Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 32, Evidence - June 2, 2015
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 2, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 3:03 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good day and welcome, colleagues, invited guests and members of the general public who are following today's proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We are meeting today to continue our study of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This is our third meeting on Bill C-26.
As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and also available via webcast on the www.parl.gc.ca website. You can find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the same website under "Senate Committees."
For our first panel today, please welcome Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Mr. Therrien is accompanied by Patricia Kosseim, Senior General Counsel and Director General, Legal Services, Policy and Research Branch of the commission. We will begin our session with an opening statement from Mr. Therrien. Sir, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: Honourable senators, my remarks today will focus on the amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, SOIRA, and the creation of the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database.
While Canadian courts have recognized that privacy is a quasi-constitutional right, it is not an absolute right. In certain cases, it can be restricted to achieve other important societal goals, including enhancing public safety and protecting the most vulnerable members of our society. However, with any proposed incursions into privacy, we need to evaluate beforehand whether these incursions are necessary and likely to be effective; whether they are proportional to the benefits that may be derived; and whether there are less privacy-intrusive measures that would achieve the same objective.
SOIRA received royal assent in 2004. The act imposes significant obligations on convicted sex offenders, including the requirement to register with the police, and provide regular updated information about where they are living, and other personal information. These are obligations that are not imposed on other offenders who have completed their sentences.
In previous appearances before parliamentary committees on the SOIRA, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has raised questions about the effectiveness of this registration scheme, and in 2009, we recommended a formal evaluation of the effectiveness of the legislation and the registry by an independent third party. To our knowledge, no publicly funded evaluation has been done. However, evaluations that have been done based on the experience in the United States suggest that there is little or no evidence that registration and notification laws are effective, either in terms of deterring sex offender recidivism or in reducing reported sex offences.
[English]
The high risk child sex offender database act will establish a publicly accessible database that contains information about persons who have been convicted of sexual offences against children and who pose a high risk of committing crimes of a sexual nature. Although this information will be limited to information that a police service or other public authority has made public, making it available on a national database will greatly expand the number of people who have access to the information.
Based on the research we have read, we at the OPC are concerned that the publicly accessible high risk offender database proposal may not be a proportionate or an effective response to the very problem it is trying to address. This is in part because law enforcement agencies already have access to information about registered sex offenders through the National Sex Offender Registry and other databases such as CPIC. So, we ask, how will the publicly available database increase the likelihood of arrest or reduce the risk of recidivism? We have not seen any evidence of such outcomes.
There is, however, research that supports the view that laws that reduce the privacy of sex offenders make rehabilitation and reintegration more difficult. Ultimately, this could increase the rate of recidivism.
A publicly accessible database also creates a risk of vigilantism as recognized on provincial dangerous offender websites such as the one in place in Alberta and increases the risk that fears of being attacked or harassed will drive offenders underground. There is evidence that similar databases in the United States have led to the killing of sex offenders in the community.
To be clear, we recognize the rights of victims of sexual offenders, and we understand the importance of the problem that this bill is attempting to address. However, we urge the committee to look carefully at the likely effectiveness of this proposal.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Senator Plett: Thank you, sir, for being here. I have two questions for you. The first one deals with the government's priority that they place in this bill and other victims' rights bills. Indeed, our government's first priority is the safety and well-being of law-abiding Canadians, specifically the protection of our most vulnerable, our children, and our primary concern is not whether it is awkward for a sex offender when his or her name is released to the public.
If new personal information was now made publicly accessible, that would need to be considered. But we are not doing that. We are simply widening the scope so that all Canadians can receive consistent access to information about high-risk child sex offenders.
Would you care to respond to that?
Mr. Therrien: Sure. As I indicated, I accept that the objective of the bill is to protect victims. The concerns that we're putting forward for consideration essentially are less the degree of comfort of offenders, although offenders, like all Canadians, have privacy rights — but our main concern has to do with the effectiveness of the particular measure before you, which is to make public to all Canadians, as you say, personal information as to the whereabouts of people who have previously been convicted of sexual offences.
I understand the objective. I'm asking you to consider if it is effective. Is there evidence that a system like this is and has been effective where it has been in place? We've looked carefully for such evidence, and we have not seen any.
Senator Plett: I won't belabour that point. I'll just make an observation to that. Your job as Privacy Commissioner, though, is more to make sure that somebody's rights aren't breached as opposed to whether a certain bill is effective. Your job is to make sure that privacy isn't being breached.
Mr. Therrien: Actually, it is clear that the publication of personal details about offenders is the disclosure of personal information. It therefore raises privacy issues. That's the first point.
Does that mean it should not happen? Our answer is that there are situations where the disclosure of information — which is a reduction, or a violation in the worst case, but let's say a reduction of privacy rights — can be justifiable, provided it is done for a reason that is effective and proportionate.
That is the link that I'm making between the effectiveness of the measure and whether that measure can be justified in reducing privacy rights. Here, based on our research — you may have other research, but based on what we have read — there is no evidence that this type of measure, which has been in place in other areas, such as in the U.S. and in certain Canadian provinces, has been effective for the purpose it sets out to be.
That's the relationship I make between privacy reductions and the effectiveness of measures that can have that effect.
Senator Plett: Thank you. One more quick question. You said in the House of Commons, and you alluded to it here in your comments again this afternoon, that this type of publicly accessible database — and I think this is a quote — "increases the risk that fears of being attacked or harassed will drive offenders underground." To me, this seems to be a bit of a red herring.
How do you drive a child sex offender underground? I would think they would want to be as underground as they can be at all times, so could you explain that analogy please?
Mr. Therrien: This again goes to the effectiveness of the measure. I take it, and correct me if I'm wrong, that one of the purposes of this bill is to protect victims of crimes, particularly of sex crimes. So I would suggest that one needs to consider the effectiveness of that measure to reach that goal.
It has been documented that publicizing the whereabouts of criminal offenders can lead to sex offenders going underground, not to be the subject of harassment or comments or worse. That, according to some scientists — I'm not an expert in criminology — has the effect of reducing the possibility of rehabilitation. In other words, it increases risk to society.
I'm asking you to give consideration to that type of evidence.
Senator Plett: If there's a second round, chair, I'll have another question.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: As you mentioned in your presentation, Canadian courts recognize that privacy is not an absolute right but a quasi-constitutional right. In certain cases, that right may be restricted in a society like ours. In other words, it may be restricted to bolster public safety and to protect our children against high-risk sexual offenders. In light of that, do you not think that SOIRA and the database constitute exceptions, and are not a breach of privacy since these laws are necessary for public safety?
Mr. Therrien: In terms of objectives, I would agree that a bill whose objectives and effects are to protect the public, and one which is effective in that way, may impose reasonable limits on the right to privacy. As you heard me say, my main concerns are not centered on the balance between the objectives. In theory, the privacy objective may be set aside, and a public safety objective may override the protection of privacy. However, in analyzing any measure that aims to limit the right to privacy, we must ask ourselves whether the objective that is the most important — in this case, protecting children — is served by a specific measure that is effective in reaching that objective. I am not a criminologist, nor an expert in the field, but I have reviewed what scientists say on this, and I see no proof that this type of measure is effective. Theoretically, yes, the right of victims could supersede other rights, but we have to ask ourselves whether, beyond theory, in practice, the measure works. The scientific literature I have reviewed does not show that this type of measure is effective in achieving this legitimate and important goal.
Senator McIntyre: It is true that there has to be a balance between the right to privacy and public safety; I agree entirely. However, in this case, it seems to me that public safety, especially that of young children, has to have primacy. That is my viewpoint.
[English]
Senator Baker: Thank you to the witness for his presentation and for the exceptional manner in which the witness has taken his position.
Let me ask just a general question. There are in excess of 3.6 million Canadians who have criminal records. Over 3 million Canadians have criminal records. The number is rising as a percentage of the population, and that includes men, women and children. So I don't know what the number is of Canadians who have criminal records who would be, say, above 18 years of age. I imagine the figure would be somewhere in excess of 15 per cent of the Canadian population have criminal records, those people of 18 years of age or more.
Do you see any utility in making public the names of all persons who have criminal records? You've given evidence here that the reported evidence is that with this bill, this public disclosure of this particular group of people will not lead to reducing reported sexual offences, will not reduce sex offender recidivism. If it doesn't do that, then what would be the purpose in making all of this information public? What would bar the government of the day from then extending that to everyone who has a criminal record? Do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Therrien: I've been able to read some writings that suggest — and I think it's common sense — that the larger the number of people whose criminal records would be put on a publicly available database, the less effective the information becomes, because if one is to adapt his or her behaviour based on what someone sees on that database, it is obviously more difficult to determine who is in one's neighbourhood based on what crime and what kind of risk these persons present and how to protect oneself. The larger the number of people whose information is on the database, the less effective it is.
To complete the picture, I should say that with respect to this particular database, the number of sexual offenders is, of course, much more reduced. I acknowledge that the initiative of the bill before you would make public the names and the information about high-risk sexual offenders, the numbers of which would be even smaller. So, yes, in the millions of people it becomes less effective. We don't know exactly how many people would be characterized as high-risk sexual offenders, but my assumption is we're talking about much fewer people.
Senator Baker: Is it your understanding that the names, addresses, telephone numbers and personal information about all of these people we're talking about is already available to every police officer in Canada if they have access to the electronic connections and to CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre, or PROS, the Police Reporting Occurrence System, or any number of these electronic information databases that we have?
I know that in Quebec, where Senator Dagenais was representing all the police officers at the provincial level, they have their own database, which is also hooked into CPIC. So this information is already available to all, as you understand it, law enforcement agencies in Canada anyway.
Mr. Therrien: That is my understanding. No system is perfect, so I don't know if that works perfectly in all cases, but certainly police forces generally have access to this information. Of course, that is a very important means to protect the public, including the victims of sex offences, that law enforcement officers have that information, because they can do something about the risk that these individuals present.
Senator Baker: Do you see any position that somebody is in legally, their privacy, which is normally under section 7 of the Charter, fundamental rights, fundamental justice, that would prohibit the expansion of such a list into other areas? Do you see any area in which this would contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as far as privacy rights are concerned?
I understand your point that it's not an absolute right to privacy, but do you see any possibility of that resulting in an actual case of a violation of somebody's rights, which would probably negate any possible criminal prosecution down the road?
Mr. Therrien: Well, the kind of analysis that we're suggesting is relevant to you as policy-makers and legislators would also inform a court's decision.
To the extent that the disclosure of information about an offender might engage liberty or security of a former sexual offender, for instance, if the offender is the subject of physical abuse or mistreatment or a killing, in the worst case, which we have seen in the United States, that would engage section 7. Then the court would look at the kind of analysis I'm suggesting to you as legislators. Is this proportional? Is it necessary? Is it proportionate?
It's conceivable that a court would come to the view that the disclosure of information, with the possibility of harm that would engage section 7 of the Charter, could lead to a judgment against the constitutionality of this legislation. That said, my understanding is that there has been a challenge to an Ontario registry, and the registry in question has been found to be within the Constitution.
In constitutional matters, there is rarely only one good answer. What I'm saying is that a court would look at these various considerations, including the effectiveness, proportionality and necessity of the measure and could rule against the constitutionality of this legislation.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for coming. It's good so see you again.
We're not talking here, if I could put it this way, about the ordinary criminal. We're talking about a high-risk child sex offender who is likely to reoffend.
Your job is not an easy one, but I get the sense that your glass is half empty when you look at these things, and you say, "Prove to me it's half full." It's a challenge that you have.
In this instance, I don't agree with the side that you come down on here, because I believe that if I'm a father or a mother, I want to know who offended so that I can take the hand of my child and walk them to school, if they're in the neighbourhood, and to protect them. That's important. That's why I disagree with you.
I also disagree — but you will correct me on this if I'm wrong — that to do the research in the United States of America where there may be precedents — did you speak to the RCMP here? Did you speak to the corrections people? Did you speak to the justice people here in Canada?
When legislation is formulated, it emanates or could come from groups out there that are interested in seeing change. It could emanate that they would come to the department, come to the police. The police may have had experiences in seeing how effective this could be.
Why would the research be in the United States of America and not here in Canada? You'll tell me whether you spoke to these people, because this piece of legislation just didn't drop out of the sky. There had to be some evidence that this would be an effective tool in protecting our youth from people that are likely to reoffend.
Mr. Therrien: Thank you, senator. To reiterate the point, I totally understand, accept and agree with the objective of protecting children and protecting citizens in general from criminal activity, including, and perhaps particularly, sexual criminal activity.
The question that I ask you is the effectiveness. Is the population better protected through a bill like this, which makes public information about sexual offenders, which may have the effect of putting people underground and increasing the risk that they will reoffend?
It's conceivable that a citizen could take measures to protect his or her child because of information that that person would see on the Internet. But people who have looked at similar systems do not produce any evidence, and not only in the U.S., by the way. As you know, obviously there are registries in a number of Canadian provinces similar to what is being proposed here, so we are not dealing with something in a vacuum. There is evidence of effectiveness, or not, in Canadian provinces, in addition to the U.S.
I haven't talked directly to the RCMP, but I know that before a house standing committee in 2009, there was an RCMP officer in charge then of the National Sex Offender Registry who testified to the effect that the registry at that time had not solved any crimes where the offender was unknown. There is evidence to that effect, at least, from the RCMP in Canada. In the U.S., I've given you the evidence that we have been able to uncover.
Obviously, I share the objective of protecting children and citizens in general. But I do not see evidence that this bill will do that. Perhaps more importantly, there seems to be evidence that this kind of measure would actually worsen the problem through what I've said, which is to bring offenders underground, making rehabilitation programs less effective and therefore having perhaps the opposite effect to what you may be looking for, which is to reduce the number of crimes.
The Chair: You're not here today suggesting that the bill is not compliant with the Privacy Act? Is that what you're suggesting?
Mr. Therrien: No. What I'm saying is that as a policy matter, before you adopt this, you might wish to consider issues of necessity and effectiveness. If the bill is adopted, it will stand on its own. It will not be a violation, technically, of the Privacy Act, no.
The Chair: It would fall under the public interest section of your act, I would think. The only information the database may contain is that which a police service or other public authority has previously made accessible to the public. As well, there is an ability to appeal with respect to a posting on this. I can understand your position, with your argument on effectiveness and proportionality, but I just want to make it clear that you're not here arguing that this is not compliant with the Privacy Act.
Mr. Therrien: I am not. But on the question of previous disclosure, I would remind you that it is one thing for a local police force to make public that kind of information locally. It is another to put it on a nationally available database, with no rules as to how long it will sit on that database. I think the disclosure is available for more people to see for longer. So to that extent, it increases the privacy risk.
The Chair: The offender always has ability to appeal that, though.
Senator White: That was what I wanted to get on the list for. Police services today, when it is a community notification, if it's Toronto Police Service, for example, they put it on their website for anyone in Canada to access. They actually don't pull it off unless they deem that the threat either is lessened or has left the community, which often occurs. I'm trying to figure out the difference. I realize there is a difference, but from a disclosure and privacy perspective, I would argue that no less privacy has been jeopardized, even from a constitutional or a Supreme Court argument perspective. I don't know that I see the difference between the community notifications in large cities and this database. I've done these notifications a dozen times or more. I don't see it as much of a difference.
Mr. Therrien: I guess it's a question of degree. How many people have access to that information —
Senator White: Everyone on the Internet.
Mr. Therrien: As between —
Senator White: That would be the argument; everyone on the Internet could see that information from a public disclosure perspective, right?
Mr. Therrien: If it's on the Internet, you're right, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator Baker was referring to my past work as a police officer. I would like to talk about it to it to explain how things play out in the field.
First, as you mentioned, high risk sexual offenders have to register at a police station. This situation was a part of my work experience for 25 years. They came to register around four o'clock on Saturday afternoons, and often the conditions imposed on them were that they be of good behaviour, keep the peace, stay at the same address, be in their homes from 10 p.m. at night to 7 a.m. in the morning, and in addition that they not go near any playgrounds or schools where children were present.
The problem was that we had two patrol cars for 12 municipalities. Unless people called us, we could not monitor sexual offenders closely. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so. Since these were small municipalities, sometimes the sexual offender had been identified in the village, people knew him, and often we were notified because citizens would call us to say that he was close to a school, park or playground.
Listing these offenders in a public database will not only protect children, but also help police officers. I can tell you that the police do not have the necessary staff to ensure surveillance of these people. Quite often, the parole board also does not have the necessary personnel. I have lived through this situation repeatedly. Unfortunately, when these individuals appear in court they take the conditions imposed by the judge with a grain of salt, because they know very well that even if they do not respect them there are not enough police officers to monitor them, even in a large city like Montreal. In the regions, where you only have two patrol cars for 15 municipalities, we cannot monitor them. We depend more on calls from the public than on individuals — unless by chance we happen to notice the individual when we are patrolling the small municipality.
And so it is my opinion that this bill will be very useful for police forces, and all the better if it helps the public. We are not talking about robbing convenience stores. We are talking about dangerous sex offenders. Often, they have become dangerous because they re-offend.
I would like to hear your comments on this. I gave you a very concrete example of how things actually work in the field.
Mr. Therrien: I understand very well that the police do not have unlimited staff. In theory at least, the presence of information concerning sex offenders in a database could lead to their identification. You have practical experience which I am not calling into question. As I pointed out several times, I am not a criminologist, nor a scientific expert on the matter. However, people have written on this topic. There is also a person from the RCMP who had a role in managing the registry in 2009, and this provided proof.
I have no personal interest to defend on one side or the other. I examined the whole issue from the perspective of the interests in question. If protecting the public is done in an effective way, this can override protecting privacy. I simply want you all to ask yourselves questions about the effectiveness of this measure. You have the personal experience needed to assess the effectiveness of such a measure.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you for your earlier comment confirming that the Ontario registry was found to be constitutional. That's helpful information for us.
The database information that would be disclosed with this particular bill is already disclosed to the public through provincial databases. My understanding is that this bill allows that information to be standardized and disseminated on a national database across Canada rather than just on these provincial databases, as they are available. As such, I submit that that may eliminate many of the concerns that you've raised here. I'm wondering how you react to that? Certain provinces right now send out alerts in the province about that information, so this bill would then increase the national accessibility.
When she testified before the House of Commons committee, Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, said:
Our office has found that most communities across the country have processes in place related to public interest notifications for high-risk offenders. In some provinces, these notifications are posted on public websites. The proposed public database should provide victims and communities with more consistent access to information about high-risk child sex offenders.
I'm wondering how you react to that information.
Mr. Therrien: I come back to the question of effectiveness — the lack of evidence that I have been able to read that this in effect reduces recidivism and therefore increases public safety. That's the evidence that appears to be out there. There is evidence that this kind of registry can bring offenders underground, which actually creates a risk in terms of recidivism.
That's the evidence that I was able to read. Senator Dagenais has a practical experience in the matter. What I'm asking you to do is to weigh the evidence and make up your mind as to what is effective and proportional.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Are you aware that in 2006, the Supreme Court determined that when a dangerous offender is released, information regarding his offences and the city where he will reside is public information?
Mr. Therrien: We are talking about offenders who have been categorized as being offenders?
Senator Boisvenu: In the case of a sexual offender at high risk of re-offending, the Supreme Court determined in 2006 that that information was in the public domain and that the provinces could release it.
The examples are Ontario and British Columbia, who since 2006 — For instance, in Cornwall last year a sexual predator had been released and was considered dangerous. The police published his photo on the first page of the newspaper, citing the conditions of his release, the level of danger he posed and the crimes he had committed. In 2006, Quebec made a different decision, saying that it was going to protect the reinsertion of sexual predators into society, to the detriment of public protection. Minister Dupuis explained to police forces that the Supreme Court had determined that they could make that information public. But Quebec made a decision opposite to the one made in Ontario by choosing to not make that information public. Were you aware of that decision?
Mr. Therrien: I was not aware of that particular decision. I expect that the issue of course is that the court hearings where convictions occur are public. I can see the link between the public nature of the criminal court hearings and the outcome, the conviction. I can see that. I was not aware of the Supreme Court decision you alluded to, but if our hypothesis is that these decisions are based on that concept, there is still a difference between the fact that the information is public or accessible to a relatively limited number of people, and publishing that information.
Senator Boisvenu: When the person's photo is published in the newspaper, together with the name of the city and neighbourhood where the sexual offender lives, a list of the crimes he committed and the conditions of his release, do you consider that this is information of a public nature?
Mr. Therrien: The result of the trial is public. So, a police force may publish that outcome, and there could be a photo. This will last for a certain time.
Senator Boisvenu: I am talking about the person's release several years later, as in the Cornwall case — that happened eight years later; when that individual was released the police published his photo in the newspaper, with an indication of how dangerous he was, and the conditions of his release. That decision made by the Cornwall police force happened in 2006, almost 10 years ago, and no public organization has challenged the police forces that do this. Ontario has been doing it since 2006, as well as British Columbia; Quebec is the only province that has not done this since the Supreme Court decision.
I am trying to understand; whether there is a public registry of dangerous sexual predators, or whether the police make the information public, do you not think that we are talking about the same type of accessibility?
Mr. Therrien: When newspapers publish this type of information, this has an important impact on the notoriety of the individual with the population, I agree. However, the database makes that information accessible for a longer period, potentially undetermined, and to more people. What is at issue is to balance — and it is up to you to do so — the public safety objective, and how public the information should be made — and whether it would be appropriate to tailor the public nature of that information so that rehabilitation may take place in the interest of society, which may want to see the rate of recidivism diminish.
Senator Boisvenu: Are you aware that in Ontario, before the name of a sexual predator is released, the decision is made by a committee made up of a criminologist, a psychologist and a therapist? Are you aware that the decision is made in a very deliberate, thought-out way?
Mr. Therrien: I was not aware of that in particular. I note that in the bill, it says that only the information regarding high risk offenders would be published, which is a similar concept.
[English]
The Chair: I have one questioner for a second round.
Senator Plett: Maybe this has been beaten to death, but I'm trying to get my mind around this comment you've made a number of times about driving these sexual predators underground. I'm of the opinion that if a sexual predator lives beside my house, and my grandchildren come and visit me at my house and I send them to a playground, I have a right to know if there is a sexual predator living next to me. You keep on insinuating that if we do that, this person will be driven underground. To me, that would mean he would be driven somewhere away from my community. Perhaps that is a positive if he's driven away from my community.
My first and foremost goal, sir, is to protect my children, my grandchildren and my neighbour's children. My second goal is to — and I was accused by people of saying that I don't care about rehabilitation. I do. But to me, that is the second goal here. The first goal is the safety of the Canadian public.
You have no evidence — you said a number of times that you would like to see the evidence that this is successful. We won't know that this is successful until after this law has been in place for a while, and then we'll find out if it's been successful. But obviously studies have been done indicating that this is the way to go. You don't seem to have any information that it isn't the way to go. You are just questioning that.
Would you not want to know if there were a sexual predator living next to you?
Mr. Therrien: I'm saying two things in terms of evidence: One, based on the evidence I have read, there is no evidence that these kinds of systems — these registries — are effective.
Senator Plett: Is there evidence that it isn't effective?
Mr. Therrien: I'm coming to that. Second, if you allow offenders to be released with some level of anonymity into a community, there is evidence that allowing offenders to be the beneficiaries of programs — there is one called COSA, Circles of Support and Accountability.
The point is that with some level of anonymity, there is evidence that offenders can receive services of centres like this —
Senator Plett: And they can't receive services otherwise?
Mr. Therrien: — who have a success rate, I read, between 70 and 80 per cent.
I'm not here to speak for sexual offenders. I'm here to speak for laws that try to actually reach the objectives that they set out to reach. Point one: There is no evidence that these registries have been effective. Point two: There appears to be evidence that to release offenders with some level of anonymity, which would be more difficult with such a registry, would mean not having the benefit of these types of programs, which apparently have a high success rate.
My point is not to speak for offenders. My point is to ask you to look at what is going to be most effective in protecting public safety, based on evidence. I have read some evidence. Others have practical experience. I'm asking you to consider these various considerations.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I apologize for being late, it was really beyond my control.
You said in your brief that the facts indicate that in the United States, similar databases led to the murder of sexual offenders. The bill we have before us is not at all comparable to the American legislation, which requires the publication of the street address, the telephone number and the individual's licence plate number. Here, we will limit the information to the neighbourhood. Are you aware that since 2006, in Canada, since we started to publish this information in the media, no sex offenders have been assaulted, whereas there have been cases in the United States, because there they publish the offender's address? So, the level of risk is indeed higher there.
When you say in your brief that we are talking about similar databases, I think we are not in the same category regarding the information we make public, would you not agree?
Mr. Therrien: That is possible. Indeed, providing only the neighbourhood is less likely to reveal the exact address of the individual. In Alberta, on the comparable website that publishes information on sex offenders, there is a notice addressed to the population; its purpose is to deter people from taking justice into their own hands.
Senator Boisvenu: Of course.
Mr. Therrien: What this tells me is that the Government of Alberta feels there is a certain risk that the population will take justice into its own hands. All the better if the Canadian registry provides fewer details than the American one. But there is a measure of risk, and it is not theoretical risk, since the Government of Alberta deemed it advisable to publish that warning on its website.
Senator Boisvenu: Criminals have been beaten up in prison and outside of prison, even before the advent of the registry we have in Canada. Between you and me, the registry is not what will provoke that.
[English]
The Chair: That wraps it up, Mr. Therrien and Ms. Kosseim. Thank you very much for being here and for your testimony.
On our next panel, we have two witnesses appearing by video conference: from Calgary, Alberta, Sheldon Kennedy, Lead Director of the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre; and from just outside Richmond Hill, Ontario, Ellen Campbell, President, CEO and Founder of the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness. We'll begin with a five-minute opening statement from Mr. Kennedy, followed by Ms. Campbell's opening statement. Mr. Kennedy, the floor is yours, sir.
Sheldon Kennedy, Lead Director, Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre: Thank you, and thank you for having me today.
I was listening earlier, and I always hear lots of conversation and data around the offenders when it comes to sexual abuse. I really want to bring it back to the impact on the victims. I think sometimes that's what we really miss, the impact of this crime on the victims. I think when we can understand that, we'll make decisions appropriately.
Just to give you an example of what we do in Calgary at the child advocacy centre, we investigate all child abuse crimes in this city, and 68 per cent of the cases we investigate are sexual assaults on children. In two years, we've investigated 3,000 cases of sexual assault in the city of Calgary. Out of that, 47 per cent of these individuals are caregivers, and 93 per cent of these kids know their abusers. When we get these children, they all have some sort of mental health disorder. They're presenting addiction issues and suicidal thoughts, and the list goes on.
I just wanted to read off some stats from some research that we dug up around the impact of this crime on kids, because a lot of times we're dealing with invisible damage. When it comes to education, 30 per cent of these abused children are less likely to graduate from high school. They're more than three times as likely to have been fired in the past year in the workplace. Around mental health, they're more likely to experience severe depression that lasts longer and four times more likely to report self-harm and suicidal ideation than those who do not experience sexual abuse. As well, 37 to 50 per cent of children who have been abused develop PTSD, and almost 100 per cent of children who were abused develop partial symptoms of PTSD. As adults, they have four times as many contacts with mental health services. With respect to revictimization, they're three to five times more likely to be revictimized physically or sexually by the time they finish high school. They're 26 times more likely to experience homelessness. Crime: They are nearly four times more likely to be arrested as a juvenile and twice as likely to be arrested as an adult.
One of the largest studies conducted as part of the adverse childhood experience research in the United States has demonstrated that being physically abused, sexually abused or growing up in a home where there is domestic violence doubles the risk of perpetration or victimization of domestic violence as an adult, and for children who experience all three of these types of abuse, the risk increases by 3.5 times for women and even more for men.
In addition, 72 per cent of individuals in a detox program report sexual and physical abuse histories. Of these, 75 per cent had experienced abuse for the first time as children. Childhood physical abuse and sexual abuse is significantly associated with 15 per cent increase in medical diagnosis and a 16 per cent increase in medical symptoms, a 19 per cent increase in depression and a 22 per cent increase in anger. Children that have been abused have worse health than 90 per cent of the general population.
I wanted to paint that picture because I think a lot of times we forget about the impact on the victim. I think a lot of times in society, we look at the victims of these crimes and say, "Pull yourselves up by the bootstraps and let's get going." That's just not the case. We've always worked at the outer layer of the onion. We've always worked at when people end up on the street. We've always worked when individuals are addicted. We always end up when people have been put in our prisons. We've never worked at the root cause.
In Swift Current, Saskatchewan, we just dealt with a 12-year-old boy who was sexually abused. His offender, Ryan Chamberlin, just pleaded guilty and received five years in prison. He was previously convicted in 1998 for abusing a five-year-old boy. Ryan Chamberlin worked in the schools and the youth-serving organizations and was an integral part of being within that community. I think that one of the big things is that sex offenders thrive on society's ignorance and indifference. I think society's vision of a person who hurts kids is somebody that jumps out from behind trees, somebody that wears a balaclava, et cetera, and the reality is that's not the case. Sex offenders blend in with society, and we need to do everything we can to protect our children and to give communities the opportunity to understand who these individuals are. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
Ellen Campbell, President, CEO and Founder, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness: Thank you. Sheldon, I agree with you. I appreciate that you're speaking about the victims, and you're looking at a victim. I was sexually abused as a child, and my perpetrator lived in our home for two years. He perpetrated against my sister and me. I ended up with three husbands, two abortions, and I ended up in the psych ward.
I see too many people. I work with the adults, and I see them. Just like Sheldon said, they are broken. Another statistic is that 95 per cent of the men in prison have been sexually abused, and 85 per cent of women in prison were sexually abused as children.
We support the Martin Kruze Memorial Fund. When Martin came forward, his perpetrator was someone he knew. I've often thought, what would it have been like if this bill, Bill C-26, was in place when Martin came forward? He could have had some hope that something would have happened. But he committed suicide because the laws were so, so light. Gordon Stuckless got two years less a day. On appeal, he got five years, but then he was out in two thirds, out in the community. We needed a database to let people know where Gordon Stuckless was — not his address, but the community, so that they could be safe, because many more children have been perpetrated on.
Holly Jones is another example. We've worked with Maria Jones where 200 perpetrators were in her area. If her mother had known, she probably wouldn't have let her walk home alone right past this perpetrator's house.
I strongly concur with Bill C-26. I want the minimums and the maximums to increase. The judges, as it is, aren't using the sentences we have now, so perhaps if we increase them, they will also go to a higher level. That's the only hope we have.
We did a report called Martin's Hope with 60 recommendations on laws to protect children, and all of the 60 recommendations are really in line with Bill C-26. These are what the front-line workers want — the police, social workers, children's aid, organizations like Sheldon's. This is what the public wants. I strongly urge you to move forward with this.
As for the database, I heard the last bit of conversation. I really do feel that we need to have a database that's more accessible to the public. I agree it doesn't have to be the exact address, but the vicinity. I don't believe that it drives people underground. I also agree that I want to know if there's a perpetrator living next door to me, and I want to know how many are in my community.
I still feel that they can get help, but we also realize that some pedophiles, like Graham James, don't respond to therapy. Some of them, I'm afraid, aren't able to do much. So we need these serious offenders to have more maximum security, be kept in longer.
Every time I get before you, I'm afraid I say the same thing: electronic monitoring. It's been very successful down in the United States. There have been good cases for it. It costs us $150,000 to keep a prisoner in prison for a year. Electronic monitoring would be much cheaper, and I think it would solve a lot of our concerns around the pedophiles in our communities. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Campbell. We will begin the questions with the bill's sponsor, Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Thank you to both of you for being here today. Sheldon, congratulations on being inducted into the Order of Canada. You have certainly earned that distinction, and I want to congratulate you for that. Thank you both for your courage in coming here today and sharing with us some of your experiences.
I'm wondering if you would comment, Sheldon, at least, I would like you to comment, if you would, on the consecutive sentencing provision for an offender being sentenced for the abuse of multiple victims. As a victim yourself, you realize it's important that each and every child or each and every victim be recognized. So often, that hasn't happened in the past with the concurrent sentencing. In your case, your abuser Graham James was convicted of multiple crimes. Could you talk a little bit about the importance of each and every victim being recognized in sentencing in that regard?
Mr. Kennedy: Well, first off, thank you for the recognition of the Order of Canada. It is very much appreciated.
It's absolutely critical for each individual victim to be recognized for the crime that happened to them. I look at my case. They just clumped them all together. That's the way it was phrased to me: They clumped them all together and gave him a sentence that they thought it was good that he pleaded guilty to.
What we're trying to do here, in my understanding of this bill, is give the confidence to the victims to come forward — that they're going to be heard and not be revictimized. The focus will be on the victim. That's absolutely critical. We've had to really shift the thinking around this crime from the criminal to the victim.
I look at Graham James, and I think that we've had to try him. There's another case that just came forward. I'm going to Swift Current on the June 19 again for another individual who promised, in the first conviction, there were no more. Now this will be the third court case we will be attending of Graham James. It's in the same time and totality, as well.
If you look at how many individuals' lives that person has affected, and for us to be struggling because of time and totality and not really one individual being able to have their case really heard, it's disturbing, in my mind.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Ms. Campbell, we have had in front of this committee many times a lawyer by the name of Michael Spratt, who has testified many times against the use of mandatory minimum penalties. In fact, he has said that there is no evidence of judges getting it wrong.
Now, you brought up Gordon Stuckless, and I brought up that same name to him just a few days ago when I asked him if he felt that Stuckless's sentence was appropriate for the crime committed. His answer was that it was too simplistic a question and so didn't deserve a simplistic answer.
I would like you to give me a simplistic answer: Do you believe judges have been getting sentences right or wrong in the past?
Ms. Campbell: I feel very strongly they have been getting them wrong. The report with all the front-line workers felt the same way. Even now, I understand, with the minimum sentencing, judges are not giving out the minimum; they're getting around it somehow.
Again, what does it say to a victim? What did it say to Martin when Gordon Stuckless got off with two years? If there had been a minimum of five years, I think Martin would still be alive. I've dealt with over 100 men from Maple Leaf Gardens who were victimized. If you asked any one of them, they would say they would want a minimum sentence of at least five years.
To Sheldon's point, what is it saying about the value of the victim? You have to be a victim, or see these victims, to really realize the importance of it.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much. If there's a second round, chair, I'll take it.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you both for your presentations. Obviously, you play a very important role regarding this issue. Sheldon, you're the lead director of the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre, and Ms. Campbell, you're the president, CEO and founder of the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness.
Sheldon, in your presentation, you made reference to the fact that society, in general, is indifferent to the situation as it now exists regarding child abuse sex crimes. I'm directing my question to the both of you: How crucial is it to create awareness and consciousness within the community regarding sex offenders? Sheldon, do you want to go ahead?
Mr. Kennedy: Yes. It's absolutely critical. If we look at all the sport and youth-serving organizations across our country, a high percentage of them demand criminal-record checks. Those are difficult to get because of the inconsistency across this country.
When we look at society, what do we try to do? Our goal is to build capacity around these issues. How do we build capacity? The way we're going to build capacity is about trauma-informed care and understanding the impact of this crime for our front-line workers. If we look at the announcement by Minister Ambrose about $100 million that will go toward front-line training, why is that? To be a family physician, a nurse, a young policeman or a teacher, you don't have to take any training in this area — to really focus on the impact.
In 93 per cent of the cases, the child knows their abuser. In 40 per cent of these cases, it's a parent or caregiver; it's happening in the home. In the community, the safest place for these kids could be a piano lesson, the hockey rink or the sporting environment. We need to be able to give the volunteers and that community the confidence to understand and recognize — and a database to actually understand — who's in their community and what they're really dealing with.
Ms. Campbell: I agree with Sheldon. Again, I refer to Holly Jones, who was just coming home from school — and 200 sex offenders in that vicinity and her mother didn't know. When Gordon Stuckless got out, again, if people had just known — he reoffended.
From what I'm hearing, and I work with victims a lot, as well as the front-line workers, people want safe communities and they want to know. If you took a referendum on this case, you would get a strong number that would say they want to know who's in their community. As a grandmother now, I would definitely want to know.
I also feel strongly that it does not mean they will go underground, if the information isn't the exact address. But it gives people a sense of security, as well, that at least they know that this is what's in their community, and they can take steps to protect their children.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you. Round two, please.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I thank our two witnesses. I understood what you had to say very well. As police officers, we need the help of the public. Sexual predators are often people who are in positions of authority, either with the scouts, or as playground monitors or hockey coaches. They can also be the father, the spouse, members of the family. So without denunciations from the public, the police would never know that there was a sexual predator in a given organization or a given neighbourhood. You expressed this very well, both of you, and I agree with you when you say that there is a need for disclosure. The police need disclosure from the public, because police forces cannot know that a scout leader or a hockey coach is a sexual predator; only the people who are a part of the group can notify police.
Do you have any comments?
[English]
Mr. Kennedy: The way we look at this crime coming out of the Child Advocacy Centre in Calgary is that it's a community responsibility. The only way that we're going to have people come forward and be confident to come forward is if there's a consistent approach. That's a consistent database.
The database isn't the only solution, but the way that the database is set up now and the way the Criminal Code is set up really shames the victims. It is such a lack of understanding of the impact of this crime not only on the victim but also on their families and on the community. If we look at the cost in communities, it's enormous. We have the whole Calgary Police Service's Child Abuse Unit at the Child Advocacy Centre. They rely on the public for information. They rely on people to bring them information about these individuals.
So when we talk about the fear of them going underground, the reality is they already operate underground, so we need to create confidence in our communities so that people can come forward and be able to ask questions and get answers.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. To Mr. Kennedy, thank you so much for the incredible work you have done for all of these victims of these horrific crimes. You really are an inspiration in how you have moved on with your life.
As we discussed briefly before we started today, I watched you play junior hockey back in Saskatchewan many years ago, and I looked forward to meeting you in person one day so I could shake your hand and thank you for everything you have done.
I wanted to give you this opportunity in front of our Senate committee to speak to people who may see this committee broadcast or read the transcript. Maybe there's a child right now out there who has endured the agony of sexual abuse or someone who may have suffered such abuse years earlier. I'm wondering what you would say right now to those victims, and what can a centre like yours do for those victims to help them?
Mr. Kennedy: Well, thank you. I can speak on behalf of the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre that when people walk in our doors, they know we take this seriously. We have the whole Calgary Police Service Child Abuse Unit, which is 30 investigators. We have four pediatricians, 20 psychologists and 35 child and family services workers. We have a member from the RCMP and a member from the Crown prosecutor's office all working together as a team, with the ability to share information in the best interests of the child.
The goal of the Child Advocacy Centre is not only to not revictimize the victim but also to turn their lives around while they're kids so that we're not dealing with them on our streets, we're not dealing with them in our treatment centres for drugs and alcohol or in prisons. Our whole focus is early intervention and prevention.
We do 150 investigations per month. All I know and what I can tell people that come forward or approach me with a story is that we believe you. I think that's the key, that we believe you. I think that's their biggest fear, that they're not going to be believed and that the systems don't support them to come forward. When they do come forward, they're clumped into one group and sentenced as a package deal, and I think that is shameful, very shameful.
I think the sooner we realize the impact of this crime on our kids — we may be doing child abuse investigations, but what we're dealing with is mental health. Early childhood trauma makes up over 80 per cent of mental health issues in this country. We never talk about it like that, but I think we need to understand it like that because we're losing way too many kids. I think it's time that we shift energy to protecting our kids and holding perpetrators and criminals accountable. To me, I think that's the question. When we know the impact on these kids and their families, why is this a difficult decision?
Senator Batters: Exactly. Thank you.
Senator McInnis: Thank you very much to both of you for doing what you've done and what you've actually instigated, the centres that you run.
Sheldon, are all these professionals that you've seconded to your centre there full time? You can answer that in a minute, and I'll go on and ask Ms. Campbell a question as well.
Ms. Campbell, the Statistics Canada report in 2013 said that sexual violations against children were up 6 per cent that year, and normally it's 3 per cent per year, unfortunately. Is that based on a lack of tools for the RCMP and law enforcement, or is it that centres like yours have made it more known and people are not as reluctant to report? What do you attribute this to?
Sheldon, back to you, with respect to your centre, you mentioned at the beginning of your remarks about a lot of attention being given to the rehabilitation of the offender. You spoke directly about the rehabilitation of the victim and the catastrophic list of ways individuals have been affected by this, right from their schooling through to their employment and the way they live their lives. Is enough being done? You can throw money at anything and, of course, sometimes that doesn't actually work. Are there more things we should be doing quite apart from funding?
Mr. Kennedy: To answer your first question, yes, they all work at the same place. We're right across from the children's hospital. We have 115 people that work full-time at our centre, and the whole focus, again, is rehabilitation.
We knew by doing this that we would probably look to be the sexual abuse capital of Canada when pulling this together. One study reports that the apprehension rate for sex offenders is less than 3 per cent.
I think we're dealing with a societal shift. I look at how different it is today with the conversations we're having and the decisions that are being made compared to back in 1997. When I look at what we've done here, we need to build this into practice. When we look at 110 people working together from six different government systems with working memorandums of understanding among all of these agencies on how to work together, it's about practice. This isn't new money; it's reallocated money. A focus has been put on turning kids' lives around early. It's all about early intervention and prevention.
When we look at funding, I don't believe it's all about funding. I believe that there's enough money in this area. I believe it needs to be built into practice. It needs to be built into believing this is the way we do business. This is the way we work with kids. This is our understanding of it.
A lot of times across Canada, sexual abuse victims have to go four to five places to tell their story. They come to one place, they tell their story, we do the work that has taken months and sometimes years in hours and days, and from that point, that child is immediately put into therapy.
By working as a team, it would be like fixing a broken leg with a quarter of the X-ray before. They weren't allowed to talk to each other and discuss information in the best interests of that child. To me, it's about being more effective with the tools we have already and then on that, it's about building capacity in community, about informing our teachers, our nurses, our family physicians and our young police officers and giving them the tools to be better equipped to deal with this crime.
The Chair: Ms. Campbell, did you want to respond to the Stats Canada statistics?
Ms. Campbell: Yes. I think there are a few things. First of all, the awareness right now is more. I remember 22 years ago I did the first national conference for survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and I had maybe 300 people attend, but only a handful of men came out. What I'm finding is that a lot more men are coming forward now, and I think men are affecting that statistic because the shame is being removed. Sheldon referred to the shame. More and more as we're talking about it and coming forward and people like Sheldon come forward, it's removing the shame and making it safer for all people to come forward.
But I also believe that there's an increase in child molestation just because of the increase in Internet porn. We know it's rampant and it's not going away; it's getting more. I think that's increasing the incidence as well.
The issue for me that's quite disturbing is it's wonderful that Sheldon has this centre for the children, but there is so little available for adults, especially men. We're a referral resource centre. We do run some men's groups, and we've done 16 conferences on male victimization, but the unfortunate thing is that when men come forward and they finally make that phone call and nobody else in their family knows they've finally made it, they have to wait maybe six months to a year to get free counselling. Most of them can't afford counselling, so they have to go on a waiting list or go into a group, and even the groups are filled up.
There is a shortage in funding for counselling for adults. This is systematic. If it has happened to a father and he was sexually abused as a child, Sheldon can confirm this, the whole family is affected. He is now with a partner that he can't communicate with; there are intimacy problems and probably drinking problems. It's a family issue, just like alcoholism is a family issue. Trauma from childhood is a family issue.
I think it's wonderful now that we're reaching the children more, but we're not doing enough for the adults. I'm afraid that statistic is going to go even higher. I'm getting more and more calls from men coming forward, and it's not going away. It's not getting less.
Senator Baker: A very quick question. First of all, thank you for your very excellent presentations, both of you.
Ms. Campbell, you mentioned something a moment ago that has me puzzled. Perhaps I'm misquoting you, but you said that in cases in which you have a mandatory minimum sentence, which we're talking about in these cases we're referring to, you say that the judges are not giving out the mandatory minimum sentence. Of course I'm puzzled, as other people are who are listening, how they get around that.
Ms. Campbell: I know of at least one incident in Toronto of a judge who avoided the minimum sentence. I would be happy to find that information and forward it. I don't have the details myself, but judges don't like having minimums or maximums that they're told they have to do that; they want more freedom. They really resent having to use these sentences. I know there is a real resistance with the judges, but I will find that information and gladly forward it to you.
Senator Baker: We would really appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Ms. Campbell: It was in Toronto.
Senator Baker: Thank you.
The Chair: We started late, so we're going to have a couple of additional questions.
Senator Plett: Just one question, I asked this of the Privacy Commissioner earlier today. He testified, and I'm not sure whether you listened to that testimony, but he was quite adamant that we didn't have proper evidence that the registry, for example, would in fact be effective.
Ms. Campbell, you alluded in your presentation at the start to people going underground, and I'm trying to get my mind around criminals going underground. I want you to tell me, do you not feel that the victim has the right, and indeed the community has the right — and maybe both of you want to answer this — to know when a child predator, a sexual offender, somebody who has abused children, is moving next to you?
I want to know that. If I have my grandchildren at my house, I want to know who is living next to me or in the condo next to me. I'm sorry if that offends the offender, that his privacy is being questioned, but I think victim rights take precedence here.
Could you each give me a 30-second answer to that question?
Ms. Campbell: Perhaps I didn't clarify myself very well. I'm agreeing with you 100 per cent. I do not want a pedophile living next door to me. I want know who is in the community.
There is a common, I think, understanding, and they say the criminal is going to go underground. Well, I think to Sheldon's point, they're already really underground. I don't think that's a strong argument for me. That's not a strong enough argument for me. I want to know, so I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear on that.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Sheldon, would you have a comment to that?
Mr. Kennedy: The reason there are mandatory background checks for the majority of sport organizations across this country is because we need to know who is working with our kids. I think that there is a reason for that, and we know that because the perpetrators we see, and I believe that the majority of the country sees, through the systems, they find the organizations that don't have background checks and have loopholes for them to operate in. We need to be able to do everything we can to notify communities, neighbours and organizations that work with kids or that have kids who these individuals are.
One of the biggest comments we have come up is "We had no idea; I can't believe they did that." It's not like they have a target on their back. They're individuals who blend into our community and put themselves in a position that a lot of times we would never suspect. I think for us to be notified of these individuals is a critical step.
Senator Plett: If I could make a comment, and I'll close with that. If there is any silver lining to the terrible abuses that you have suffered, it is the work you are doing today with the victims. Thank you very much.
Senator McIntyre: I understand both your centres work as a team, with your existing partners made up primarily of Crown officials, police officers, community health centres, community mental health centres, family service workers and so on.
Keeping that in mind, obviously it's important to have trained personnel working in both your centres in order to deal more effectively with victims of child abuse and sex crimes. Could you elaborate further on trained personnel, how important it is to have trained personnel? Mr. Kennedy?
Mr. Kennedy: I could talk about that, absolutely. Part of building capacity, the only people who really get any training on sexual abuse are the people who decide to go into this field. What's been put in place now through the federal health, the announcement from Minister Ambrose, is $100 million that's going to go into trauma-informed care.
Trauma-informed care is about understanding the impact of trauma on children, understanding where trauma takes our children. Again, get away from working on that outer layer of the onion. If we want to stop the revolving door of homelessness, addiction and criminal behaviour, we need to turn kids' lives around here before they get there. There is enough research around the brain and the brain study through the Norlien Foundation, through the Alberta Family Wellness Initiative, that understands the impact of trauma and the direct link to addiction, the direct link to anxiety and the direct link to mental health issues.
We're not trying to create PhD students throughout the province and throughout the country or in communities; what we're trying to do is have people understand the impact of trauma so that if a young police officer out in Vauxhall gets an investigation, they understand how to treat that appropriately along with the social worker and the medical person.
It's no different from our teachers. Coming out of teacher school, you don't have to take any training in this. I think schools could be the safest place a lot of times for our kids, so it's about creating that confidence and giving our people the confidence to understand this and deal with it and maybe look a little deeper. I think we need to shift the question from "What's wrong with you?" to "What's happened to you?"
Senator Batters: Ms. Campbell, you responded earlier to a question, talking about how you're getting more and more calls from men these days. I want to give credit on that very point. That, in my view, is in no small part due to the efforts of someone like Sheldon Kennedy, because he was an early trailblazer on this particular issue. Coming from the macho and ego-filled world of hockey, for you to do what you did and come forward with this was extremely brave. Thank you very much to both of you for what you do on behalf of victims every single day.
Senator White: One aspect of this database will be to allow individuals to do a search. We talk often about public notifications which police services utilize. I know Mr. Kennedy will recognize this: Travelling with sports groups, often billeting, it might be okay for those volunteering with a team or an organization to have gone through the vulnerable-sector checks, but often the people found in those same homes that we're dropping kids off to sleep and spend the nights at, they are not going through those same checks.
This type of database, I would argue — and you correct me if I am wrong — would allow parents who are worried about having their kids go away on a hockey tournament and be dropped off with billets to actually start searching billets' names and every other adult who happens to be in the home as well. It would allow parents the ability to be proactive in protecting their own children and not hoping that things work out. Wouldn't you agree with that?
Mr. Kennedy: I would agree with that, absolutely. I think that that work would be done if it was made easier. I think a database like this would make it easier.
We just came back from the Sport Canada conference in Ottawa, and that was the discussion: How do we make it easier?
I think we need to be doing everything we can to prevent the individuals that perpetrate sexual abuse on kids from having access to our kids, and that is by accessing their movement across our country.
Senator White: First and foremost, our goal is to protect children. I would argue — I'm trying to think of how to put this into a question. I don't really care so much about the privacy of individuals who are taking advantage of those same children.
I have no question. I apologize.
The Chair: I think the witnesses would share that view. That wraps up the hearing today.
On behalf of the committee, Ms. Campbell, Mr. Kennedy, thank you very much for your appearance and testimony before us today. I think on behalf of everyone here, a big thank you for the great and important work you're doing in our communities
We will adjourn. We are beginning hearings on Bill C-12 tomorrow afternoon at 3:30.
(The committee adjourned.)