CONTENTS
Wednesday 8 December 1993
Intended appointments
Peter Munk, University of Toronto Foundation
Dr Rangasamudram S. Swaminath, Ontario Criminal Code Review Board
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1009 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order. The first order of business is to adopt the report of the subcommittee on committee business dated Wednesday, December 1. Do I have a motion to move that subcommittee report?
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I heard that my colleague Jim Bradley did an excellent job. With that, I so move.
The Chair: Any discussion on that motion? All in favour? That's carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair: Mr Yeager would just like to make a brief announcement to the committee.
Mr Lewis Yeager: I've received some additional information from the Ministry of Health relating to your second appointment of the afternoon to the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board, and I've distributed a revised background report. It has a few changes, mostly of a legal nature, in citations and things of that sort. If you would refer to your revised background report for the second appointment rather than the original one that came around, it would be a little bit more helpful.
PETER MUNK
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: Peter Munk, intended appointee as member, University of Toronto Foundation.
The Chair: I would like to welcome to the committee the intended appointee as member of the University of Toronto Foundation, Mr Peter Munk. Welcome, Mr Munk. You do have the option of giving a brief opening comment to the committee if you wish or we will just start in rotation and they can ask you questions.
Mr Peter Munk: Please go ahead and let's do it in rotation.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee. This University Foundation Act, 1992, is something new and it's intriguing to find out just what it's all about. That's really why we wanted you to come forward today, just to give us some review on what this foundation's going to do and how it's going to help our university system. What is the background of it?
Mr Munk: It is my understanding that this is a very important piece of legislation. I think it's designed to accelerate or to encourage private funding for Ontario's universities.
I understand that up until now or up until this particular legislation had been proposed or had been passed, there was a serious constraint which prevented people, especially in their estates, from leaving large amounts to these colleges or universities because of the peculiarity in the tax laws. If you are going to pass this piece of legislation, which I understand is being done, that constraint will be removed and the tax laws will be restructured in a way to encourage these private-source fundings.
I also understand from Mr Pritchard, who happens to be here, that most provinces, particularly British Columbia and Manitoba, have these laws. Right now, people who wish to leave bequests to universities in their estates would be penalized if they were to do it for the U of T while they'd be encouraged to do it for out-of-province universities. I think that is the fundamental reason and that's the rationale behind this proposed legislation.
Mr McLean: That's interesting. Is every university going to be involved now? What about the colleges?
Mr Munk: There's a list which shows the inclusivity of this proposed legislation and I think it only refers to universities within Ontario, but I may be corrected on that.
Mr McLean: Have you any idea what they raise in BC or other parts of Canada that have this in place? Is it substantial?
Mr Munk: I understand it's millions. It comes primarily from bequests. If you were to be a very committed or loyal graduate of the U of T and you wrote your will, and very often at that point you have no children and you want to leave your estate to an institution you felt a great degree of loyalty to, with the current legislation unaltered, it would be virtually impossible, certainly tax-disadvantageous, for your estate to leave it to your Toronto or Ontario universities, while it would be very encouraging to do so for universities outside of the province.
Mr McLean: Will there be staff hired to deal with the office or organize it, and what size do you think that office will be?
Mr Munk: I'm sorry, sir, I don't have the answer to that. I think Mr Pritchard would be able to answer that. He happens to be present. It is my understanding that my role and that of my fellow appointees is a position of trustee, to make sure that the funds are properly received in this trust fund and then properly allocated to the appropriate universities, and that is the role which I have been nominated for.
Mr McLean: Do you think this will help the government out with regard to its financial problem, when it gets a great amount of help from the foundation?
Mr Munk: These institutions have a habit of having insatiable appetites. A few million dollars here and there from private funding will not reduce their appetite in the long term, but I'm not in that business, so I'm afraid I cannot judge.
Mr McLean: I hope you enjoy it. I know you will and I know you'll be successful on the board.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Welcome, Mr Munk. Certainly, as somebody who has quite close ties with Trent University, I'm very pleased that we have been able to bring in this University Foundation Act and that this is now getting set up. I think it's going to be very beneficial.
I know some donations have in fact been lost to Ontario universities because we didn't have such legislation. How much money do you think there is out there that we'll now be able to access because we have this legislation?
Mr Munk: I think the amount is much larger than you and I would assume it is, just on a cursory glance. It amazes me all the time that something like the Princess Margaret Hospital project, which is one of 14 or 15 current major fund-raising events, can attract $80 million to $100 million in our economy today from private funding.
