Police Records Checks
by Non-profit Agencies Act, 1999, Bill 9, Mr Kormos
/Loi de 1999 sur les vérifications des
dossiers de police par les agences sans but lucratif,
projet de loi 9, M. Kormos
Ontario Minor Hockey
Association
Mr Graham Brown
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
Chair /
Président
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Ms Sibylle Filion, legislative counsel
Mr Avrum Fenson, legislative researcher, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1553 in room 151.
POLICE RECORDS CHECKS BY NON-PROFIT AGENCIES ACT,
1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LES VÉRIFICATIONS DES DOSSIERS DE
POLICE PAR LES AGENCES SANS BUT LUCRATIF
Consideration of Bill 9, An Act
respecting the cost of checking the police records of individuals
who may work for certain non-profit service agencies / Projet de
loi 9, Loi concernant les frais de vérification des dossiers
de police à l'égard des particuliers qui pourraient
travailler pour certaines agences de services sans but
lucratif.
ONTARIO MINOR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION
The Chair (Mr Joseph
N. Tascona): The committee is in session. Our next
presenter is the Ontario Minor Hockey Association: Graham Brown,
executive director. Good afternoon.
Mr Graham
Brown: Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
After reading the briefs or
minutes from November 4, I don't know if I'm preaching to the
converted already, as many of you are in support of no fee, or at
least addressing police records checks. Obviously, coming from an
association such as the Ontario Minor Hockey Association that
represents such a broad scale of people in Ontario, be it the
players, coaches, trainers or referees, the minor hockey
executives I suppose need to address the screening process, and
our volunteers over the last two years in particular, since the
CHA has been so prominently forward in its position on sexual
harassment and abuse with the Sheldon Kennedy situation. Hockey
has really taken what I would consider a leading role in trying
to establish policies and procedures, one of them being police
records checks and a screening process.
I have handed out some brief
information to everyone here today to give you a little bit of
background on some of the activities. Some of those are materials
from the Canadian Hockey Association and our initiatives. Many
times it's said that problems exist, but it's often those who
search for the solutions who will achieve the greatest impact. I
know that from the hockey perspective, speaking on behalf of
Ontario and the CHA, we've definitely put in a concerted effort
to establish a framework for addressing a policy on harassment
and abuse and on volunteers. Some of the materials are focused on
education, which is a large component of what we try to
accomplish at our level, but also on advocacy, not just providing
people with answers but demonstrating how you can assist people
through the process.
One of the problems we have
is that we now have a mandate that by 2001 all volunteers in
minor hockey across Canada must fulfill the requirement of a
police records check. We acknowledge clearly that police records
checks aren't the only answer, that they're one step in a process
of screening volunteers. We've considered it the primary step in
that it's the first step in the process. It's the first step that
helps deter people who should not be involved in volunteer roles
with children, and it's an important first step in acknowledging
that volunteers need to fulfill certain obligations in order to
donate their time.
It's unfortunate that
everything we do with volunteer screening is to try and catch the
0.01% of people out there who may adversely affect our children's
participation. For the most part, dealing on a day-to-day basis
with upwards of 100,000 volunteers, I can say that the majority,
if not close to all, are very good people who donate their time.
Like I said, it's the 0.01% of those people we're putting all
these checks and balances in place for.
Specific to today's topic of
what I consider are the costs associated with police records
checks, I'd like to touch on a few statistics. Within the Ontario
Minor Hockey Association we have 54,000 direct volunteers. Those
are coaches, trainers, managers, executives. With the new CHA
mandate, by 2001 they'll all have to have a police records check.
If you go on the basis that I know some police services boards do
not charge, then if 60% charge $20 you're looking at over $1.1
million just for the Ontario Minor Hockey Association. Magnify
that across Canada and there are some real financial issues to be
dealt with there.
Plus, over the past 10 years,
in hockey in particular and I represent only hockey here, we've
put so many checks in place for volunteers, whether it be through
going to clinics, getting your level 1, your level 2, your level
3, all the way up to, in some cases, level 6, that there are
costs associated with each step. What we're doing is driving some
of our volunteers away because no longer can you just go to the rink and coach your
son or daughter. You now have to address, "Can I afford to go to
the rink and be a volunteer and coach my son or daughter?"
To some of us around this
table $25 is not a lot of money, but you have to realize that
police records checks are not something that economically, from a
social perspective, you can look at just from the simple fact
that some people can afford it. There are a lot of people who can
afford it. But to be a coach in today's environment you need to
spend about $500. That's your time, your clinics, your
registration, your equipment. A police records check of $20 to
$35 can sometimes make the difference in volunteers.
The Ontario Minor Hockey
Association has a hard time attracting volunteers. It's not that
they don't exist; it's that you need so many of them. If you look
at volunteers across Ontario and Canada, the number is
staggering.
The one issue I'd like to
bring up-I actually had the opportunity to address it briefly
with Peter a few minutes ago-is that it's not so much that we
mind the fact that there are police records checks in place that
cost money; it's that sometimes these volunteers are volunteering
with their daughter's team, which is in a different association
which needs to get a police records check. They then go to their
son's team, which is in another association, and they have to get
a police records check. They then volunteer in their church, and
they have to get a police records check. That's three police
records checks and each one of them is a cost.
There's the new initiative
which you're all aware of through the Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation. That's to create a database where you go
once and then you go to the database to find out. I think that's
an honourable goal and maybe that's where this committee should
look at tying in with that group.
Police records checks are
important to our children. They're important to the ongoing
progression of society in weeding out individuals who should not
be volunteering their time, but I think the key with police
records checks is that we have to make them financially
available.
1600
I'm not here as a proponent
of no-cost police records checks. I think there's a cost to doing
business even within police services boards. I'm here today to
say that we need consistency, that we can't have some not
charging anything and some charging $35. It's unfair to our
membership, in our particular case Ontario, that as it is the
closer to the city you get, your costs increase, and the further
away from your city, there are a lot more social policies in
place with volunteering your time.
What we need to do is look
for consistency, whether it's $5, $10 or $15. Ideally, from the
grassroots perspective, it's no dollars, but that's not always
realistic.
I've left you some materials.
They outline the position of the CHA, they outline some of the
initiatives of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association, and they
outline some of the initiatives that I'm sure you already heard
about yesterday in some of the talks from other volunteer groups,
that this is a societal issue. I think society should step
forward and be somewhat responsible. At the end of the day it
could be your children, your family's children who are affected
by this and you want them to participate in a safe
environment.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We have about 15 minutes total for
caucuses.
Mr Peter Kormos
(Niagara Centre): Thank you very much, Mr Brown, and
thank you for the brief time Frank Mazzilli and I had to chat
with you before you made your presentation. I also appreciate
that you're referring to the small, small minority of people
involved, be it in minor hockey or any of these other volunteer
organizations, who present these serious problems.
As a kid, I grew up-I know
this will surprise my colleagues-in the Cub Scout movement. I was
a good Cub Scout. I was a radical Cub Scout but a good one and a
somewhat anti-authoritarian one. But I had my badges, including
the rebel badge.
Mr Marcel Beaubien
(Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): How many?
Mr Kormos:
Including the rebel badge, all the way down my arm. But again, I
appreciate that. I mention my own personal background. Maybe I
was lucky. I was involved with associations as a kid, with
volunteer adults and young adults and I wasn't a victim, but
obviously kids are-and seniors in situations where seniors are
being cared for, persons with disabilities, any number of
groups.
I was also pleased with the
material you gave us. We get publications on a regular basis. Is
this the OMHA magazine?
Mr Brown:
Yes. I would suggest you don't get that. That's our first edition
and it just went out last month.
Mr Kormos:
OK, because I've never seen this in the office. I'd ask committee
members to note that you marked the page where you actually had
written an editorial-style article or an article about police
records checks. This is the sort of publication many groups send
us and it's probably a good thing. We don't read all of them, but
in this instance your police records checks comments are-here it
is-entirely relevant. You've also given us your OMHA Guidelines
for Member Associations.
I took a look at appendix 6,
which is the consent for criminal record search. This has been
raised a couple of times, how various police services boards do
it. My impression from appendix 6 is that if I come and
volunteer, I sign the consent and your organization-help me with
it-submits it to the police services board that's relevant?
Mr Brown:
Yes. In most cases, it's up to the local police services board as
to whether or not they will release information to a group or
release it to the individual who's requesting it. We've done this
form up to ask that the police services board release it to a
bonded individual, if they
can. Many don't, but it's there for the associations that
can.
Mr Kormos:
There's another area of inconsistency across the province.
Mr Brown:
Yes.
Mr Kormos:
The Ministry of Culture database that's proposed, I'm aware of
the announcement of the funds to this volunteer screening
educational program, but you spoke of the database. I really
don't know about that. What's your understanding of that
component of it?
Mr Brown:
Our understanding is that the ideal situation would be to have
one database that you would go to. You would go for a police
records check once, you would list yourself within that one
database, and then you wouldn't have to go back depending on what
volunteer association you're working with at the time. That whole
program is in its infancy. I think the first public
acknowledgement was only a couple of months ago, at least from my
understanding.
I think what a database would
do-we're trying to do one in hockey right now. I'll give you an
example. If you're a coach in Toronto, you belong to the Greater
Toronto Hockey League. If you're a coach in Ontario, you're a
member of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association.
Telephone
ringing.
Mr Brown:
I'm sure that happens all the time, right?
Mr Kormos: I
was hoping you'd answer it.
Mr Brown:
No. This is probably an inappropriate time.
Mr Kormos: A
jug of milk and two loaves of bread.
Mr Brown:
What happens is, a coach will apply for a position in Toronto, be
denied his position based on, hopefully, more than just a police
record check, because by no means is a police record check the
only tool that you should be using. But then they'll move up and
go into Richmond Hill, apply for a coaching position and may be
given it because that particular local association either didn't
have the means to follow up on police record checks or didn't
have that program in place.
What a central registry would
do is, it would allow us to track that. We're trying to do that
in hockey now. If you're denied a position, a volunteer role in
one association-and our lawyers are working on the legalities of
it right now-you would be tagged and entered into a database.
Then it would be up to the other association because-going back
to inconsistencies again-what constitutes information on a police
record check that would deny you a volunteer role? In minor
hockey it may be different than volunteering with a church group.
It may be different than volunteering with an old age home. You
run into the variables of what denies you through a police record
check.
In our case, because coaches
are driving children for a lot of the time, we promote that
anything within five years to do with drinking and driving would
deny you a role as a volunteer. But in an old age home, why
should someone who may never have to get into a car be denied the
right to volunteer? A drunk driving charge has no significance
whatsoever to their function in that volunteer position. Those
are the further implications to what we're trying to do.
Dealing specifically with the
costs-
The Chair:
Could I just-
Mr Brown:
Yes.
The Chair:
I'm trying to give all the caucuses a chance here. Mr Mazzilli,
you've got five minutes, and the opposition has five minutes.
Mr Frank Mazzilli
(London-Fanshawe): Sure.
The Chair:
Unless you want Mr Brown to continue.
Mr Mazzilli:
Mr Brown, thank you for attending. As members of this committee,
it has been helpful through the hearings yesterday and today to
hear from leaders in different organizations and the difficulties
and challenges that they have with volunteerism. What started out
as a simple task has, I think, given us a reason to look at the
entire function.
I know Mr Kormos feels the
same way. We had some conversation before. What started out as a
simple issue of a free service really does not address the entire
problem facing all volunteer organizations or associations.
You're right, the initiative
by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation is in its
infancy. I certainly hope that we can have some more direction
and information for your groups in the near future. I don't have
any questions of you, but I just want to thank you.
Mrs Lyn McLeod
(Thunder Bay-Atikokan): You were about to begin to
discuss the costs. I think that follows up on the question Mr
Kormos was asking. I understand that you are supportive of doing
the security check but that there is potential for it to become
overload if it's free. I think you were about to address the
costs, and I would just invite you to continue with that.
Mr Brown: I
think, regardless of whether there's overload or not, the issue
is you need to have this in place. If it's overload, we have to
address the overload issue. I don't want to be perceived as
saying that there have to be no costs. I just want consistency.
My feeling on no cost is that it makes it more accessible and
acceptable.
Right now you have a
volunteer. You tell them they have to be certified. They have to
buy equipment. They have to donate all their time away from their
family, from work at times. And then you have to say, "Well, on
top of all this, we don't trust you and we want you to get a
police record check." In most cases, it's not the police record
check itself; it's the negative atmosphere that police record
checks bring on to the volunteers. Then, to top it off, you have
to go pay for it yourself.
Mrs McLeod:
I apologize for having come in late. If you've addressed this,
please tell me and I'll check the record. We had a presenter
yesterday from the Boys and Girls Clubs who spoke to us about the
cost of getting risk and liability insurance for a volunteer
organization working with young people. He said it was $18,000
for his particular organization, and $10,000 of that was for
abuse and harassment risk and liability protection. Are you finding similar costs for
minor league hockey associations?
Mr Brown: We
have an insurance policy at the Canadian Hockey Association
that's $15.88, tax-inclusive. That covers you for everything,
including-we now have a sexual harassment, sexual component
clause in that policy. We also offer program directors' and
officers' liability insurance to all of our members. When you add
up the costs-there are significant costs there-we have 300 member
associations in the Ontario Minor Hockey Association, each of
them paying anywhere from $350 to $800 for directors' and
officers' liability insurance.
1610
One of the reasons they have
that is specifically related to the cases that could occur out of
having a volunteer who may have been screened prior to their
being involved. Significant costs.
The Chair:
Thanks very much for your presentation.
Mr Brown:
Thank you very much. I appreciate the ongoing concern from this
committee.
Mr Kormos: I
trust there are no more presenters.
The Chair:
No, there aren't. That's our final presenter.
Mr Kormos:
First, I want to thank the members of the committee for the
incredible goodwill with which they've approached this issue. I
know I spoke with Mr DeFaria about this a couple of months ago.
That goodwill came from the Liberals certainly, Ms McLeod and Mr
Bryant, as well as from the PA and the Conservative members. I'm
grateful to the people who participated in the submissions.
Having said that, I recognize that at the end of the day, the one
day of submissions and the deadline for amendments, quite
frankly, is grossly inadequate in terms of the issues that have
been revealed over the course of even yesterday and by Mr Brown
today.
Ms Street, who was here
yesterday, came here with some background of expertise. She spoke
about the broader whole volunteer screening program. Again, this
bill was never intended to deny the need for that. But we had Ms
Street talk about the tendency, for instance, to use criminal
record screening as the first stage, simply as a blanket sort of
screening process.
Mr Brown-and I hope I don't
misinterpret anything he said-indicated that it's very much a
fundamental or first stage thing because it permits you to screen
out those people who are never going to be considered, who don't
have a snowball's chance in Hades of ever meeting any of the
other screening criteria.
But I do acknowledge because
I'm forced to, the logic compels me to acknowledge, that if there
is an over-utilization of criminal records-you're talking about
an incredible cost here. Let's cut to the chase. There's no two
ways about it. What also is tragic is the inferences we can draw
from people who spoke here yesterday that there's a huge number
of volunteers out there who have, never mind, not been screened
on an adequate volunteer screening process, but who have never
had criminal record checks even.
Again, I understand all the
points about you can have a criminal record check today, be
convicted in theory, not tomorrow because it would show up as an
outstanding charge, but be convicted six months later. I
understand the absence of a criminal record can't predict your
behaviour. I appreciate that. Ms Street, you'll recall, was in
agreement that the presence of a criminal record, especially for
some types of offences, is a pretty good indicator that you
shouldn't be near at least certain classes or certain groups of
persons.
Mrs Elliott spoke with me
earlier today and raised some interesting prospects. I'm grateful
to her for that. I spoke with the parliamentary assistant
subsequent to that phone call.
This bill is an important
small piece of a broader issue. I know the ministry is working on
this volunteer screening program. I also know how bureaucracies
work in terms of producing stuff within timelines. Quite frankly,
I think there's some urgency to this. I am really concerned about
what would appear to be not just tens of thousands, perhaps even
hundreds of thousands of people out there who have never been
screened. My God, it's frightening. I think that's pretty
clear.
I suspect that the majority
of people here might have enough concern about this bill that if
it were to be put to clause-by-clause, it might fail. It might. I
don't want to prejudge the situation, but sometimes I have a
capacity to read minds.
Mrs McLeod:
I must say that I had a very different kind of information this
morning.
Mr Kormos:
Yes, and today I felt particularly telepathic. Quite frankly,
that's fine, and I appreciate the candour.
What I'm proposing is that
this bill shouldn't be voted down here in committee, nor should
it necessarily be approved by a committee and sent back to the
House for third reading, because there the whipping might be even
more intense. What I'm suggesting is this, and I'll be making an
appropriate motion in due course: I believe, subject to
direction, the appropriate motion would be simply to move
adjournment of the committee. It is a private member's bill.
Government bills take precedence. Clearly, this bill won't return
to this committee. First of all, the high-speed chase bill, Bill
22, has been sent to committee and we hope we're going to have a
sub-committee meeting after this meeting. That may end up being
just a one-day committee hearing. You can read minds. I'm helping
you with some mental telepathy now, Chair. I'll let you predict
the future.
In any event, whether or not
this bill gets considered during the hiatus is up to House
leaders. But it certainly will still be on the committee's agenda
subject to any government business. I'm trusting that a mere
motion to adjourn the committee at this point will suffice-having
said what I did in prefacing that motion-will suffice to keep the
bill alive and well and not force us into clause-by-clause the
next time the committee convenes, but would permit an
intervention by, for instance, the subcommittee to consider
further action. Unfortunately, our researcher isn't here. We wouldn't expect him to
be here because he didn't anticipate having to do more responses
to questions. But I trust that through the Chair or clerk we
could put issues to the research person if that's the appropriate
process.
Mrs McLeod:
May I ask what Mr Kormos's hope would be in terms of the
disposition of the bill if it's not voted on and disposed of
today. I understand that even as a private member's bill, it
would not be sustainable after the House adjourns for Christmas
unless it has been dealt with prior to that. I'm not sure if a
more comprehensive analysis of the situation facing volunteers,
which I think is what Mr Kormos is getting at, is going to be
possible within the time frame of the next 10 days. I wonder what
his hope would be in terms of how we might handle the bill from
this point on.
Mr Kormos:
This is not only the season to be jolly but it is the season to
wheel and deal among House leaders as we do midnight sittings and
approach the Christmas break. It would be my hope that the House
leader, who is advised of what is going to be proposed today,
would acquiesce.
I'll be quite candid. This
bill certainly can't become any broader-based whole volunteer
screening, because I'm not sure that's a bill; that's a
guideline, a policy, a regulation. I think there are things that
can be added to this bill to address very specifically the issue
of, let's say, floodgates or nuisance applications and their
cost; the issue of who it is, who is to be eligible, a little
more research about the differences from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction across the province in consideration of that. I
think there's some more substance that can be put to this bill,
that will give effect to the bill, that will serve its purpose
but also satisfy some of the legitimate concerns that have been
raised as a result of the submissions being made.
Mrs McLeod:
Is it not possible then for the committee by resolution to refer
the bill back to the subcommittee for further consideration, or
does it require an amendment of the referral motion from the
House?
The Chair:
I'd leave that until our researcher is back. We could postpone
clause-by-clause indefinitely.
Mrs McLeod:
So there's no time allocation motion of the clause-by-clause
hearings. So then we're fine.
The Chair:
We could do that.
Mr Mazzilli:
I know Mr Kormos and I have had discussions, and I also move that
the committee not proceed with the clause-by-clause today and
that the bill be adjourned, and that's certainly done with
consent.
What has come out through our
discussions is that the good intent in the bill also has enormous
difficulties and challenges. Some of the challenges of the
clause-by-clause, as to whether they're probably legal or
not-enormous issues for a private member's bill or a government
bill. I think we acknowledge that. Nevertheless, the good
intentions are there. I think, with consent, Mr Kormos wants to
keep the good intentions going perhaps into the wider scope of
the whole volunteer initiative with the Ministry of Citizenship,
Culture and Recreation. Certainly what he's looking for is time
to see how all that will fit in. So we would consent to
adjournment.
The Chair: I
would suggest then-and we can have further discussion on this-the
motion would be to postpone clause-by-clause indefinitely.
Mrs McLeod:
I'm just concerned, if that's the motion, that it will go into
limbo. While I can appreciate the fact that there may be some
very appropriate amendments to limit the scope of the bill and
members of groups or individuals who might be targeted by this, I
would be equally concerned if organizations like the Anglican
Church, the Boys and Girls Club and the hockey association, that
have made presentations to it, who feel that the security checks
are something they must do, are left with the significant cost of
paying for those themselves.
To be quite honest with you,
Mr Chair, I didn't understand until we began the public hearings
on this bill what a significant problem this is for non-profit
organizations. It has opened a Pandora's box, as Mr Mazzilli has
said, of a whole lot of other issues. We don't have the scope to
deal with all of those other issues here, but I would like at
least to see us in a position, as a committee, to take some steps
on an amended bill that people might be comfortable with. That's
why I'm wondering if we can't refer it back to subcommittee so
the subcommittee can in turn-
The Chair:
It will remain on our agenda and we could call a subcommittee to
deal with that. OK?
Mrs McLeod:
As long as that's to be the case.
The Chair:
Is there a motion?
Mr Kormos:
If I may, Chair. Again, it's my understanding that the
subcommittee says this isn't a time-allocated bill. The
subcommittee can at any time convene to consider preparing a
recommendation to the committee regarding the business of the
committee.
Therefore, I would move
postponement of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
The Chair:
Indefinitely.
Mr Kormos:
I think it's inherent in it, but if you want to add
"indefinitely"-no, indefinitely is a long time. Wait a minute, I
just realized that there are a couple of middle-aged people
around here. I want to make sure I get chance to respond to
it.
I move postponement of
clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chair:
That's the motion on the floor. All those in favour? The motion
is passed.
I want to point out that we
have just received another memorandum from the researcher. Before
we adjourn, I just want to say we're going to have a subcommittee
meeting to deal with Bill 22, which is Sergeant Rick McDonald.
We'll adjourn the committee and have our subcommittee.
