Bird committed murder and reported to his parole officer the next day, I believe, or the day after.

So it is not a solution to the problem, even though they can control a parolee's life to some degree.

What I would like to see instituted is a system where the onus is upon the offender. Once a person has been declared a dangerous or long-term offender, we would like to see a system where it is the responsibility of the offender. If he lives in the city of Ottawa, the police should know he is here and they should know where he resides. I'm not suggesting posters all over the city of Ottawa or newspaper ads with his picture. I just feel the police should have the right to know where this offender is at all times.

.0955

There is another side to this. In California, the offender has to report in when he leaves the city. This makes an awful lot of sense to me. I would like to see a system in place where, if a sex offender is living in the city of Ottawa and between his reporting to the National Parole Board once a month he decides to go on vacation in northern Ontario and stay at a campsite, this offender would be required by law to walk into the local police department up there. He would have to state who he is and this sort of thing and say he is a convicted sex offender required by law to report to the local police.

Of course, the response you hear from most people is they're not all going to do it. But you have to look at it this way. In California, they say they have a 60% average for people actually reporting. In other words, if an individual lives in Los Angeles and travels to San Francisco for a weekend, he will go in and report. So 60% of the time they report.

If you're in a northern community and you have an individual walk in and report, even if only 50% report, at least you know the local police are aware of half of the sex offenders at their campsite on a particular weekend. If a crime does occur, there are a few people they can go back to in their investigations.

I think it would also be a deterrent to the offender. You have to imagine it this way. When he walks into this campsite and he's out there camping, there are many kids around. If this urge comes upon him, and if he has already reported to the local police department a couple of days in advance to let them know he is there, I think it could be a deterrent. Having to report in will tell him, too, that he may not get away with it.

These are three of the main issues I wanted to point out. Ms Harmison and I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rosenfeldt.

Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan: Thank you, Madam Chair. As always, it is a pleasure to be before this committee, especially today. We're discussing two bills that are different, but I think both address public safety issues and concerns.

Bill C-55 is a bill we've waited a long time to talk about. We're pleased with it, and we're also pleased to be here today to talk about it. We commend the government for the initiatives they've taken. We also commend Ms Meredith for her continued commitment to public safety in her private member's bill, C-254.

I think the bills, although different, really attempt to deal with the same problem. The problem is high-risk offenders. Currently, although they are identified, we're just simply opening the doors and letting them out into society because we have no mechanisms to keep them in.

Mr. Rosenfeldt mentioned community notification. This measure has been taken by some police forces across the country. Whatever one's opinion of it is, or whatever the debate will be, it is a desperate measure to deal with a desperate problem. The problem is we're throwing someone into society when we know there is a high risk of reoffending. We can either tell society or we can't. Either way, I think it's very unfair for us to put this burden on society.

I think these two bills attempt to address this same problem. Bill C-55 has three main elements you're all familiar with. These are the dangerous offender legislation, the long-term offender designation, and the judicial restraint provisions. I won't go into a detailed discussion, but I would like to highlight some of the recommendations and concerns we have with each of these.

Mr. Rosenfeldt mentioned the problem with the first parole eligibility date being at three years. This was a problem identified in the federal government's crown files research project as well. I think it is a problem the government has addressed in Bill C-55 by moving this date back to seven years.

This is a very positive amendment. However, we would recommend going a step further and making the subsequent parole hearings every three years after. The preparation involved for parole hearings is quite expensive and time-consuming. Given that the average dangerous offender spends at least 14 years in prison, we think it would make more sense to just simply put the second parole hearing and every subsequent parole hearing back to three years.

.1000

The second welcome amendment to the dangerous offender legislation in Bill C-55 is the removal of the discretion of a judge to give an indefinite or a finite sentence.

Currently, the system is set up so the crown can go through the process of making a dangerous offender application, going through the hearing and actually succeeding in convincing a judge that the offender is a dangerous offender, but the judge still has the option of giving someone a finite sentence of three or five or six years. I think this really takes away from the value of the dangerous offender provisions. They're aimed at the worst type of offenders. The provisions are drafted very carefully. To say someone is a dangerous offender but we're not going to give them a definite sentence takes away from the value of the provisions. The government has addressed this as well by taking away the judge's choice. If someone is declared a dangerous offender, they will now be given an indefinite sentence. There is no option.

One concern we still have, however, is the wording of the proposed subsection. As I read it, proposed subsection 753(1) says even if an offender meets the criteria of the dangerous offender legislation, a judge may declare him a dangerous offender. I would argue it should say if someone meets the criteria, the judge shall declare him a dangerous offender. Perhaps it is really semantics, but I think it's very important there should be no option. If someone meets the criteria, then this person should be declared a dangerous offender. So we raise this issue as well.

The third concern we have with the dangerous offender legislation is one that isn't addressed in the bill and may not need to be. It may be something that can be answered through existing legislation. It is with reference to evidence given by victims at dangerous offender hearings. Very often you'll find a victim has to testify at the preliminary hearing, at the trial itself, and then, if there's a dangerous offender hearing, possibly again at this hearing.

When you're talking about dangerous offender applications, you're mostly talking about brutal assaults. You are talking about sexual assaults. You are talking about children. I think we can agree it is very traumatic for people in those situations to have to testify not only once but possibly three times. We wondered if a process couldn't be drafted to allow a victim's past evidence from a previous trial or preliminary hearing to be used at the dangerous offender hearing. The evidence really won't have changed, and I think it would really spare the victim from having to go through this.

At the very least, as I understand the proposed long-term offender sections, if the crown attempts to have someone declared a dangerous offender and fails, a judge has the option of either declaring this person a long-term offender or holding a long-term offender hearing. We would recommend that if a new long-term offender hearing is necessary, the victim not be required to testify at this hearing as well, and the evidence from testimony at the dangerous offender hearing be used for the long-term offender hearing.

The long-term offender category is an excellent provision and one we support. Although we have some minor concerns about it, I think it's one that will help improve public safety.

The major concern we have is in reference to the limit of up to 10 years. I am sure you all understand the bill. A person serves his or her sentence up to warrant expiry, and then he or she can be placed on supervision in the community for up to 10 years. Research from the Solicitor General's office in the Correctional Service shows the longer you track a child molester, a pedophile, the higher the chances of recidivism.

One study actually showed that if you track a pedophile or child molester between 15 to 30 years after the warrant expiry, the recidivism rate is almost 45%. Given those high numbers and given that those numbers only really reflect the charging rates and the conviction rates, not the self-report rates, which would be much higher, I think the 10-year period is inadequate.

There is no provision in the legislation to increase the 10-year period. There is no provision to repeat the 10-year period even if the person is still a danger. So I would suggest this period should be up to life.

We should also make note of the fact that in the legislation an offender who has been declared a long-term offender can go to the court and ask that the supervision period be reduced. So this option does exist.

Probably one of the biggest concerns we have about the bill is this limited 10-year period. Statistics suggest this period just isn't long enough, and we would suggest it be up to life.

.1005

We also have concerns - Mr. Rosenfeldt mentioned them - about the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada and supervision in the community. I happen to think the parole board does a relatively good job, for the most part. That's not to say they don't make mistakes. As good as our parole system is, we still lose an average of one person a month to people on some form of early release. Last year fifteen people were murdered by people on conditional release. Another fifteen were victims of attempted murder. If you look at numbers for sexual assaults, it gets even higher. Those numbers are still relatively high.

If you read parole reports of tragedies that have happened, very often the offenders have breached conditions of their parole or supervision and it's never been reported to the parole board or reported to anyone by the parole officer. Given that the people under long-term supervision are the worst type of offenders, the high-risk, very serious offenders, we would recommend that parole officers not be given any discretion when there's a breach of supervision. If an offender who is a long-term offender being supervised breaches a condition of the supervision order, we would suggest making it mandatory that a crown be notified of that and the crown will decide if charges should be laid or not.

Again, that's not to say the parole board and the Correctional Service don't do a good job or don't have a dedication to public safety. They do. But very often when you're dealing with that agency, I think the perception you have is quite different.

Another issue we would like to raise about long-term offenders is really the schedule of offences it applies to. It's aimed very specifically at pedophiles.

I don't know if any of you have read the inquest into the death of Sarah Dawn Kelly. She was a thirteen-year-old girl who was murdered in 1994 by a man named Robert Arthurson. Mr. Arthurson was an identified pedophile who had a record of relatively minor offences: flashing young girls, taking pictures of young girls, attempting to procure the sexual services of young girls. Taken individually, they are all relatively minor offences in the broad scheme, I think. But one of the things the inquest noted was that these are really indicative of pedophile behaviour. They start with relatively minor offences and it escalates. In Mr. Arthurson's case it escalated into the murder of a young girl.

The concern raised at that inquest...at the time they were looking at the task force report on high-risk offenders, which this bill is largely based on. The concern raised by the judge at that time was that the long-term offender designation would not have an impact on the offences Mr. Arthurson was convicted of, because those offences would not be included in the scheduled offences.

We would recommend that the committee may want, in light of the inquest, which I would assume you would have access to - if not, we can provide a copy - and the concerns raised there, to pay special attention to the scheduled offences for long-term offenders.

The third element of Bill C-55 is probably the one that has gained the most public attention - and I think that is unfortunate, given the positive amendments I've already discussed - and that is judicial restraints. The public concern or criticism has been that it can affect people who have never been convicted of a crime before. That potential is not really new. We have provisions in our Criminal Code that can potentially affect people who have never been convicted of a crime. Section 810 is a peace bond, which, if I've never been convicted of a crime, I can be ordered to enter into for up to a year. If I violate the conditions of that peace bond, I can be charged criminally.

Section 810.1 is the pedophile peace bond. If you suspect someone is going to molest a child, you can have that person enter into a peace bond, where they may be ordered not to go near schools or parks for up to a year, and if they violate the conditions of that order, they can be charged.

So the philosophy of judicial restraint provisions is nothing really new. I think the main concern is the type of conditions a judge can impose, up to and including electronic monitoring. The concern, the possible charter challenge that may come about, is that this intrusion into someone's privacy is too much, given that they have never been convicted of a crime. Putting someone on electronic monitoring up to a year is a pretty intrusive measure, given that officially they may never have done anything wrong.

I think Mr. Rock has asked this committee to look at those provisions fairly closely and maybe narrow the focus. I know the Canadian Police Association has recommended the focus be narrowed even more, to those offenders who have been detained for their entire sentence and are being released.

We think that's a pretty good idea, given that those are the people we can't do anything with right now. It has happened. It's happening every day in this country. People who have served their entire sentence are being released. We know they are a high risk, but we have no measures to keep them in prison.

.1010

This may be one way of dealing with those types of offenders. Granted, it's not going to solve the entire problem, but it may be one more tool. So we would support the police association's recommendation for it to be narrowed only to detainees.

We would also recommend - again, this goes back to the Kelly inquest - that if you're going to narrow it to these types of people, a one-year period may not be sufficient. One of the things the Kelly inquest looked at was section 810.1, which is the pedophile peace bond on which Mr. Arthurson was placed. That period of time just wasn't long enough. They recommended that it should be lengthened, I think, to three, possibly five, years.

Those are the comments I want to make on Bill C-55. Again, I commend the government for the initiatives it has taken with that bill.

I'll turn now to Bill C-254. My understanding is that it has been before this committee for more than two years. I think it's kind of a déjà vu of the comments we made when we were here on Bill C-45, which was at the same time the committee dealt with John Nunziata's bill that dealt with section 745.

I think it's unfortunate that the committee could not have dealt with the bill sooner. I think your look at the bill, whether you supported it or not, could have been very valuable to the government officials who drafted Bill C-55. Your analysis of Bill C-254, whether you supported it or not, would have been valuable for Bill C-55.

However, that wasn't done. I think we can all agree that the debate over Bill C-254 is not whether or not it's a good idea; I hope we can all agree that it is a good idea. Strictly on a public safety platform, this bill would save lives. Make no doubt about it: this bill would save lives. It would have saved Christopher Stephenson's life. It might have saved Pamela Cameron's life. I believe you'll hear from their parents after us.

So strictly on a public safety initiative, this bill is an excellent idea. As we all know, the debate surrounding it has been whether or not it would survive a charter challenge. I'll be plain and up front that I'm not a charter expert, but I think an argument could be made that this would be an issue. Again, take it for what it's worth, but I'm not an expert.

There's no doubt that this bill would violate several charter rights, probably five or six, such as double punishment and life, liberty, and security of the person. But we have laws on the books right now that violate people's charter rights. We do it every day. Consider freedom of expression. We have child pornography laws. Take freedom of speech. You can't go into a crowded room and yell ``fire''. We place limits on people's rights every day because it's for the public good.

I think an argument could be made that this bill, although it violates those certain rights, could be saved under section 1 because of the initiatives it would bring to public safety.

Again, I think we have to ask ourselves who the charter is for. It's not just for the offender; it's for the victim. There was a charter in place when Christopher Stephenson died. That charter was supposed to serve his rights, and it didn't. There was a charter in place when Pamela Cameron died. It was supposed to serve her rights, and it didn't.

So when we talk about the charter of rights and whether or not this will survive a challenge, we should look at the whole of what the charter is for: it is for all of us. We should remember that it's also there for the future victims of these potential offenders.

Finally, if the committee or a court eventually decides that this bill doesn't survive a charter challenge, then I think we have to take a second look at our charter. Given that this bill will save lives, if the only thing standing in its way is the charter, we have to take a second look at the charter and what our priorities are. If this magnificent document, which is supposed to serve us all - it does it very well - is going to cost lives, then there is a problem. I think, as members of Parliament, it's a problem that you have a responsibility to address and fix.

In closing, I would once again like to say that we're very pleased to be here on both bills. I think they're both excellent initiatives with regard to public safety, and we commend both the government and Ms Meredith.

We'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

.1015

The Chair: Mr. St. Laurent.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Rosenfeldt, you provided some very interesting data in your statement, particularly with respect to dangerous offenders in California. You said that it would be wise to implement a system whereby these people would voluntarily report on their whereabouts so that the police would always know that they are in the area. This is very interesting, but according to your figures, 60% of these offenders in California report on their whereabouts, whereas 40% do not. What do you think about ankle bracelets. Moreover, if the individual does not show up, what measures do you think should be taken?

[English]

Mr. Rosenfeldt: As far as electronic bracelets are concerned, there's possibly a place for them where an individual is confined to a restricted home. But again, we had a recent case in the United States where an individual was confined with an electronic bracelet and when he wanted to commit a murder he cut the bracelet off, went over, and committed the murder. Nobody had any warning, really, that he was on his way to commit the murder.

So I'm not convinced electronic bracelets are really the answer, although it's a good point. They can be used in specific instances, but we have to remember that when we are dealing with sexual predators, individuals, in many cases these people are free to leave their homes. They are free to travel. Many of them are under some form of supervision in the community where they might possibly have to report to a parole officer in downtown Montreal once a month. That's about the extent of the supervision we might have on that individual.

Our point is if that individual wanted to leave Montreal and come up and spend a weekend in Ottawa at the winter festival, even though the California experience has been that only 50% of the people actually report in, out of fear of going back to prison...it's a criminal offence there not to report in. What I would like to see is a situation where that individual, if he's a known sexual offender...I don't think harassing him, putting his pictures all over Montreal, would be a solution to the problem. I think we could do more by monitoring his whereabouts...not specifically in the city of Montreal. It's impossible, even with electronic bracelets, unless he was confined to a particular home with an electronic bracelet. But the average offender who is on parole in the community and is basically allowed to go anywhere he wants to go.... We just don't feel reporting once a month to a National Parole Board office is really the solution.

.1020

We would like to see a situation where if he came to this winter carnival he would have to walk into the Ottawa city police department, declare himself a dangerous sexual offender, declare that he has been convicted of crimes in Montreal, he's here for three days, and he's going to be staying at a certain hotel, and tell the police here he will be leaving on a certain date. That's it.

The point is not specifically that the police can harass him should any offence occur in the city of Ottawa. Our point is that many of these individuals...we have seen serial killers, serial rapists, serial child molesters, come onto the scene more in the last few years because of the mobility of the population. A number of years ago when you had a child molester, normally you would look for that child molester in the immediate area when a crime occurred. But the police are getting more and more frustrated over the last number of years, because as you're aware, we have more serial crimes being committed.

In other words, individuals might fly to the city of Vancouver, do business there.... We've had a long series of murders of young women in British Columbia. The police are looking now at a possibility that...or even with the Green River killer in Seattle, they're looking at it as a possibility that it could have been a man who was on a business trip into Seattle, because they don't really feel the offender in that case was from the Seattle area, for the Green River killer. They never have solved those crimes.

There are a great number of unsolved female homicides in British Columbia. The police from western Canada have regular meetings on them. They sit down, they discuss all their leads, they compare notes. It's a very, very difficult thing to deal with.

What we're saying here is that it wouldn't necessarily mean the police in a community where a person has reported should harass that person while he's staying in their community. We feel the police are responsible enough that they wouldn't do this.

On the other hand, once that individual has reported to the police.... Say he goes on a camping trip up north. He's in a provincial park. If he goes to the police and says ``I'm a known sex offender, I'm a convicted sexual predator, I've been labelled as such, and I'm here for a week at your campsite''. We feel that in itself, even in 60% of the cases, may be the deterrent that prevents him from committing a new crime in that community.

Where is the harm in it? We have lots of police officers out there who are sitting at front desks and who are quite willing to take that information.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Mr. Sullivan, you said that dangerous offenders should be given a definite sentence. You also said that the judge should have no choice as to whether or not to give an indefinite sentence to anyone who has been recognized as a dangerous offender. I question that, because one of the foremost precepts of our justice system is the presumption of innocence at all times. This is a basic right; this is not a privilege, but a right.

What right do we have, if we were to follow your suggestion, to tell a judge that he has no choice? The judge, even when confronted with charges that are at times very obvious, must have some choice. It must be decided whether or not the accused is guilty, and, if so, to what extent. You said that the judge should not have the choice. Your statement intrigues me somewhat. Could you please explain further what you meant here?

.1025

[English]

Mr. Sullivan: Certainly. What I'm referring to when I say a judge shouldn't have the choice is this. One of the amendments in this bill says that if a judge declares someone a dangerous offender, they no longer have the choice of an indefinite or definite sentence. Right now they have that choice: they can give someone a five-year sentence or they can give someone an indefinite sentence. This bill takes away that choice.

The other recommendation I made, or what I think you're referring to, is in proposed subsection 753(1). What that section says is that if an offender meets dangerous offender criteria, a judge may declare him a dangerous offender. What I'm saying is that if the court decides he meets the dangerous offender criteria, then there should be no choice about designation. He should be declared a dangerous offender if he meets the criteria, and the judge will make that decision. Once guilt has been established, the hearing has already been held and the judge decides that person has met the criteria - it's very strict, very limited criteria, but if the judge decides he does meet that criteria, then I would say that he shall be declared a dangerous offender. That's what I mean when I say the judge shouldn't have a choice.

I'm not saying that every time a crown brings an application to declare someone a dangerous offender the judge has no choice, he has to do that. That's not what I'm saying. If he or she finds the defender meets the criteria, then I believe there should be no choice about the designation. The judge will still decide if the offender meets the criteria, but once that's been done, then as far as I'm concerned there should be no choice.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome. I think I'd like to deal with Mr. Rosenfeldt's suggestions or recommendations. Both of you in your presentations seem to support the extension from the three-year to the seven-year.... You should know that you're probably the only ones who have done so up to this point, that most of the legal professionals who have represented themselves, the civil liberties organizations, feel that is inappropriate, that seven years is far too long to allow somebody to review the case.

Why do you feel that the seven years will solve the problem? Why do you feel that the seven-year parole eligibility is...? Is it just because it's better than what it is now, or do you honestly feel it is going to solve the issue?

Mr. Rosenfeldt: I think the real problem we have had, Ms Meredith, in the last number of years, and I mentioned it when I was speaking to it, is that I don't believe the dangerous offender legislation as it exists today is being used to its fullest extent. I don't think it has ever been used in the province of Quebec. If you go through it once or twice, I guess the point being that when we're talking about dangerous offenders...we recently saw Bernardo being declared a dangerous offender. Even in that case, I'm not sure why he was declared a dangerous offender, because he already had a life term with no possibility of parole for 25 years and a judicial review at 15.

From our point of view, from what we have seen over the last decade anyway - and we have talked to many crown prosecutors - crown prosecutors would not ask for the dangerous offender designation. Dangerous offender designation, even today, simply means that there are restrictions on that person basically for the rest of their life. But today's dangerous offender legislation wasn't being used.

The crown prosecutors were simply stating that if it was five years or seven years, where it might be comparable to, let's say, a life sentence for rape or something like that, at seven years the seven years makes the most sense. Larry Takahashi is a prime case. Had this legislation existed at the time he was sentenced, the crown prosecutor, Arnold Piragoff, in the city of Edmonton, would probably have gone for a dangerous offender application rather than bringing dozens of victims into the courtroom and getting a number of life sentences and a series of definite sentences with regard to certain crimes he committed.

Actually, in that case they estimated he raped over 100 women, and they brought in.... I think he was convicted of eight or ten charges, but there was a certain point where the crown said there was no point in going any further.

.1030

The point is that had this legislation been in existence at that time, I firmly believe Larry Takahashi, even though he did get two or three life sentences, I believe, and he will be under the mandate of the system for the rest of his life...but that was the only way they could possibly do it at that time.

Ms Meredith: So you see this as merely an encouragement for crown prosecutions to follow through with dangerous offender applications; it's an incentive for them to use it.

Mr. Rosenfeldt: To use it instead of not using it. I guess the point is this. Why have it if it's not being used? It's not being used, and I know it's not being used by a number of crown prosecutors, simply for the reason that it has that three-year review available immediately upon entering the system.

Mr. Sullivan: That was one of the problems identified in the crown files project on dangerous offenders that was ordered by the federal government. Some crowns are discouraged from using it because of the early parole date. They felt if it were a longer parole period they would be more willing to use it.

Mr. Rosenfeldt: I think we have to remember we're talking about dangerous pedophiles and those violent characters in our society. Many of these individuals destroy the lives of hundreds of children in their communities. A study was done in California where the average number of victims of some of these individuals was in the hundreds. I think 284 was the average number of victims. So when you're talking about that type of individual, who can destroy literally hundreds upon hundreds of lives throughout their lifetime, to suggest that seven years is too long before any sort of review I think is ludicrous.

Ms Meredith: It's not that I disagree with you. I think you're on the right track there.

The other thing I want to point out - and I appreciate your dealing with my private member's Bill C-254 - is the difference seems to be that you, Mr. Rosenfeldt, feel an extension of a year in making that determination is okay. Are you suggesting that is better than the six months, or are you suggesting that will meet the requirements of individuals who have been considered to be too dangerous to be placed again in society? You recommend that we tighten up the application of it, but I just wonder if you feel a year, with that year span around the time of sentencing, is going to solve the problem?

Mr. Rosenfeldt: At the time of sentencing.... Actually, I believe what we've stated in here is a year before warrant expiry.

Ms Meredith: Oh, was it? Then I misread it. I'm sorry.

My apologies. That is correct.

Mr. Rosenfeldt: Basically what we're saying here is that according to the bill as it sits now, it's being suggested that the current prosecutor would still have six months to bring forth a dangerous offender application after the person is in the institution. Many of these individuals might get a five-year sentence or an eight-year sentence in prison. Our point is what's the point of six months? At the end of six months nothing has been determined. It takes that long to get into some of these programs that operate within the prison system.

I think if you change it to a year before warrant expiry we're talking about an altogether different situation. First, they may take advantage of the programs within the institution, so they may not be declared a dangerous offender. They may be afraid of having that designation on themselves. If it encourages them to take advantage of the programs that are offered within the institution, so much the better.

Mr. Sullivan: As for assessing whether or not someone needs to be declared a dangerous offender, doing it at the end of their sentence simply makes more sense. You can determine whether or not they've taken the programs and what, if any, effect those programs have had. That's the time when I think you're going to be able to assess the offender the best - not ten years before the fact but when he's close to release.

Ms Meredith: That's my rationale as well.

The Chair: Mr. Discepola.

Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Sullivan, I was curious when you said, if I'm quoting you correctly, the longer you track an individual the higher the recidivism rate.

Mr. Sullivan: That's right.

Mr. Discepola: Could you explain that, please? Why do you think there's a link, or why do you think the study you're quoting shows a link?

Mr. Sullivan: I think the normal statistics, or the most common ones we hear about recidivism rates with sex offenders, track them for three to five years, and at that time the rates for recidivism are relatively low. If you track someone longer, the numbers go up.

.1035

I think that's because first, you've just come out of prison and you've probably taken some programs and you're on supervision and you have the support of the community, so you're less likely to reoffend. The longer it goes...you lose that support system, you lose the contacts within the community, and you lose what you've learned in the programs. The temptations grow as time goes on.

That would be my explanation. I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist.

The study I refer to is one that was sent to me by the Solicitor General's office. I'll just read the statement:

The initial follow-up of the child molesters found that 42% were reconvicted of a sexual or violent crime during the fifteen- to thirty-year follow-up period.

One of the things these people recommended is much like the long-term offender category, that special provisions be required for long-term supervision of certain child molesters.

The rates are different for certain kinds of molesters. For incest offenders, for example, the rates aren't that high. For pedophiles the rates go up.

That's the study I quote from. As for explaining it, I could give you my own personal views, but you might be better off to talk to someone who has actually studied the offenders.

Mr. Discepola: What you're saying, then, is we shouldn't really supervise them; they need more of a controlled environment and more follow-up and treatment for a longer period.

Mr. Sullivan: I hope that's what the long-term offender category means, that they have not only supervision but a support system within the community and possible programs if they still need them. As I read it, that could all be part of the supervision order the parole board will make: you are required to take certain programs when you're in a community, you're required to report to someone every week or whatever, and the support system is there to help these people not reoffend.

I'll be honest with you. I think a lot of them don't want to reoffend, but they don't have the help they need to resist.

Mr. Discepola: What struck me in your testimony was that you seem to think the ten-year supervision period is not enough; it should be - I think I'm quoting you correctly - life supervision. You seem to think the two-year revision after an indeterminate sentence is not enough, it should be three years. Then there's the other example I gave you. You've stated that in your opinion they are not enough, but could you elaborate on what is wrong with two years?

When you're enacting legislation, it seems to me you have to choose a cut-off point. If you're saying it's an indefinite sentence, surely when you get to the tail-end...well, there's no warrant expiry any more, because it's an indefinite sentence. But it would seem to me that after seven years, for example, you should be in a better position to assess a person, a criminal in this case, and obviously review the whole file every two years. Why would you be more comfortable with three? What is wrong with two?

My other question is about ten years of supervision. It seems to me there the person has to feel they have paid back their debt to society. Don't forget what we're saying here is you fulfil your full sentence, and in addition we're going to tack on another ten years of supervision. Now you're saying in addition to that, we're going to supervise you for life.

Mr. Sullivan: Which our research suggests we should. If the research says up to fifteen to thirty years after warrant expiry these guys are reoffending at a rate of 42%, I don't think 10% is enough. We supervise people convicted of murder for life. We supervise dangerous offenders for life. There's a provision in the Criminal Code, in section 161, by which we can prohibit someone from going near parks for life. So I don't think there's anything new in my suggesting this period should be up to life. Given the statistics we have, which say a period of ten years is probably not long enough, I think as far as public safety goes we need to make it longer.

As for the suggestion that we make the two-year parole period three years, that's really more of a technical recommendation. The statistics suggest that dangerous offenders serve at least an average of fourteen years before parole. Parole hearings are very expensive. The build-up and the preparation put into them are very expensive. It's just that a smaller number of hearings.... These guys rarely get out, so the three-year period would mean less work and more resources to put back into the offender's treatment.

Mr. Discepola: Mr. Rosenfeldt, you said something that struck a bell with me. You felt the parole system was failing us and wasn't worth while. Do you have recommendations on how to improve it, or even on how to replace it?

.1040

Mr. Rosenfeldt: We'll put it this way: I believe that the National Parole Board, or the parole system in Canada, has failed miserably in its attempt to fulfil its mandate of the protection of the public. When you look at the statistics, any sort of system that allows individuals to come back into the community and commit heinous murders....

I think we explain it very well in our introduction. We say that over the past five years, an average of 20 murders per year were committed by federal offenders under community supervision.

Mr. Discepola, if you consider that to be good -

Mr. Discepola: No, I don't consider it to be good. I think one -

Mr. Rosenfeldt: One is one too many.

Mr. Discepola: - is one too many.

Mr. Rosenfeldt: Exactly.

Mr. Discepola: The whole point is that, in such a system, you only hear of the exceptions.

An analogy was given to me by a justice minister of one of the provinces. He said that we fly every day. Obviously, one air crash in which you have 200 or 300 people dying is a tragedy, but it doesn't mean that the next day, or the next evening, I won't take the next flight out.

The one incident in which we fail is one incident too many, but the problem is, how do you throw out that whole system and start anew?

Obviously, what we have to do is improve the system and fill in the weaknesses and the cracks. But nobody seems to be coming forth with concrete ideas on how to improve the system. Everybody criticizes it and criticizes it.

This includes the media. We only hear the exceptions. We don't hear of the 80% of the cases, which is obviously not enough.

Mr. Rosenfeldt: I know exactly what you're saying, Mr. Discepola, but we go on to state here that the victims of these crimes are more than just mere statistics.

You're going to hear later this morning from the family of Christopher Stephenson. As an example, Christopher Stephenson, as with many of these other children and/or innocent victims, should be alive today. If the system worked well, they would be alive today. The system is not working, Mr. Discepola.

You ask about ways of improving the system. I agree with you that we only hear about the tragedies, but these are real people in these tragedies, and they shouldn't be happening.

If we had any sort of system.... If VIA Rail were killing a person a month in this country, I think we'd do something serious. We wouldn't stop the railroads from running, I agree with you, but we would make some serious revisions in the manner in which we run our railroads.

I guess our point on it is this. I don't believe that a system allowing this many murders to take place in the community is working even slightly well. I think it's a disgrace.

Mr. Discepola: Would you go so far as to say you would replace the system or abolish parole totally?

Mr. Rosenfeldt: I'm not saying I would totally abolish parole, but I think it's something about which we have had many discussions. We've talked about the whole parole system with many offenders too. We would suggest a whole different system out there for offenders who really want to do something with their lives. These are individuals who are released into the community. There should be a better support system for individuals who sincerely want to do something with their lives. More time should be spent with them.

As for other people, those who have a long history of recidivism - they're in and out of the prison system for life and they simply go back into the community - then simply do away with parole, for instance. As an example, for any individual who commits another offence on parole, do things like tighten up the system immensely.

But spend the resources on those who really want to change and do something with their lives. It has been said many times that we don't have those kinds of resources. Why not provide real support and help for that individual who has a family, wants to get a job, and wants to change his life around?

We're not providing that now. So here is what happens: we have a parole system - this is what I understand, but I'm not an expert on it - in which we have a parole officer sitting back in his chair giving ten-minute interviews. These guys keep coming through all day long. That's why we have individuals who commit murders and armed robberies on the way down to see the parole officer. And they leave that office with nobody any the wiser.

.1045

What I'm saying is in preventing crime what I would like to see is a real support system out there for those individuals who are sincere about taking courses, attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, NA meetings, or anything else, and maybe some real help in helping those individuals get their lives back on track, rather than setting up a system where people come in for quick reports and we don't really have any supervision in the community.

I can tell you case after case after case - I know you don't want to hear individual cases - where the National Parole Board has simply written off individuals who don't report. Take Dennis Melvin Howe, in the city of Toronto. When Sharin Morningstar Keenan was abducted, raped, and murdered in the city the police officers sat down, went through their list of known sex offenders, and guess what? They came across his name, Dennis Melvin Howe, ``released on parole''.

They went to the National Parole Board - Inspector Dave Boothby will verify this - and they said, well, we haven't heard from him for a number of months; we never notified you in the city of Toronto or anything else; and that's it. They said, we don't know where he is. David Boothby flipped through the telephone book. He found the phone number, found an address. He went to the house. They got a search warrant, and guess what? They found Sharin Morningstar Keenan in his refrigerator.

This is reality. This is going on all the time out there.

The point is what sort of support system was the National Parole Board providing for Dennis Melvin Howe?

He is still on the loose, by the way. He never has been arrested for that crime.

What I would rather see is some real support mechanism, maybe a buddy system where someone who has been through the prison system and who has done well on the outside...and there are some organizations that work like this, especially out west, in Calgary, as an example - organizations like that, people who have the resources to turn around and provide real support and real help for individuals...maybe spend a day with him, drive him around, help him get a job when he gets out. That might make a difference in the system.

Mr. Sullivan: About media attention in the high-profile cases, those cases, such as the Stephensons and the Camerons, have led to bills like this and improvements like this. The parole system has, in all fairness, improved over the last couple of years. Bill C-45 was an example of that. We now have better people being chosen for the parole board. All those changes came about as a result of media attention and recommendations from groups such as Victims of Violence and CAVEAT. So we'll continue to make suggestions for improvement in the parole system, but I think the key is to learn from the tragedies that take place; examine what happened and find ways to prevent them for the future.

The Chair: Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.

You've both mentioned in your briefs a bit about monitoring, and I want to pose to you a question. Do you feel this type of electronic monitoring is going to prevent reoffence or just take away an alibi for somebody who reoffends?

Mr. Sullivan: I think the monitoring is one more tool in supervising someone in the community. It's not the end-all and be-all that people perhaps have suggested it is. It's not going to prevent someone who is determined to reoffend, but I think it will add to the arsenal of parole boards and corrections to help supervise someone in the community.

It's not going to work for a Clifford Olson or a Paul Bernardo, there's no doubt. I think it can help work for someone who does want to change and who just needs that help. It's simply one more tool in the arsenal to supervise people in the community.

The Chair: Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Both of you identified in the third part of the piece of legislation that you wanted to restrict the house arrest type of idea to those who had been detained until warrant expiry. What about the use of this tool in the cases we all read about where everyone knew this fellow was going to kill his wife and three kids and nobody could do anything because he hadn't actually done anything yet, but there was a pattern of escalating incidents that would be similar to those others where a crime was committed at the end, but none of them individually seemed to get the police or judicial attention they deserved, or they couldn't trigger the kind of attention they deserved?

I'm concerned about two things: one, that if you tighten this up to only those with previous convictions you will miss those characters, and two, that if you move it up to a five-year period, then people will be more reluctant to impose this method of supervision.

.1050

Mr. Rosenfeldt: Ms Torsney, I agree with you on the first part there, and actually the second part. I think what you're stating is correct. As I mentioned before, when you put these monitors on people.... It doesn't take much to cut a monitor off and go and commit a murder. I'm not convinced they really are a solution.

I agree with something my colleague here, Steve Sullivan, said before, that they are possibly an added tool. I consider them to be minimal, if anything. The difficult part with that is that I don't know how many times over the years, in dealing with crime victims, I have told crime victims to go down and get a restraining order or a peace bond. But the truth of the matter is when you do these things in a sense they may do some good with the individual - if he's not going to commit a serious crime it might stop the individual from bothering the person he has been after - but reality is if you're about to commit murder, or even a violent attack on a person, it's frivolous to have a peace bond against that person, or an ankle bracelet or anything else, because they can be removed, or they can even leave the home and go and commit that heinous crime anyway.

It's a very difficult thing...and you do have a good point with the five years too. It may be less subject to being used.

I think electronic bracelets can be used in a very limited manner in monitoring certain individuals, possibly on weekends and that sort of thing. I don't see it as a very strong, effective tool.

Mr. Sullivan: As for the five years - and perhaps I should have worded it better, as ``up to five years'', so a judge could impose the conditions for five years or one year or two years - I don't have a philosophical problem with the situation you raise about a wife-batterer who is threatening his wife and putting him on electronic monitoring. I don't think anyone would accuse us of being soft on offenders. But the concern that, for example, the minister admitted was that you're talking about someone who has never been convicted of a crime, and it just may not withstand a charter challenge to impose those certain conditions. I don't have a problem with that, as I'm sure you know, but that was in response to the minister's comments.

Ms Torsney: The only other question I had was this. Nobody mentioned it in their presentation, but the fourth piece of this legislation is a new way to deal with low-risk, non-violent offenders. I think you addressed it, Mr. Rosenfeldt, in suggesting we need to dedicate the resources to the areas that are most needed. Clearly, those individuals who....

I don't know. Do you think there are some individuals who don't need as much attention and more individuals who need more attention, and this will be a good solution? You just didn't address it in your briefs. I didn't know if you noticed it or not.

Mr. Rosenfeldt: As I stated to Mr. Discepola, I really feel we have fallen short - and this might sound different, coming from me - in providing real support in the community for individuals who seriously want to do something with their lives.

Ms Torsney: Right.

Mr. Rosenfeldt: There are individuals, many of them, who go into the prison system, they have an alcohol problem, throughout the time they are in prison they do attend AA meetings, for instance, or whatever. If they are considered low-risk upon release, if they are still attending meetings, I think we fall short in our support of individuals like those in the community.

When you're dealing with pedophiles, when you're dealing with high-risk offenders, you're talking about a completely different situation.

Ms Torsney: Yes, I know.

Mr. Rosenfeldt: I should mention, however, that there's one program we haven't really had a chance to look at. I'm planning next time I'm in California, if I get there, to have a look at a program that has been getting rave reviews around the state of California. That's a program where sex offenders can actually go to a ``safe house'', as they call it, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They have individuals in there who have been through the system themselves. They have psychologists. They have people who will support them in the community should they get the urge to go out and commit an offence. It's more on a voluntary basis than as a forced system. It's something we would like to look at.

Ms Torsney: It must have been interesting to try to site that location in the community.

.1055

Mr. Rosenfeldt: Our point is that there are some individuals, your non-violent, your less dangerous offenders, whom we feel should probably be getting more support back in the community.

Ms Torsney: And not in an institution.

Mr. Sullivan: And those offenders don't necessarily need to be in jail. I think provisions in Bill C-55 address that: accelerated day parole.

Ms Torsney: So you support those?

Mr. Sullivan: We don't usually comment on things we agree with. Only when we criticize is when we comment. We support those.

Ms Torsney: I'm glad we got that on the record.

The Chair: I thank all of you very much. We didn't give you very much chance to talk, but your brief is very helpful and we appreciate your contribution.

We'll rise for a few minutes while our next witnesses get ready.

.1056

.1113

The Chair: We're back on the record.

We have Priscilla de Villiers, representing CAVEAT - a perfect stranger. She is president. With her is Marilyn Cameron. Also, as individuals, we have Jim and Anna Stephenson, who are also representing their son.

Welcome. We're glad to have you here and we're looking forward to hearing from you.

Priscilla.

Ms Priscilla de Villiers (President, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination (CAVEAT)): Thank you for inviting me to appear.

Although my cover says I will be speaking on Bill C-54 as well, I decided because of the number of us speaking here today that Marilyn Cameron, whose case most closely speaks to that issue, will speak to Bill C-54. I'll be happy to answer questions at the end.

In 1993 then Solicitor General Doug Lewis invited me to sit on the Solicitor General's all-party working group on legislative proposals on high-risk offenders. This group had been constituted in response to the recommendations arising out of the inquest into the death of Christopher Stephenson. I too had sat for almost five months on an inquest, an inquest into the death of Jonathon Yeo, the killer of my daughter Nina and Karen Marquis.

Both Joseph Fredericks and Jonathon Yeo had clearly demonstrated a dangerous escalation in their patterns of violent behaviour and a high risk to reoffend.

.1115

The Stephenson recommendations pointed to the Washington State model that uses the mental health system as a possible solution to control sexual predators like Fredericks. The Canadian justice system is a reactive, retributive instrument that together with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms seems to suggest that innocent and vulnerable members of society cannot be protected from those who either cannot or will not change their behaviour.

Surely the justice system must evolve to prevent more tragedies and more victims when there's clear evidence of the risk that a few offenders present to the innocent and vulnerable members of society. Given the increasing sophistication of risk assessment, which is practised in the early release of offenders, surely the same assessment tools can be applied to identify the few who continue to menace society. Surely the Criminal Code should be used to prevent violent crime instead of merely reacting to preventable tragedy.

As members of the working group, we solicited information and assisted in compiling the final report. We were intensively briefed on the problem of preventative legislation that would successfully control high-risk offenders.

I've included the background, which I actually compiled, because for those who are interested it gives an overview of the discussion across the country. It was culled from close to a hundred sources.

The question of the infringement of charter rights was examined, and on balance the long-term post-sentencing control of such offenders was felt to be constitutional. Again, I've included a tiny bit of that discussion to show some of the constitutional discussion that evolved around it. That was three and a half years ago. The fact is that it would, on balance, be considered constitutional.

Here is CAVEAT's view. This is the modest nature of this proposal, Bill C-55. Bill C-55 is as much about a philosophical change as it is about legislation. It's a brave first attempt to answer the needs of a society that is weary of pouring increasing funding into a justice and correctional system that fails too often to offer protection from clearly identified predators.

Two successive national multidisciplinary conferences, in 1994 and 1995, made strong recommendations on the need for such legislation. I have included that draft legislation and discussion in the back in case you would like to refer to the discussion there.

What I'm trying to show here is that as we come to Bill C-55, it's a distillation of a dialogue, discussion, and examination that's been going on intensively for about four years now. This is not something that has just appeared.

Bill C-55 only introduces two significant changes. One, there's increased parole eligibility for dangerous offenders serving indeterminate sentences, from three to seven years. That's in proposed section 761. This does not pose any problems. The Supreme Court of Canada has already approved dangerous offender procedures, and this is a minor addition. It's really just a band-aid increase, and it does not form the most important component of this bill.

Two, there's the creation of a new long-term offender classification that can be brought as an independent application in proposed section 753.1 or as a fall-back in the event of a lack of success for the dangerous offender application in proposed subsection 753(5). If someone is classified as a long-term offender, there will be a ten-year period of parole supervision tacked on to the expiry of the sentence, which is in proposed paragraph 753.1(3)(b).

The offender or the parole board can apply for a modification of the ten-year period of supervision, and it appears that this application can be brought at any time. The code is silent on this point, which is in proposed subsection 753.2(3).

The criteria for invoking the dangerous offender and long-term offender classifications are very similar and overlapping. The only real difference between the two classifications is that the dangerous offender application primarily revolves around violence and sexual violence, whereas the long-term offender classification is more expansive by its de-emphasis on violence per se. That means allowing pedophiles who do not necessarily resort to violence to be classified as long-term offenders in situations in which they may have escaped a dangerous offender classification.

.1120

In addition, the long-term-offender classification introduces a two-year sentence threshold for invoking the classification. This is merely a formal classification criterion that operates to ensure that petty offenders do not get wrapped up in the long-term-offender classification. I think it pretty well covered that.

The success of this proposal will turn on the quality of parole supervision. Adding a ten-year period of parole supervision is at least a good start, but it will only be effective if the existing parole supervision is enhanced.

However, the legislation is but a start. We have grave concerns about the ability and commitment of the Solicitor General's department and the Correctional Service of Canada in creating the infrastructure necessary that will be essential to the effective administration of this legislation if it is to protect Canadian society.

In the past three years, the Auditor General has reported grave concerns about the ability of CSC to successfully reintegrate and monitor offenders in society. That is in appendix C. If you are not familiar with that, will you please read it? The Auditor General has spelled it out in very clear terms over three years. This is my gravest concern right here.

When I started to look into why a violent sexual predator was running around southern Ontario carrying a gun and shooting innocent girls, I was told by the then Attorney General of Ontario, Howard Hampton, that he doesn't make the law, he administers it. Kim Campbell's office told me that they don't administer the law, they make it. That was the answer I got then.

I sat in at the inquest and listened to the counsel of 14 different parties. There were government ministers and individuals covering every single system of justice except the Correctional Service of Canada. They were busy saying that you are one-third to blame, I'm four-fifths, and you are seven-eighths, and on and on and on. The bottom line is that as legislators, it doesn't matter how wonderful the legislation is that you write; if it is not administered, it is a failure.

I would ask this committee to please call the commissioner back. I read his testimony in Hansard. Have the Solicitor General back and ask for a detailed commitment to this. All you're doing is selling the public a bill of goods. I cannot state that strongly enough.

The cases along this table here are but a tiny tip of all the terrible cases that occur in this country. Luckily, they don't always end in death, but there's a terrible destruction of lives and psyches in every single case, virtually bar none. It's not the legislation that's missing, it's the communication, the administration and the infrastructure, and the ability to uphold it. Please, I beg of you, try to get some commitment, because I've yet to see it in Hansard. Possibly you know something I don't know. I hope that's so.

We have made a strong recommendation for the Parliament of Canada to add a provision to the bill requiring the preparation of a report for submission to Parliament within five years of the enactment of the legislation. This has been done twice before. Once was with the 1983 reform of the sexual assault laws and the other was in the 1985 introduction of the new prostitution provisions.

I recommend this mandated review because Bill C-55 is being supported simply on a better-than-nothing basis. It may turn out that the Bill C-55 approach will be impotent. It's important to review this after five years to ensure that we are not lulled into complacency and into believing that something constructive is being done.

.1125

Actually, what's worse than this is that we could have an even greater destruction and deterioration of public confidence when legislation is seen to be not working. I think it would show responsibility if we were to review the administration of this legislation.

Most criminological studies indicate that recidivism will manifest itself within three years. Therefore, a five-year review would give us a clear picture of whether or not the offenders are reoffending with great frequency while on long-term supervision.

Consider the constitutional objections. Following the lead of Washington State, at least ten states have enacted sexually violent predator statutes. Constitutional reviews have been conducted, with some statutes being invalidated and some being upheld.

The ongoing constitutional debate in the United States should not be construed as suggesting that we will have a similar problem. The American approach is fundamentally different. It raises unique constitutional concerns. These statutes operate on a post-conviction mental health commitment approach. Before the expiry of one's sentence, an application can be made to have the offender involuntarily committed on the basis that the offender is dangerous and has some mental disorder, but not necessarily a recognized psychiatric illness.

These schemes have resulted in the following constitutional objections.

First, they impose punishment retroactively because the application is brought on a post-conviction and pre-release basis. Bill C-55 requires that the application be brought at the time of the sentence or within six months in designated circumstances. These schemes allow for involuntary commitment without proof of a recognized psychiatric disorder.

Bill C-55 does not purport to be a treatment scheme premised upon a mental disorder. It is part of the sentencing process that must concern itself with protection of the public.

The American statutes work in a disingenuous way in protecting the public through the guise of a rehabilitative intent. It's lovely in theory. This attempt to disguise a punitive and protective response as a rehabilitative response is what is generating most of the constitutional litigation in the United States.

In Canada, there does not appear to be a sound constitutional objection to Bill C-55. The Supreme Court of Canada has already approved the constitutionality of indeterminate sentences on the basis of weak psychiatric predictions of dangerousness.

This bill simply builds on this foundation. Based on a conviction and a psychiatric prediction of dangerousness, Bill C-55 allows for an increased parole supervision of ten years as part of the offender's sentence. This is far less intrusive than the constitutionally approved dangerous offender provisions, and it constitutes the least restrictive means of achieving the government's objective of protecting the public. So obviously we support this.

Consider integration. This will only be useful if parole supervision is tightened up and made more effective and intensive. Any real protection from long-term predatory criminals requires an integrated approach that will consider a number of interrelated proposals: how to implement long-term supervision concurrently with the enhancement of the efficacy and intensity of existing parole supervision, how to implement long-term supervision with proposals for community notification of the presence of released long-term offenders, and how to implement long-term supervision with proposed DNA testing schemes. All long-term offenders should be required to provide DNA samples upon release to ensure that the police have this information for the proposed DNA data bank.

Although we would not want to see Bill C-55 held up pending the consideration of the integration of these proposals with the DNA testing proposal and community notification proposals, it is always better to deal with these types of issues in a comprehensive, holistic way. If the other proposals are not finalized along with Bill C-55, then they may be working at cross-purposes.

.1130

In conclusion, subject to the concerns expressed above, CAVEAT supports the enactment of this bill, as it is consistent with the position of having different legislative regimes for dealing with predatory offenders and non-violent nuisance offenders. Support for the bill should be contingent upon a mandated statutory five-year review in order to ensure that the scheme is achieving a modicum of success. If it turns out that long-term offenders are reoffending on a regular basis, then this will show that parole supervision is clearly not the path to pursue.

I have a section here that I urge you to look at very carefully to see whether there's anything new here. Technical recommendations are based on the opinions of crown attorneys across this country who have reviewed the legislation from a practical point of view. Once again, I'm concerned about the administration, and this time it's in the courts.

We've just seen what a dreadful thing conditional sentencing is. This has just gone through this committee and the House and it is being used in the courts. I'm about to release a paper on it. It's being used quite at cross-purposes with the intent.

So I urge you to take note of these concerns that the crown attorneys have brought up. I don't think I'll read them into the record, as they're very technical. It's a question of tweaking the bits of the writing, etc. Please take note.

Judicial restraint is one of the more controversial sections of the bill. Although the intent of these sections is positive, we doubt that this section will survive a charter challenge.

As indicated, we believe the overall effect of Bill C-55 with respect to dangerous offenders will be positive, with the exception of the assessment in proposed subsection 752.1(1), which, unless it's changed, will make the process even more difficult.

I'll read that little bit of a technical problem out, because unless that's looked at, judges are going to create long-term offenders instead of bringing in dangerous offender designations. I can tell you that this is what's happening with conditional sentencing. So please look at that. That's a cry from the crown attorneys of this country.

In conclusion, we support this legislation. It's a good beginning. It does, however, avoid looking at that small core group of dangerous, very violent offenders who have a high risk of recidivism and who somehow have escaped the dangerous offender designation and will not do well in long-term supervision.

When I was on that working group, we looked at dangerous offenders and long-term offenders. We also looked at that middle group and came up with a solution. Val Meredith's Bill C-254 has looked at that solution, but it's not in Bill C-55.

So what I'm identifying is that I think this is a really useful start. I have to say that I think we'll be back, because there is a small group of very dangerous individuals who are not going to be targeted in Bill C-55.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms de Villiers.

Who will go next? Ms Cameron?

Ms Marilyn Cameron (Volunteer, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination (CAVEAT)): I want to thank you for the opportunity to tell my story. I'm currently a director of Peace and Justice for Canadians, which was formed by many concerned citizens of White Rock, south Surrey, after the brutal murder of my daughter Pamela on October 4, 1994.

Our group has been working hard writing letters and petitioning for stronger laws to protect society at large from dangerous offenders and to prevent the uncontrolled release of incarcerated violent and sexual offenders into our community. We've also been working with the community policing station to make our neighbourhood a safer place to live. Hopefully our story will help you to see more clearly why we support Bill C-55 and Bill C-254.

I want to give you just a short background on Pamela so I can tie this all in.

Pamela was a vivacious 16-year-old who loved life, school and sports. She had many friends, and didn't have a mean bone in her body.

.1135

Moving to B.C. wasn't easy for her, because she didn't want to leave her friends in Ontario. But as usual, positive Pam decided it was going to be a new adventure for her. After only one week in White Rock, she had a job at Moxie's Restaurant and had decided that she wanted to go to UBC - unlike her killer, who lived off the system all his life.

Pamela was beginning to enjoy secondary school. She was in grade 11. On October 4, at 3 p.m., Pam's father and I dropped Pam and her new friend at the Muffin Break after school. She said it was a beautiful day and she wanted to walk home, and walk she did, not knowing that it was going to be her last one.

As she walked with her school bag along a very busy four-lane street on a sunny Tuesday, at about 3:50 p.m., unbeknownst to her, a monster had decided to follow her. He knew the street well. When she reached an area where the bushes were tall and thick near the sidewalk - there were other houses on the other side of the road - he pushed her from behind and quickly dragged her into an open area, where he fought with her, raped her, and strangled her with the cord from her own sweatshirt.

She had bitten him in defence. She had bitten two of his fingers right down to the bone, which gave us the DNA later to help convict him. As well, the teeth marks from the bite that he left on her cheek were evidence they used too. He covered her with bushes and enjoyed a few cigarettes and a couple of beers he had with him.

When darkness arrived, he came out of the area with Pam's school bag, stuffed with her clothes, and dropped them at a nearby Dairy Queen. He made his way down to a gas station, which was only a few buildings away. This was about 7:55 p.m. This is where they caught him on a video camera with blood on his jacket and Kleenex around his fingers, because his fingers were all bleeding.

I phoned the police around 6:45 p.m., as I knew that something was wrong. The police didn't start looking for her until the next morning, thinking she was a runaway. I knew without a doubt that my daughter was not a runaway.

Paul and Mark - Mark was Pamela's boyfriend, who was out from Ontario - a few friends and the entire Moxie's crew spent all night looking up and down the streets and at the beach for Pamela. She was found only a few blocks from her home on October 5, 1994, in the afternoon by a police dog.

Mitchell James Owen turned himself in 12 days later, knowing there was a massive search for him. That was when we found out that Owen was a 28-time offender at 39 years of age. Not bad, eh? More than one offence a year since the age of 18.

Can we guess how many offences he had as a young offender? And I know he was a young offender. Until 1982, his offences were theft, carrying a concealed weapon, armed robbery, assault, narcotics, mischief, and breaking and entering, just to name a few of the things.

On July 7, 1982, which happened to have been Pam's fourth birthday, he raped a girl in Vancouver and left her for dead. He got 10 years and was called a walking timebomb by the judge at that time. He served seven years of that sentence, then was out again on March 28, 1989, with no rehabilitation.

.1140

On October 12, 1989, he was back in again, having been charged with possessing weapons, assaulting a police officer, and kicking out the windows of a cruiser. In November 1993 he was released again after serving the full 10 years for the rape, including charges he served concurrently. I love that word, ``concurrent''.

On October 4, 1994, he took Pamela's life. Are we surprised he reached this point? I don't think so.

During the preliminary trial, his brother testified against him for us. He said he knew that he was capable of murder, yet they still let him out again. There were 43 witnesses at this preliminary.

He had been picked up the day before he murdered Pamela by the White Rock police, and he was released. But the Surrey RCMP were not even aware this predator was in town.

On October 4 he had bothered people all day long. He had even stolen money, a cellular phone, and things from a hair salon. He had walked into the house of an elderly man and lady and scared them half to death. I still can't understand why they never called the police that day.

The bottom line is that this monster, or walking timebomb, as the judge had called him, should never have been able to walk the street again, but the revolving door allowed him out time and time again.

I will never believe that he can be rehabilitated. Isn't it incredible that a 28-time offender finally commits first degree murder? This man isn't even deemed a dangerous offender at this time.

The crown said he got the most one can get for first degree murder. He pleaded guilty in March 1995. He got a life sentence, 25 years, which we all know isn't true because of section 745, the famous faint hope clause, which could possibly let him back on the street again after 15 years to get someone else's child.

He should never walk our streets again. Furthermore, he should have been stopped years ago, especially after he raped in 1982.

I think the justice system has let many law-abiding citizens down. I refuse to give up. Pammy did not die in vain. These repeat dangerous offenders, these pedophiles, these sexual offenders must be stopped.

I'm a firm believer in one small step at a time. But the victims are multiplying quickly, so please listen to our voices today and make changes to our system for the good of all law-abiding Canadian citizens. We can't bring Nina, Christopher, Pammy, or the many, many others back - the list goes on and on. But maybe we can save another family from the pain we are still suffering to this day.

Our lives will never be the same. Don't let these monsters continue to walk our streets over and over again to prey on the innocent.

I'm here today for many people who support Bill C-55 and Bill C-254. But is Bill C-55 tough enough? I don't think so. Let's get tougher in this country.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. and Mrs. Stephenson.

Mr. Jim Stephenson (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Our submission this morning consists of a written brief prepared by Anna and myself - it has been distributed to you - and our formal responses to the measures contained in Bill C-55 and Bill C-254.

.1145

It had been our intent to have our lawyer, Mr. Tim Danson, with us for purposes of this submission this morning. His legal background and expertise would have been more helpful certainly in addressing the charter issues associated with a regime of post-sentence indefinite detention. However, he is unavailable today and has prepared a brief on his own on the proposed Bill C-55 for the committee's consideration. That document has also been distributed here this morning. You should have a copy of that.

We had also wanted Dr. John Bradford of the Royal Ottawa Hospital, whose forensic psychiatric expertise in the area of sexual offenders is formidable. He no doubt would have been very helpful in terms of the empirical evidence that would have accompanied any testimony he would provide this committee. Unfortunately, he was not able to be here.

Finally, we have included in our submission for you this morning copies of a paper prepared jointly with our lawyer in 1995 and distributed to every elected MP and MPP and member of the Senate in this country. It is titled ``Sexual Predator Law: Protecting Our Children'', and you should have a copy of that also. This paper focuses on the charter challenges that many feel would defeat any sexual predator style of legislation. It is certainly worth the committee's effort to consider its contents and its deliberations.

For this morning it is my intention to read briefly from our brief. I don't intend this morning to go through it in detail. For the most part, it would repeat a number of witnesses' testimony that you've heard over the last few days and quite possibly duplicate what you've heard this morning. I don't think it's necessary to go over it on the record. Certainly you have copies. It's detailed in our brief.

On Father's Day, the morning of Sunday, June 19, 1988, the blood of our eleven-year-old son stained dark a wooded section of a field in north Brampton. Christopher had been abducted while shopping with his mother and younger sister at a local mall two days previous and forced at knife point to an adjacent field, where he was brutally raped. Following the attack he was forced by his abductor to a nearby basement apartment, where over the next 24 hours he would be repeatedly beaten and raped again. The next evening Christopher would be led, bound and blindfolded, to another field. Still bound, he was repeatedly stabbed in the neck and left alone to bleed to death.

The events of that weekend eventually led to an unprecedented five-and-a-half-month inquiry into the circumstances of this tragic death. Evidence from the inquest revealed how one Joseph Fredericks, a known repeat sex offender, who had been assessed a dangerous homosexual pedophile, had been released on mandatory supervision while serving a sentence for a violent sexual assault on a young boy in the Ottawa area some three years earlier.

Due to evidentiary and witness problems - and this is a theme I want to come back to - an attempt to file a dangerous offender application at that time had been thwarted, and the crown was forced to enter into a plea bargain. Correction authorities subsequently had expert knowledge that Fredericks would reoffend. More importantly, they knew that the offence would very likely result in death. Due to existing legislation, however, there was absolutely nothing they could do to keep Joseph Fredericks off the streets.

An inquest commenced in the fall of 1992 proceeded to expose how the Canadian correctional system regularly dealt with and routinely released dangerous repeat offenders. Canadians everywhere raged against the government and against a system that would knowingly leave them and members of their families vulnerable to known violent offenders.

.1150

The inquest also introduced a new term to Canadians. ``Sexual predator'' best described Joseph Fredericks and his like: a person with a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him likely to commit acts of a sexually predatory nature. The term quickly came to mean the worst type of repeat violent sex offender.

In January 1993 the inquest jury presented a total of 72 recommendations for legislative improvements and practices for dealing with high-risk sexual offenders. The keynote recommendation, however, called for the immediate creation of legislation permitting the continued detention of sexually violent predators beyond the expiration of their finite sentences.

In May 1993, some five months later, then federal Solicitor General Doug Lewis announced new legislation whose core element focused on indefinite detention of high-risk offenders.

With the federal election and subsequent changes in government later that same year, however, those legislative proposals died on the order table.

If you were to visit the Brampton field today where Christopher's life was so brutally ended, there would be nothing on that landscape to mark what took place nearly nine years ago. There would be no trace of the failure of Canada's justice system to protect its most vulnerable members from well-known violent criminals. There would be no trace of the tragedy the criminal justice system had sanctioned by abdicating its responsibility for that action.

As Canadians today view the landscape of the country's justice system, what measures would they find that their elected representatives had taken to protect them from the likes of Joseph Fredericks, Clifford Olson, and Doug Worth? Our answer to that is simply, ``Little - deadly little''.

The rest of our brief deals with our comments on Bills C-55 and C-254. I'll move along to the conclusion comments in the brief.

Our concerns lie with the need to provide judicial and correctional authorities the legislative power to assess prior to release the risk that a violent repeat sex offender presents to reoffend. That's all. In those circumstances that an individual is considered to be a dangerous sexual predator, the appropriate authorities must have the means by which to impose any indefinite detention restrictions available.

A sexual predator regime is a legislative scheme that would ensure that sexual predators are kept off the streets and placed in a secure setting until such time as they no longer represent a threat to public safety. The law would apply to predators who would otherwise be released following completion of their criminal prison sentence for a previous offence. Such a law ought to contain comprehensive due process protections as well as a component for treatment. We believe firmly in that.

It is accepted generally that this offender group is probably one-half of one percent of the entire criminal population, and it is therefore a small and identifiable group that such legislation would be focused upon.

Provided the legislation is drafted with clarity and precision, we have absolutely no doubt it would survive any charter challenge. The creation of such legislation permitting continued detention provides the only meaningful safety net for protection from sexually violent repeat offenders.

We are not now and will never be persuaded by those who cling to the mantra that such legislation would be unconstitutional and who refuse to move on such a proposal.

We believe that Bill C-254's proposal that criteria similar to the dangerous offender legislation presently available at the front end of the sentence be available at the end of an offender's sentence is a more direct and legitimate attempt to deal with the problem of what to do with offenders who are known to be extremely dangerous and who are approaching the end of sentence. We therefore urge this committee to review the post-sentence detention recommendations of that bill very closely as it considers the issues before it.

.1155

The initiatives the two bills contain are simply that - they are initiatives, or first steps on a journey. There remains much ground to be covered before the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person of our most vulnerable citizens are properly secured and protected from those who would otherwise do them serious and deadly harm.

In closing, to those individuals, in particular to Ms Val Meredith, whose hard and dedicated work has gone into preparing the legislative measures before us, we extend a sincere thank you. To those who have supported and encouraged the proposed changes, particularly Mr. Gray and Mr. Rock, we owe particular gratitude. Finally, to the members of this committee, who now have both an opportunity and a responsibility to determine the future landscape of our justice and correctional systems, we extend our genuine hope that their decisions will be both courageous and reflect the grave issues before them.

Thank you.

The Chair: Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair, and to all of you, thank you for taking time and coming out. I know it's hard sometimes to share your stories.

For the most part, you didn't deal with some of the specifics. I guess that's probably in your brief - the legislative differences. But I would like to ask you directly - and Mr. Stephenson, you've made it very clear that Bill C-254 would deal more specifically with the issue - do you, as a group representing many victims across this country, see this as a first step and that it will go beyond this, that Canadians will insist it go beyond this point?

Ms de Villiers: Yes, absolutely. As I have just alluded to very briefly in my brief, this bill seems to me to be quite a marked philosophical change in legislation. That's why there's been all the anxiety; it's because we're looking at a way of preventing acts before they occur, which traditionally has not been the way the justice system works. The justice system usually waits for a victim and an offence and then deals with that.

So when we looked at Bill C-55 we thought this was a very welcome opening up of a vision. And I have to commend Mr. Rock and Mr. Gray for this, because they are beginning to look creatively at what in fact is crime prevention at its most elementary. If we are to look at justice as we look at health - and the two models are very similar - it's absolutely untenable to think we could suggest we have a health system in this country that would not immediately tackle a few absolutely deadly viruses in a very proactive way. The example is there.

Where you have a clearly identified danger and with an escalating pattern of behaviour - which we know very well indicates probably there will be not only an escalation of the nature, but often an escalating number as the offenders begin to spiral out, as it were - we have to deal with that. It is absolutely untenable that we would sit back and wait for the next child.

Along with all young women, or young men, or old men, and as a woman who is feeling extraordinarily elderly, I don't want to be a victim either. When I started this I was on Cross Country Checkup, which was one of the first things I did. It's a radio program, and it's very unnerving because you sit alone in a dark studio and you're talking to voices out of the black and they don't tell you when you can speak or anything. It's very frightening.

.1200

We were talking about Wray Budreo, the pedophile who was being released and who in fact had broken probation four times and each time attacked about another four children. My question at that time for the Deputy Solicitor General was, one, how many children are too many? Give me a number: one, twenty-five, three? That's the first question. Secondly, how many times can we in the public be expected to accept the fact that this person will continue to have chances?

Those are hard questions, because we're dealing with people. It's far easier if you're dealing with offences of the state against a person, which is why the charter tends to favour the offender rather than the victim, because you're protecting the individual from the state.

When we are looking at a victim and an offender, all too often the victims are the dead, or they're so debilitated and unattractive that they can't speak. So we're being asked to deal quite harshly with one person in order to protect another person. If that person doesn't have a face yet, we're asking a lot of Canadian society. The trouble is this is one of the hard questions. We have to start thinking of that unknown victim, and I suggest this is what we're doing here.

From the point of view of the legislation itself, I think it's a welcome start. But as I said, I don't think it begins to address that very difficult question of what do we do with the people who've escaped dangerous offender, or are too bad for long term. Are we going to wait for warrant expiry and say we're going to let them out and wait to see what they do? That is where I would like to commend you for that.

It is a very welcome beginning, and I think we all feel that way. I feel there are enough checks and balances built into it to allow us some humanity and some redirection if in fact there's a change in behaviour. I would urge that you think of it this way.

One last thing. As somebody who speaks for victims I have become extremely defensive at always being asked about the cost of incarceration and the numbers. Quite frankly, that's not my problem, and I would suggest it's not your problem. Your problem is to write legislation that captures a need in society today.

Looking at the newspapers, at the moment we have in Metro Toronto, in Peel, and in Halton a rash of pedophiles attacking children in washrooms. So to suggest that the media are creating this problem or that victims are overreacting and parents are overreacting is ridiculous. It's something that's happening at the moment in society, and any viable justice system must address those problems.

Personally, I don't think the problems of overcrowding and cost and all that should be something that exercises you. I do think what should exercise you, however, is you can ask for assurances that the infrastructure will be put in place somehow to support this, and if we have to ask for more money or more prisons or more parole officers, so be it. I get very defensive about it, and personally I think as legislative officers you should as well. You have to write good legislation for us and then let Mr. Gray and Ole Ingstrup and so on deal with their problems over there. That is from the heart, and you may quote me.

Thank you.

Ms Meredith: Speaking of writing good legislation, I want to go back to Bill C-55 and I want to talk about a bill that is trying to encompass many factions.

I don't know if you agree with me, but I feel that it may even be watering down the intent of the bill when you start talking about electronic monitoring for individuals. I don't think dangerous offender legislation ever meant to deal with the general population, but a very specific few in number. I believe the number Mr. Stephenson gave us was half of one percent. So in bringing that aspect to this legislation, do you feel it's going to help at all? Do you feel you can put an electronic bracelet on somebody who may have a potential of reoffending of a sexual nature, of a violent nature?

.1205

Ms de Villiers: I'm glad that in fact it's been suggested. That's why we're asking for a five-year review, because there is a huge problem with domestic violence, or familial violence, or whatever. And I know that the Attorney General of Ontario very recently has signed two dangerous offender applications for very dangerous men in domestic situations. But they obviously have had to show the extreme danger in different relationships.

We tend to think of sexual predators and violent high-risk offenders as being somebody outside. In our case, it's a stranger. One of the reasons you don't get women sitting here who have dealt with this within their homes is all the social and professional reasons, but very many of them are facing very high-risk situations, where in fact it is extremely difficult to keep people away. And the electronic monitoring has been used quite often to protect the victim from those people. They wear the bracelets and they push the alarm button. It's a way of the police getting to them quickly.

I feel that electronic monitoring actually is applicable there: that if they get within so many blocks of a certain dwelling an alarm will go off. This is not to capture some predator who runs around picking off strangers. That's my interpretation. I don't know if you've heard that before. In that case, I think it's necessary.

I think all too much attention is actually being paid to it. I think electronic monitoring, as Steve said, is just a tool, quite honestly.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation to the committee. I know you lived through every parent's nightmare. Getting to some of the issues, I was reading one of the briefs, prepared by Mr. Danson, where he mentions a number of convicted offenders, and also mentions Paul Bernardo. We had a group that talked to us about allocation of resources, about what we can spend within the total envelope of justice - and I know you're saying we shouldn't have consideration for that. But the thing that came to my mind, and comes to everybody's mind, is when you get to Bernardo, if we had another DNA technician and they had been up to date on their DNA testing, we would have had less rape and we could have avoided some murders. So resource allocation does have an important role.

When I look at what's happening in my own province of Ontario, where many of the resources that are available for victims, offenders, community corrections, and community justice groups are fast disappearing in what became infamous as the mega-week in the province of Ontario, I have great concern, and I'm sure you would, sitting on the National Crime Prevention Council. We did one of those things at the level of Waterloo region. We actually established a council at the local level, where we have the judges and the crown attorneys and broad representation from the community, sitting on a committee that is grappling with how we make our community a safer community. How do we have the early alarm systems and community supports to try to minimize crime and the cost of crime, in human terms as well as financial terms, and how can we do better? You know, everybody is greatly alarmed about what is happening, and I wonder to what extent we can make the point that not having enough resources merely victimizes the victims and makes the situation a lot worse.

.1210

Ms de Villiers: I'm very glad you brought it up. I'm wearing my other hat, but in CAVEAT, groups such as Marilyn's group and individuals apply to us on almost a daily basis, asking how they can organize and work towards change. Like Blanche DuBois in Tennessee Williams' play, I depend on the generosity of strangers. We're volunteers, so we don't have much money, and this is a great problem.

This year, in a proactive sense, instead of having a big conference we're actually having regional conferences called Mobilizing the Community. We're bringing together all the interested parties within the community and trying to pool those resources and work together. Very often you find that people are at cross-purposes.

This is of huge concern, and my answer to you, first of all, is I think it's going to have to go down to people working together in smaller groups.

If we're going to look at allocation from a government point of view, however, I feel very strongly that there is triage in health care and that we target certain resources to the most urgently needed areas. I mean, this is a small area, and not that many people - 450, I think, or 452. They say there may be four times that number, maybe 2,000, dangerous offenders, in addition to the numbers I have now. Don't correct me, because I don't have them in front of me. But it is not a huge number of people.

The point is those people, if you listen to Owen's record, Fredericks's record, and Jonathon Yeo's record, create terrible harm to a huge number of people.

I think it shows extreme lack of administrative organization to suggest that we cannot find resources to support a bill that is targeted at the worst of the worst and the most dangerous of the most dangerous to the most vulnerable members of our society. That's what the Auditor General said in his report. He said exactly that, if you read it; that's why I put it in. He said that the allocation of existing resources, enormous resources, was suspect. You can read it; I put it here.

Quite frankly, I don't think there's any excuse not to target the necessary resources to support this legislation. There is no excuse.

Mr. Telegdi: To the extent we know we're dealing with previous offenders, yes, and that's why I said -

Ms de Villiers: That's Bill C-55, right.

Mr. Telegdi: We can grant that.

Ms de Villiers: Absolutely.

Mr. Telegdi: But when you're looking at people like Bernardo, we have to have money in other parts of the system.

Ms de Villiers: Absolutely, and there we come to the hospital analogy again. If we say we do not have enough money for labs that will be able to analyse a biopsy for cancer, and we can't afford to spend money there but can spend it on X, Y, Z elsewhere, we're doing the same thing. If we say we can't have enough DNA technicians.... I mean, there was one woman; it was in early days. She was backed up for nearly three years. That is a critical part of DNA labs.

I obviously think it's a mismatch of triage. Personally, if I were making a recommendation right now, I would say that we request that Correctional Service Canada, in this case, target the resources necessary to address this very high-risk area, and that would mean the DNA banks and everything else. That's what I think.

.1215

Mr. Stephenson: I know that question was not directed at me in particular. I think it was directed to the table here. I'd like to answer it.

What we're suggesting is not creating an elaborate infrastructure that is going to be resource-consuming. We recognize that resources are scarce and they have to be marshalled properly. All we're suggesting is that we have psychiatrists and corrections people in place already who recognize as part of their current duties the assessments of inmates, people we know - not individuals who haven't been brought before the courts yet, but people who have been charged, who have been brought before the courts and have been convicted of serious violent offences and violent sexual offences. We know they're in the system; we have them before us and the experts are already on staff. Those resources are already in place. We're not suggesting that the government create new legislation that follows through with the creation of an additional infrastructure; that infrastructure is in place.

All we're saying is devise the legislation in such a way that we listen to the advice of those psychiatrists and those people who are able to read these individuals, and take them seriously, because right now we don't. Right now Corrections Canada will listen to a psychiatrist in an assessment that is submitted as part of a release program. Very seldom is that psychiatric assessment utilized for purposes of detention.

I would think that the intent of the proposed legislation we speak about is to utilize those existing resources as they are presently in place, as they presently exist. Don't go out and re-create the wheel. It's already there; it's just not working properly.

I don't know whether that answers your question.

We can't talk today about the problems of resource allocation that face the entire justice system across the country. This legislation and our interest is not directed at addressing that, in all due respect. What we're here to talk about today and what these bills address is the effort the government has made, or should be making, in terms of dealing with dangerous repeat sex offenders, the ones we know about and the ones we have in prisons. They're in institutions. What do you do when you're the individual who is sitting there observing that type of an offender and knowing there is nothing you can do except await the end of sentence and open the door for them? That's the best you can do under the existing legislation. That isn't enough.

I don't want to direct my anger at you. That's not my intent. If it comes across that way, please.... There is an anger I have; that's for certain. But what do you do? What do we do when we know that these people are there and all we can currently do, with the legislation that currently exists, is open the door for them. That's all we can do. That isn't enough.

As I sit here and listen to the comments that have been made at the table here, which I agree with, I sit here somewhat intimidated by the dark. Victims have been kept in the dark for too long a period. I don't know whether this is intended or not. I did listen to Madam Chair's explanation as to the lighting problems here. But it reminds me of a thought I had this morning, and it has to do with a light bulb. The question is how many real men does it take to change a light bulb?

Ms Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair): There are a whole bunch of answers to that.

Mr. Stephenson: I'm sure there are. The answer I want to submit to the committee today is none - real men are not afraid of the dark. I'll tell you, there are a lot of people out there who are afraid of the dark, and they're afraid of the dark and sinister threat represented by the small offender population that we tend to continue to ignore and disregard.

.1220

To ask another question, how many politicians does it take to introduce legislation that will protect communities and families from this type of offender? I can ask that question because I'm going to suggest an answer to you. It takes as many conscientious and concerned politicians as there are, and that's all.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you, Mr. Stephenson.

Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith: I just want to say that the reason for my being here is to listen to what you have to say, and I don't think I'm in a position to say it better than you can.

I want to thank you all for taking the time and effort to come here to share with this committee the other side of the issue, which we so often don't hear and don't take into consideration in our debates. I think it's very important that a human face be put on legislation: how will these pieces of legislation affect the public, affect Canadians in general? You've brought that to this committee, and I thank you for it.

Ms Anna Stephenson (Individual Presentation): To make just one comment to all of you, I never thought that I would be a victim, that my son would be killed. I always thought it happened in the movies or you would hear about it from newspapers, but that it would never happen to you. I would like to ask the committee that when you're looking at these proposals and hearing our views, you think about your families. Nobody thinks that it will ever happen to them until it happens, and then all of a sudden you become something else.

As Canadians we don't expect the government to protect us from people or that somebody next door will come up with a gun and shoot. If they're not known by the system, Canadians don't expect the government to say, well, you knew about it, so why didn't you do something? If you know about criminals, if they're in your system, if you know how bad they are, how in all conscience can you release them and say you couldn't do anything about it? How can you do that when you know they're a threat? It's one thing if you don't know, but once you know they're a threat, you have a responsibility to everybody, and especially the children of Canada, to do something about it.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you.

I wanted to add to your comments, Mrs. de Villiers, about the program in which the potential victim wears a monitor and there's a buzzing. I know that there's a security company in Mississauga that has a pilot project going. I was there when they launched it. For the life of me, I can't remember which security company it was, but the project was in coordination with the local police. I'm not sure that we've done any follow-up to see how it went. It covered only a very few people, but it seemed to have been able to provide assurance to those few individuals and perhaps prevent a few more individuals from becoming victimized. I think it was based on a U.S. program, and maybe we should get some more information about it.

I thank you all very much for coming from short distances and from long and giving us your time and input. It's very important to our work. Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page