There's an enormous amount of money which is out there, and most of the money which you are addressing your concerns to, the really large money, happens to come from people who are dying, who are deceasing. They are leaving in their estates the allocation of very significant funds. That's what I think this legislation is meant to do. It's meant to capture that pool of funds. Once the legislation becomes known and the tax effect becomes clear, I think it becomes significant as time goes on.
Ms Carter: We all know, and of course it was just mentioned, that universities are very cash-strapped at the moment and obviously they're looking very hard for ways to acquire extra money. Do you see any problems with accessing money in this way? For example, might the government be encouraged to say, "We don't need to maintain or step up our contributions because there's all this other money coming in"? Do you see any side like that to it?
Mr Munk: I wish I could answer you in the affirmative, but as I said earlier, just because you are encouraging private funding, I think it will be a while before the quality of private funding will reach a level that could positively affect or reduce the contribution the universities would be asking for from the government.
As you know, education becomes increasingly important as time goes on. The quality of those universities is of great importance to our country and to our province, and funding I'm afraid is a very critical and vital constraint on them. So I think they're going to go on and on and just ask for more money, because of the important task they fulfil.
Ms Carter: I think we all agree that universities must be adequately funded. Could there be any problem with how this money is going to be spent? Supposing a donor has strong ideas as to how he wants his particular donation to be spent, do you think that should be permitted or do you see dangers in that? Do you think the universities should be able to make those decisions, wherever the money comes from?
Mr Munk: I am not really qualified to give you the appropriate answer. It is just my personal view that for most people who leave large amounts in their bequest and have specific allocations for those funds, I think the university traditionally, over the years, has always been able to fit it in in a way that contributes to its overall mission statement. If a bequest were to be made that's totally contrary to the stated objectives of the college, I presume it would deal with that.
Ms Carter: It might be project-funding rather than money just for continued operation costs.
Mr Munk: That in fact is often the case, absolutely. That is really a matter for the trustees of the university to decide.
1020
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I notice you're on the board of the Toronto Hospital.
Mr Munk: I am, sir.
Mr Frankford: I assume they have a foundation as well.
Mr Munk: They do, sir, the hospital foundation.
Mr Frankford: Are you connected with that or are you separate from that?
Mr Munk: I am involved in that as well.
Mr Frankford: So in a sense, you already have experience of a foundation.
Mr Munk: Yes, we do. We have experience in that, and it's quite similar, I'm sure.
Mr Frankford: I think maybe I'm correct in saying that the setting up of the legislation to allow university foundations in a way evens the playing field, not just between other provinces that have it but between the university sector and the hospital sector.
Mr Munk: I'm sure that's correct. I never thought about it in those terms, but I'm sure that's a correct statement.
Mr Frankford: Do you think the universities might to some extent be competing for the same funds?
Mr Munk: I think they do. I think there's enormous competition out there by all kinds of charities for funding. I know personally that I spend half of my time, and I work for a company that keeps me quite busy, just seeing people who wish to talk to me about giving or getting a major corporate or personal donation, and all those causes are excellent.
If you were to be sitting in my chair every day, getting these fantastic presentations from the Governor General's artistic award to the Metro Zoo, to various colleges and universities, to extensions of museums, to hospitals, to specific chairs of endowment, you couldn't say to any one of them that they're either frivolous or that they're wrong or that they would not do a great job. It's just that there's a limit to the funds available. That's why I think the universities are justified in getting this legislation, which would just enhance the flow of these funds into their coffers without a tax penalty.
Mr Frankford: In whatever time there is remaining, could you share any experiences as a hospital foundation trustee about the challenges you have there in the allocation of funds?
Mr Munk: I'm not a trustee of the foundation, I'm a trustee of the hospital and, as such, I'm committed to correlate with the foundation. I'm not personally a trustee. The foundation collects the donations, which are now a significant amount of money, many tens of millions of dollars, and its board considers requests from the hospital to augment specific individual donations for certain key projects as long as those funds are designated for activities which are within the overall guidelines of the hospital. Otherwise, they stay in the foundation and just earn interest. So we have a pool of money in the foundation that stands by or is available to fund specific projects required by the hospital.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): As I sit here, I wonder, is there anything like this with the federal government? Is there any concern about it wanting to get its sticky fingers in and take its cut?
Mr Curling: They're different sticky fingers now.
Mr Waters: You can put that one on the record.
Because you've been involved with the hospital foundation and now you're involved with this, I just wonder how that works. Provincially, we've done this, but is there any concern?
Mr Munk: I'm afraid I don't have the answer. In the hospital we never ever had any kind of interference or any relation really with the federal government. We deal entirely with the provincial government and we are a provincial corporation.
Mr Waters: Hopefully, you never will.
Mr Munk: Thank you, sir. You took the words out of my mouth. So I really have no experience at all with federal government activities.
Mr Waters: Okay. I was just curious about that aspect of it.
Mr Munk: It's a good, logical question. I don't have the answer.
The Chair: Are there any more questions from the government members? There's about a minute and a half left.
Ms Carter: I could ask something. We did raise the question of whether this relief will be offered to other types of institutions. I understand so far it isn't. Do you think it would be a good idea for art galleries or whatever to be able to share in this kind of benefit?
Mr Munk: I personally think the answer is affirmative. I think it could be a helpful way to allow people who make up their last will and testament to have a totally free choice of the fields which they prefer, with the same tax considerations. I'm really not an expert, Madam, but I feel the answer would be yes, it would be helpful.
Ms Carter: So people with some money and maybe no descendants could follow up their own particular interests in life.
Mr Munk: Their inclinations.
Ms Carter: And feel they were leaving their entire estate to whatever it happened to be.
Mr Munk: I would feel that, yes, but again, I really never thought about the subject per se.
Ms Carter: I don't know what impact that would have on overall tax takings, but that's another issue.
Mr Munk: Nor do I.
Mr Curling: Welcome, Mr Munk, to the committee. I'm not usually this excited when many people come before this committee, but I'm very excited today about your coming with such qualifications. I think I can't give you all the credit. I've got to give some of the credit to Dr Pritchard too, who I know is pretty good in recruiting.
In your comments, you bring such optimism to this dilemma of funding to universities that it gives me a bit of hope, but it also gives me a bit of concern in this respect.
First, let me just talk about the positive aspect and then I'll ask you to comment on this. I know that if this bill, which the government intends to bring in in order to facilitate more funding to the universities, will assist in funding, that's the good news. I hope the good news carries on to the community colleges, the kissing cousins of education. I hope the government will fund them more, because they always seem to be deprived of getting adequate funding for universities and adequate funding for the community colleges themselves.
A concern was expressed, though, by the Canadian Federation of Students. They say they see this as an abdication by the government to fund universities. I don't see it totally like that; I see it partially as an abdication itself. Could you just comment again? You're saying that you're extremely confident that sufficient funds will be created from this kind of legislation itself to fund a university. Do you think that will solve the problem of funding for universities?
Mr Munk: I don't think I hinted, let alone said, that I think these kinds of private funds, encouraged by this tax legislation, could in any way eliminate or replace or indeed substantially reduce government funding. I think this is not the same quantity of funding we're talking about. This is an additional component that will encourage the private sector's inflow of funds, but it could not be considered adequate to replace the government's funding.
Mr Curling: I'm glad you say that, because the fact is that you and the members of that board will be serving as advisers to the minister. By then, I presume they will put their Bill 68 through. You will be advising the minister as to the direction itself. I think it should be stated very emphatically to the minister that this is not the entire adequacy of funds that will do all the funding for the universities.
The way I see it, and I'm sure you have seen it too -- as a matter of fact there's a release today saying that for those who have not finished grade 12, it's dismal. Forget the fact that you may get a job. It's very dismal. It will be challenging to get a job even for those with university. Therefore it is so important that access to university is not restricted by lack of funds for individuals going in, because the competitiveness in the years ahead will be that they must have a graduate or post-graduate degree.
Maybe I'm answering the question. Let me put it as a question. Could you assure me that you will tell the minister that, although it may not be adequate, we must continue to advance so that access to education will not be impeded by lack of funds for those who want those university degrees?
Mr Munk: I absolutely concur with that, sir.
1030
Mr Curling: I just want to thank you very much. I'm sure other universities will be attracted to individuals like yourself in order to get funds for all of the universities. I'm biased, because Scarborough college, which is part of the University of Toronto, serves my area. I wish you well in your endeavours.
Mr Munk: Thank you, Mr Curling.
The Chair: We thank you, