Submission to the Ontario Standing Committee on the
Administration of Justice on Bill 102
|
| The Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario is a provincial
membership association representing nine Elizabeth Fry Societies in
Ontario. Council works directly with women in conflict with the law and
strives to increase public awareness of issues affecting clients. We
also provide member services to local agencies. Elizabeth Fry Societies
around the province provide a range of services for women in conflict
with the law, including halfway houses and other forms of housing, group
and individual counseling and treatment programs, court programs, prison
visits and release planning assistance, and many other services.
Bill 102 speaks to the issue of amending the Change of Name Act, the
Ministry of Correctional Services Act and the Police Services Act to
mandate police records checks in all applications for a change of name
in Ontario. Furthermore, the Bill purports to allow for the sharing of
information contained in all change of name applications between all
ministries, agencies and institutions.
The Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario has serious concerns
about the dismissal of the notion of privacy and the erosion of
accountability checks put into place to prevent abuses by government
institutions and agencies regarding personal information. We also
deplore the continued strikes against the rehabilitation of offenders
made by the increasing use of community notification. Firstly, we question the constitutionality of the Ontario government
using information from criminal records, gathered on behalf of the
federal government, for purposes other than those originally intended.
I would like to go through each proposal of Bill 102 at this point.
The first proposed change, to section 3 of the Change of Name Act, has
the effect of making every individual who took a new name upon marriage
or other long-term relationship, have a police records check to allow
them to return to use of their former name. Who would have thought that
marriage was a crime! Obviously, this section will affect more women
than men, making women with criminal records, no matter how minor, think
twice about returning to an identity that was theirs by birth.
Importantly, the proposed section 6 (2)(h.2) now provides for disclosure
of every pending charge upon application for a change of name. So,
although the law of Canada states clearly that every individual charged
is presumed innocent until guilt is proven, Ontario bucks that by
indicating that every individual charged is presumed guilty until proven
otherwise. Why else would disclosure of a pending charge be required? We
also question the constitutionality of this proposal.
The substance of subsection 6(11) allowing an employee of a police force
to disclose personal information about an individual for a police
records check is far too open to abuse. What is meant by 'personal
information'? This term is not defined in Bill 102, nor is it defined in
the current Change of Name Act. Does the term 'personal information' for
example include information above and beyond that required for a police
records check?
The proposed new section 7.1 now mandates the Registrar General to run
every name by the Solicitor General for potential information that would
be included in a police records check. This has to be done, even where
there are no reasonable grounds to suppose that there would be any
pertinent information about an individual. In other words, the
government is saying that information on the application of every
citizen of Ontario (confirming that they have no criminal antecedents)
must be disbelieved and must be double checked. This proposal speaks
volumes about the government's trust in its citizens, to say nothing of
its disrespect for cost savings in implementing yet another expensive
layer of bureaucracy.
The proposed section 8(1.2) is much too open to exploitation. The
Registrar General may, despite any other Act, give information and any
information in the police records, to the Ministry of Correctional
Services, the Ministry of Transportation and any police force, any other
ministry, agency or institution that, in the opinion of the Ministry,
should know about the change of name for law enforcement or corrections
purposes. There is no definition of which ministries, agencies or
institutions may have access to this information. Also, it is not set
out what the boundaries are for forming an opinion that disclosure of
this information is necessary in the first place. Furthermore, what is
meant by 'law enforcement or corrections purposes'? If the police decide
to 'persuade' a reluctant witness to testify on the basis of information
received under this section of the legislation, does this come under
'law enforcement purposes'? What is 'corrections purposes', when the
mandate of ! the Ministry of Correctional Services is to ensure the
enforcement of different sentences? This section is much too vaguely
worded with a lack of definitions and checks.
As for the proposed amendments to the Ministry of Correctional Services
Act, section 10(2) falls under the same umbrella of concern by our
organization. The section allows for anyone working in that ministry
'who is designated in the regulations' (and we are not told who the
government intends to designate - is this to be any level of employee?)
to disclose personal information about an individual 'in accordance with
the regulations'. Again, 'personal information' is not defined, the
purpose of this section is completely unclear and just about any
disclosure of information can be justified as being 'in accordance with
the regulations'. Prisoners have often been on the receiving end of this
blanket justification for actions. Prior to this Bill, at least there
were official mechanisms in place to allowing for accountability. Now
this right too will be taken away. (Return to home
page)
The proposed changes to the Police Services Act, allow for broad
community notification of personal information about an individual. The
Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario strenuously opposes this
concept. Already, offenders are sometimes hounded when trying to
reintegrate back into the community. These are individuals who are often
accepted by the broader community but who, for one reason or other,
attract the attention of a small but vocal group within that community
who have objections to the individual's return. This section allows the
police to feed into that negative cycle, or even begin it, by disclosing
personal information which may be outdated and alarmist. Publication of
this personal information is a witch hunt of the worst kind. Often
information disclosed publicly does not mention treatment programs taken
or strides made to deal with the source of offending prior to release.
Offenders are traditionally without the emotional strength to weather
such a public storm. They may resort to going into hiding, or returning
to behaviours which brought them into conflict in the first place. This
obviously does not contribute to public safety but endangers it further.
There is not enough accountability in this proposed section; again, the
wording is too vague.
Worse still than the openness to abuse by these new proposed sections,
is that the information collected by the Registrar General and the
Solicitor General and that information received by any ministry, agency
or institution is now to be exempted from the provisions of the Freedom
of Information & Protection of Privacy Act. Currently, section 39(2)
of that Act provides that the institution holding the information in
question must inform the individual of the intended use of their
personal information and the legal authority for collecting that
information. Now, not only can this information be disclosed to just
about anybody, but the individual in question does not even have the
right to be informed as to where all the details of their private lives
are going, into whose hands this information will fall, or the legal
authority for the entire process. This provision is yet another example
of the loss of an individual's right of control over their own lives
through government interference.
In our Information Age, knowledge is indeed power. This Bill allows for
open disclosure of personal information, with no checks in place, even
to inform the individual about where their personal details are to be
displayed. This is one of the greater abuses of power by a government.
This erosion of personal dignity will ultimately contribute to the
decline of this province as a part of a civilized democracy. The Council
of Elizabeth Fry Societies does not support legislation, such as Bill
102, which contributes to the further abuse of individual rights. Submitted by Claire Price, Executive Director, Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario September 2, 1997
|