Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 76 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 9, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-69, to amend the Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence, met this day at 11:04 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are continuing our study of Bill C-69, to amend the Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence. Our witness is Ms Campbell, who will bring us up to date with what happened in the spring regarding our concerns about the bill. She will then give us an overview.
Ms Mary Campbell, Director, Corrections Policy, Department of the Solicitor General of Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to return here today. As you indicated, subject to the wishes of the committee, I will briefly recap what Bill C-69 is about and the concerns the committee expressed when we last met. I will then walk through the proposed amendments that I hope you have all received.
Bill C-69 amends the Criminal Records Act, which was created in 1970. It was intended to remove the stigma attached to having a criminal record for those people who have demonstrated that they have returned to a law-abiding lifestyle. In general, the act has worked quite well over the years. From its inception, the act has had within it the authority for the Solicitor General to unseal pardons under specified circumstances and to revoke pardons, again under specified circumstances.
In the past decades, a lot of concern arose generally across the country about sex offenders. We saw action taken on a number of fronts to address sex offending, for example, the creation of some new offences in the Criminal Code and testimonial protection for victims who are appearing as witnesses. We saw the creation more recently of a new category of long-term offender that attaches to sex offenders a period of supervision in the community. We also heard about the national screening system when we last met, which was created in 1994 to help voluntary organizations screen their employees to ensure that those people who are applying for these positions are the most suitable candidates and do not put children or other adults at risk.
A lot of concern was raised about sex offenders. To that end, a lot of action was taken on different fronts and at different stages in the criminal justice system. At the same time, a lot of concerns were raised at the post-sentencing stage about sex offenders. We started to hear, for example, about calls to create a national sex offender registry and other measures that might be taken at the end of sentence. The response to the registry issue was that in Canada, unlike the United States, we do have a national registry, namely, CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre. However, concerns were raised about whether CPIC was functioning as effectively as it could and, in particular, how pardoned records were treated on CPIC. There was also a concern about whether or not we could have a more effective procedure based on CPIC that would still allow us to ensure that, in the case of screening, there was some better access to those pardoned records.
I am giving you the short context behind Bill C-69. The most immediate impetus was a federal, provincial, and territorial working group established by ministers, which reported in October of 1998 in a document entitled "Information Systems on Sex Offenders Against Children and Other Vulnerable Groups." This report made 10 recommendations to improve how we handle information about sex offenders. Several of those recommendations focussed on this one issue of pardoned records of sex offenders on CPIC. All provincial and territorial ministers agreed with the recommendations in this report, which involved great collaboration and great consensus. The particular recommendation that then became Bill C-69 was this system to flag certain pardon records on CPIC.
To explain how CPIC works, if an offender receives a pardon, the pardon file is not destroyed, it is sealed and set apart. On CPIC, it would appear in a separate, sealed database. When a screening or a records check is done, unless fingerprints are submitted, that pardon record would not appear. If you applied for a job with Scouts Canada, for example, and you did not submit fingerprints -- and, not all organizations require fingerprints up front -- you would go to the police station and the screening check would be done but the pardon record would not necessarily appear. There was some concern that we needed to make a limited exception on CPIC so that at least the screening officer would see an indication that there was a pardon record and that pardon record could, potentially, be unsealed and passed on to the voluntary organization.
Bill C-69 builds in a number of procedural protections and the consent of the applicant is central to this process. The applicant must sign a consent form indicating that he or she knows that this screening will be done and that the screening may reveal a pardoned record. The flag merely alerts the police officer doing the screening that if this is a screening inquiry they should submit fingerprints, and that will access the pardon data bank.
If a pardon record is revealed in this process, it is not automatically unsealed. We felt that this was another important procedural protection. The pardon record would be sent to the Solicitor General, who would or would not approve the unsealing. Included in the regulations is the set of factors that the minister must consider in deciding whether to unseal the record.
If the minister agrees to the unsealing, the information would then normally be passed back to the applicant, who must then make a decision whether to continue with the application to Scouts Canada, or whomever. The applicant may wish to have a discussion with the organization about that record.
One of the things that we talked about the last time was that a criminal record check is one part of a good screening system, Paddy Bowan, from Volunteer Canada, was quite emphatic about the importance of the screening; however, they have a 10-step screening process, of which this is simply one step. Similarly, Bill C-69 is not the whole answer to the problem of sex offending. It is one part of the picture, nonetheless an important part, and is something to fill a gap that ministers felt existed.
I will turn now to the concerns that were raised last time and in subsequent correspondence. It seemed that there were two major concerns. The first was the lack of specificity about the schedule of offences, that it did not clearly state in the act that these were to be sex offences. The second concern was on the balance between what appeared in the act and what would appear in the regulations.
In response, the minister has provided to you, I believe, the motions, and essentially these do three things. The first is that, in the bill, in the two spots where the offences are referred to, the word "sexual" has been placed in front of them so they now clearly say this is a list of sexual offences. Second, the definitions of "children" and "vulnerable persons" have been moved from the regulations into the proposed act, which was a concern when we last met. Third, the list of offences itself has been moved from the regulations to the proposed act so it is now a schedule to the proposed legislation and can be amended by Order in Council.
Those are the main changes that have been put before you. That is my summary at this point. I am happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman: I could read into the record the letter that I sent to the Solicitor General; however, it is probably not necessary because we all have copies of it. The letter dealt with our concerns about clauses 8 and 9. Looking through the proposed amendments and the draft regulations, you appear to have pretty well answered all the concerns that were raised in the committee and in that letter.
Senator Bryden: I wonder if the committee would prefer that you read your letter and the minister's reply and put it on the record. That would probably be valuable, given that the hard copy of these letters will not be in the same place as the record of these proceedings.
Senator Nolin: I appreciate the letter from the minister and the willingness to help the committee. I believe it would be very fair to him to do that.
The Chairman: My letter is June 16, 1999 and is addressed to the Honourable Lawrence MacAulay.
Dear Minister MacAulay:
Let me first thank you for making yourself available to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on June 14 with respect to the committee's consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act.
As you were made aware, however, Members of the committee are concerned about the bill as currently drafted. Specifically, the committee is troubled by the lack of any express reference to the intent of the bill; that is, that it would pertain to records of pardoned sexual offences. Moreover, clause 8 would propose to leave the listing of offences covered by the bill to the Governor in Council. Indeed, the proposed regulation-making powers in clause 9 are troubling in that they appear to remove substantial policy matters from parliamentary scrutiny. For example, we fail to understand why such important terms as "children" and "vulnerable persons" could not be defined in the legislation, as opposed to in the regulations. This committee is concerned about the erosion of the supremacy of Parliament through the excessive use of regulatory powers. We are especially concerned that the criminal law be clear to all Canadians; therefore, the use of regulations in this area must be carefully circumscribed.
Some members of the committee are also concerned about some underlying policy considerations of the bill. There is clearly a tension between the rehabilitative objectives of the pardon system and the need to protect children and other vulnerable groups in society.
We would ask you to review Bill C-69 in light of concerns raised in the course of the committee hearings. As you know, the committee will be sitting in September and would be available to address the bill further at that time.
The Solicitor General responded on July 6. That letter is as follows:
Dear Senator Milne:
Thank you for your letter dated June 16, 1999, regarding the concerns expressed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs after their review of Bill C-69. I appreciated receiving these comments so quickly after my appearance before the committee.
Allow me to begin by indicating clearly that the basic intent of Bill C-69 is to protect children and other vulnerable people from sex offenders by ensuring that the criminal records of pardoned sex offenders are available for background checks. This has always been the main objective of Bill C-69. I agree that the bill's aim of protecting children from potential sexual offenders should be referenced directly in the Criminal Records Act (CRA).
With respect to the committee's concerns regarding the erosion of parliamentary powers through the excessive use of regulations, I can assure the members of the Standing Committee that this is clearly not my intent. I am therefore prepared to recommend that the regulations be further examined with a view to placing them directly in the Act where appropriate. This would include, for example, the definitions of $children' and $vulnerable persons' as well as the list of offences to be flagged. This list could be removed from the Regulations into a schedule to the Act but would be amendable by Order in Council. This is the same process used for the Corrections and Conditional Release Act schedules of offences and more recently in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
In response to the committee's concerns that the Bill might compromise the rehabilitative goals of the pardons process, I would note that the Bill makes only a small exception to the benefits provided by a pardon. It proposes a very narrowly targeted flagging scheme, with safeguards for the pardon holder's rights. It applies only to a record for specified sex offences that could be considered to pose a heightened risk to children and other vulnerable groups if that person were in a position of trust. The flag will come into play only when a person applies for a position of trust and the applicant's written consent will always be required before the record search can be conducted. If the applicant does not want his active or pardoned record disclosed he can withhold or cancel his consent and simply withdraw from the application process. If the applicant does give consent, the authority of the Solicitor General would still be needed to unseal the record. The discretionary nature of the authority of the Solicitor General is another important safeguard to prevent the arbitrary disclosure of protected records and the unintended and unwarranted negative consequences that could result.
Officials from my Department will be consulting with their counterparts from Justice shortly in order to ensure that Bill C-69 is reviewed in light of the concerns raised by the Standing Committee. It is my hope that draft amendments to address these matters will be prepared before the end of August and in advance of the Senate reconvening in early September.
I am confident that the committee will be satisfied with the changes that will be proposed.
I look forward to discussing this matter with you again soon.
On September 1, I received a shorter letter.
I am writing further to my letter of July 6, 1999, regarding the review of Bill C-69 by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. You may recall I wrote to you in response to your letter dated June 16, following my appearance before the committee.
As promised, I am pleased to provide you with the attached motions to amend Bill C-69 along with the amended regulations. I believe these amendments address the concerns raised by the Standing Committee as outlined in your letter.
With respect to the committee's concerns regarding the erosion of parliamentary powers through the excessive use of regulations, I am proposing the definitions of $children' and $vulnerable persons' as well as the list of offences to be flagged be placed directly in the Act. This list would be moved from the Regulations into a schedule to the Act and would be amendable by Order in Council. This is the same process used for the Corrections and Conditional Release Act schedules of offences and more recently in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
As well, I am proposing to clarify that sex offences are the target of the flagging system so that it is clearly understood that Bill C-69 is concerned with the protection of children and vulnerable persons from potential sexual offenders.
I would be pleased to provide any additional information or assistance to the committee.
And we have the additional information and assistance before us today.
Reading these through, I must congratulate the minister. I think he has done a fine job in responding to our concerns.
Senator Beaudoin: I had a concern respecting the erosion of powers of Parliament; however, I understand that that is now corrected. Having "children" and "vulnerable persons" defined in the proposed act is a positive step.
I have a concern about the list of offences. The list will be added to the proposed act. The letter states that the list would be amended by a simple Order in Council. We have similar provisions in other statutes.
Why do you need to have the power to amend or to strike out or to add or to modify that list by a simple Order in Council? Are you not destroying what you have erected?
Ms Campbell: It is important to view that in conjunction with the addition of the word "sexual" in the bill. It explicitly limits the types of offences that can appear on that schedule.
The principle reason was the feeling that the list of offences is more an administrative matter than rather than a substantive criminal one. Certainly there are consequences for anyone who has committed an offence that appears on that list, but this schedule does not create new offences, for example. It is more of an administrative matter.
Additionally, the list was developed in close collaboration with provincial officials and ministers, in particular police and prosecutors, who are ultimately major players in this process. After further reflection or experience, it may be found that it is inappropriate for a particular offence to be on the schedule or that some other offence should be included. It will not just be in cases where a new offence is created in the criminal code. It could simply be that we have overlooked something or one of our provincial partners feels that we have overlooked it. Hence, this provides a mechanism to take quick action to amend the schedule, through an open process.
I appreciate that the process will not be a full legislative one, but it will be an open process. Because the legislative process can be lengthy, and given that it is more of an administrative process than a substantive criminal jeopardy matter, an order-in-council process was seen to be reasonable.
Senator Beaudoin: It is in the schedule of the bill that you have the power to modify this any time by a simple Order in Council. You invoke the collaboration with the Crown attorney at the provincial level. That is very good, that is our system. However, you may still change everything in the schedule by a simple Order in Council. If you establish that you need such a power, I would agree. You say it is purely administrative, but it is also substantial.
Ms Campbell: I would not say it is purely administrative. I would say it falls more on that side of the ledger than on the criminal jeopardy side. I would not say it is purely an administrative matter, no.
The schedule cannot be amended to add theft from oyster beds because the word sexual now defines what can be on that schedule. It is limited as to what can be put on the schedule.
Senator Beaudoin: Perhaps my colleagues have questions on that as well.
The Chairman: I must say that your name is the only one on the list, senator.
Senator Beaudoin: Our concern last time was the erosion of the powers of Parliament. That has been corrected, and I thank the minister. It is very obvious that it is quite an improvement to define "children" and "vulnerable persons" in the proposed act. It cannot be otherwise, in my opinion. The only concern that I have is the schedule. If you may change that at any time by an Order in Council, the erosion of the powers of Parliament is corrected to a certain extent but not entirely.
I agree 100 per cent with the first change and, perhaps, 50 per cent with the second.
Senator Fraser: I have a follow-up question. It is a non-lawyer's question arising out of this.
Before I ask my question, I would just like to observe that Senator Nolin, in particular, should take some substantial credit, I think, for the fact that we are engaging in this improvement of the bill. He was the one who first and most vigorously raised some warning flags -- indeed, at a moment when I was ill-prepared to cope with them.
Further to Senator Beaudoin's question, it seems to me that we are protected against the use of this schedule as a catch-all by the fact that it specifies that the Governor General may only add or delete a reference to a sexual offence. As you observed, we cannot throw in theft from oyster beds or misdemeanours such as drunk and disorderly. That would protect us against the addition of unsuitable things.
If a future government decided to delete whole rafts of the offences in this schedule, in other words, to gut this bill, would that be acceptable or is there a legal provision to bar that? Could one go to court and argue that you cannot indirectly go against the will of Parliament in that way because Parliament clearly wanted sexual offences listed in this schedule?
Ms Campbell: That is an interesting question. I do not have an off-the-top-of-my-head answer to that. I think the power to delete probably means the power to delete whatever they decide to delete. I have been around since Schedule 1 to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was created in 1986, and I have never seen an offence deleted. Having made up its mind, Parliament rarely backtracks from offences that are listed.
It is an interesting question: If one were to delete 90 per cent of it, has one, in fact, gutted the intent of the legislation? I do not have an answer to that question. In my experience, it would be unlikely to happen.
Senator Nolin: Is an amendment to the schedule subject to the approval of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations?
Ms Campbell: It would follow the normal process.
Senator Beaudoin: Are you saying that it would go automatically to the parliamentary committee?
Ms Campbell: That is my understanding. Yes, regulatory changes follow that process.
Senator Nolin: Thank you for your good work and that of your colleagues during the summer.
Senator Moore: On June 14 when we were dealing with this bill, I had asked for some information. In response, you said that you would obtain from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics the number of convictions for sexual offences over the past 20 or 28 years. Were you able to get that information for us?
Ms Campbell: I have a little bit of information for you, senator. We do not keep very good statistics on conviction data, unfortunately. The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics has only recently started to keep conviction data from the courts. Even at that, we do not have every province participating in that. Thus, we still have some limitations.
Information from the RCMP indicates that from 1970 to 1998 they opened 2.4 million files. Of those 2.4 million, some 130,385 contained sex offences. I am told that that amounts to 5.5 per cent.
You can come at it a slightly different way. Data from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics for the period 1992-98 indicate that there are roughly 2,800 convictions per year for sex offences. That data does not include British Columbia, Manitoba, or New Brunswick.
The RCMP file data to which I just referred certainly comports with my experience as to the rough percentage of sex offending in terms of general offending. Is that helpful, senator?
Senator Moore: Yes, it is. Thank you.
Senator Andreychuk: Could you speak to the integrity of the pardon system? The groups that came before us were concerned about the fact that there are minimal safeguards for children by virtue of the flagging system in terms of the pardon. Does this really outweigh the need to have a pardon system that works?
We have now the ability for an Order in Council, which means that the list has the potential to change. That gives me greater concern about the pardon system. If everyone knows that a listed sexual offence might be subject to further scrutiny at a later date, even though a pardon was received, then there is a difficult job in educating the public. However, it might be possible. If you have a fluid list, it seems to me that you are undermining the pardon system even further.
Was this matter raised as an issue with provincial representation and with outside parties?
Ms Campbell: I think it is fair to say that it has been discussed extensively. The issue you raise is an extremely important one. It is the balance between what the Criminal Records Act is all about versus protection of children or other vulnerable people. This is at the heart of it.
There have been extensive discussions for quite a few years now about striking the right balance. My professional experience is that, rarely, is there a single right answer. It is always a question of balance. In terms of sex offences and sex offending where trauma is caused, this debate is extremely important. It is the minister's view that Bill C-69 strikes an appropriate balance. It retains the pardon system, which was in jeopardy. There are a number of people who have questioned the pardon system and the availability of pardons for sex offenders. There are others who feel equally strongly that sex offenders are not a monolithic group; that, in fact, some of these people do turn their lives around and the pardon should be available for those people who meet the test for the pardon. They have to meet the criteria.
Bill C-69 leaves the pardon in place for offenders who meet the criteria. However, it says, "Look, in very narrow circumstances, if you have a sex offence record, even a pardoned one, and if you want to work with children or vulnerable adults, then you will be subject to some scrutiny. You can go about your life in every other respect. However, if you have a pardon, that pardon is in place." Any time a record is unsealed it is only unsealed for the specific purpose. The pardon does not fall away.
As an example, if, in joining my own profession as a lawyer, I wanted to be admitted to the bar and I had something in my background that was particularly pertinent to the practice of law, then I would expect my professional organization to have some heightened concern about that.
Bill C-69 tries to strike a balance by keeping it quite focused. That immediately invites the other concern, which is: Why do it if its effect is so limited? As you say, senator, then why do it when it makes some incursion on the pardon process and its protection? What I have tried to indicate is that the process of responding to sex offending is multifaceted and incremental. I do not think any one step is the whole answer. Some steps are bigger than others. In the past half dozen years, a number of measures have been taken at various stages, whether it is in terms of law enforcement or at the prosecution stage or in terms of parole supervision. These measures try to fill the gaps at each stage, recognizing that no single one on its own will answer the whole problem.
In terms of pardons for sex offenders, if you have a sex offence record, then by all means apply for a pardon if you feel you meet the criteria. You may receive the pardon and you may then go about your life. However, if you choose to engage in this one particular activity you will be subject to some scrutiny. That is the balance behind the bill.
It is a balance that others might weigh differently. It has been discussed at great length with provincial officials, with people such as Ms Bowan from Volunteer Canada, and everyone who has a stake in this.
Senator Andreychuk: How will this be handled administratively, then? Let us say you have been given a pardon. Now you will have to add something to the pardon slip of any sexual offender indicating that they can go about their business, except if they apply for such and such a job.
Will that not cause more problems down the line because people will tend to hide more?
Ms Campbell: In terms of notification, anyone who applies for a position with a voluntary agency or an agency working with children or vulnerable persons will have to sign this written consent form where it will be abundantly clear to them that a pardon record may ultimately be revealed as part of this process. They will be on notice should they choose to do that.
Senator Andreychuk: I am saying that if a person is convicted of a sexual offence and then applies for a pardon in due course, will you then change your administrative systems to advise and alert the individual in question that there is a flagging system that might reveal their past offence if they apply for a job that has a sensitive designation under this act?
In other words, what are the consequences of what we have done? How will you convey that to someone who applies for a pardon so that they know the full consequences of it?
Ms Campbell: I cannot give you a definite answer except that your proposal sounds sensible. It is something that I will raise with National Parole Board officials. They issue the pardons and the notifications. One cannot expect the public to be always fully aware of changes by Parliament just from media accounts or otherwise. That particular issue is certainly one that I will raise with them, to see if they plan to add that.
Senator Lewis: It seems to me there is a difference here. Are you referring to anyone who has been convicted?
Senator Andreychuk: I refer to a sexual offender who has been convicted and suffered the consequences and who then applies for a pardon. I know the present process. I know what the paperwork looks like. It does not contemplate flagging of sexual offences. It does not contemplate a release of that record. It seems to me that we would be misleading these people if we did not notify them until such time as they are applying for some employment opportunity. We must to tell them at the point of pardon that it is a qualified pardon, in the sense that if you ever apply for a certain type of job you may be facing a decision about releasing that record.
Senator Lewis: That is after the pardon.
Senator Andreychuk: Yes.
Ms Campbell: Right now, a record can be unsealed. That provision is in the act. Anyone who has received one of the quarter of a million pardons that have been issued may face that process now. I am not sure whether the parole board currently advises people when they receive a pardon of these other aspects of the act which allow for unsealing the record or revoking the pardon. I will certainly look into that.
The Chairman: I would suggest that, at any rate, the person will be put on notice when they are presented with either Form 1 or Form 2, which are in the draft regulations. They must give consent for a criminal record check for a sexual offence for which a pardon has been granted or issued. This is probably a form required from everyone who applies for a job in these particular narrow circumstances. Either they fill it out and sign it or they just quietly vanish.
Senator Lewis: It would be up to the organization to request that form.
The Chairman: It would be up to the organization to require that everyone who applies fill out a form.
Senator Andreychuk: It is a question of public policy. We encourage people to abide by the law. To do that, they must understand the law. These conditions and qualifiers are becoming complex. A pardon is a pardon. I know it can be unsealed, but that is highly unlikely. That will be much more routine for sexual offenders. One would hope that we would also discourage these people, even if they have a pardon, from applying for these jobs. The sooner we let them know of the consequences of applying, the better. Why wait until they have applied for the job or wait for their consent? Surely they should know at the time of the pardon that they have a flagged file.
The Chairman: You are quite right.
Senator Moore: Ms Campbell, you indicated that, in the RCMP records, 130,385 sex offences were among the 2.4 million files opened. Of those 130,000, all were not convictions, correct?
Ms Campbell: No, there were 130,385 files, i.e. persons with sex offence records. I cannot tell you how many sex offences might be attached to each of those files.
Senator Moore: The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics showed 2,800 convictions per annum involving sexual offences?
Ms Campbell: Yes. I am advised by a parole board representative that, when an applicant is advised of the grant of a pardon, he or she is advised of the effects of the pardon. Certainly they are open to adding the particular flagging aspect to that notification that goes out.
Senator Moore: Back in June, it was mentioned that if this bill becomes law it would go into effect when CPIC is retooled in a couple of months' time. Has that happened? Has the information centre been updated yet?
Ms Campbell: It is my understanding that things are progressing. I am sorry; I do not have a definite answer for you.
The Chairman: Under the definitions in the proposed amendments to this bill, I notice that "vulnerable persons" means persons who are particularly vulnerable because of their age or their disability, handicap, or other circumstances, whether temporary or permanent.
"Handicap" is not a word that is used in reference to persons with a disability anymore. Are we taking a step backwards in our language here?
Ms Campbell: I know that that definition has been drawn from similar definitions that appear in other contexts. I am certainly open to the wish of the committee on this point. I appreciate your point. I am familiar with it.
Senator Beaudoin: What is the correct word?
The Chairman: "Disability" covers it.
Ms Campbell: I gather that that is what Volunteer Canada uses as their definition, to explain its source.
The Chairman: Legally, in most cases, we are beginning to use the word "disability"; we use "handicap" less often. That is just something to bear in mind.
Senator Grafstein: As I take the application of children and vulnerability for the criminal records, it only applies to pardons; is that correct?
Clause 9(1)(c) states:
...defining the expressions ``children'' and ``vulnerable persons'' for the purposes of section 6.3...
Clause 6(3) states that the act is amended to deal essentially with the question of pardons. I think the definition is a superb advance on trying to sort out one of our basic problems with our criminal justice system, which is to understand the nature of incarceration. This will not be of general application and it will be prospective; is that correct? In other words, all future criminal records will not have noted "children" or "vulnerable" as an example?
Ms Campbell: No.
Senator Grafstein: Is this purely for pardon purposes?
Ms Campbell: The purpose is more specific than that.
The definitions attach to the screening process, so what is flagged in the system will be the sex offences listed in the schedule regardless of who the victim was.
Senator Grafstein: So it is quite narrow in its application.
Ms Campbell: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: I have a general question relating to the policy of the department on this. Is there any work being done in the department to analyze criminal records and categorize them in terms of "children," "vulnerable persons," and "others," in order to better understand how people should be streamed in the incarceration process? Is there any thinking in the department to do this? I know that this is being done in Europe. I have done a bit of work on this over the summer because rates of incarceration came up last year. Are there any plans within the department to look at the question of appropriate streaming of incarcerated people with regard to rehabilitation?
Ms Campbell: We do quite a bit right now in relation to the nature of the sex offender's offence pattern. Currently, Correctional Services Canada looks quite closely at who the victim of the sex offence was and what is the person's offending pattern -- for example, whether they focus on children or on adults. That very much goes to the appropriate treatment.
We know from the research that if the treatment is not matched to a person's needs or risk, more harm than good can result. The correctional service does quite a bit of that.
In terms of whether we are able to do any analysis of pardons issued to people who prey on children or vulnerable adults, we do not have quite as good a system, unfortunately, the board being, as many organizations are, quite tightly resourced. They still do much of their data collection manually. We do not even have computer capacity to analyze the pardons that are granted. That is, obviously, something we would like to remedy. More important, on the rehabilitation side that you are speaking of, Correctional Services Canada is very good at targeting what their needs and risks are.
Senator Grafstein: This goes back to a question that I have asked of witnesses of this committee in the last year. The rate of incarceration per capita is still increasing. Some provinces are doing better than others in dealing with this. Last June, the department gave me a very good analysis in response to my question.
I am curious about data that has started to circulate in the United States on violent crimes, albeit not sex crimes, committed by people with deficits. We will use the word "vulnerability," but we are talking about people with mental deficits. Is the department doing any work to earmark people with deficits who have been or are about to be convicted of violent crimes?
Ms Campbell: Yes. Part of the assessment process is to assess the person's mental or emotional needs or risks. We still have a long way to go. We have only just begun to explore issues such as foetal alcohol syndrome.
Senator Grafstein: That is a major problem among the homeless in Toronto.
If you have any data or material, in addition to what I received from the Parliamentary Library via your department, I would appreciate seeing it.
Ms Campbell: I would be happy to send you what we have. Often people think that tougher sentences will solve the problem, and that is not always the case.
Senator Grafstein: That is obviously an issue for us, and that is another reason I am interested in this.
Ms Campbell: I would be happy to send you some very readable material.
The Chairman: There being no further questions, I thank you very much, Ms Campbell, for appearing before us today.
This committee adjourned.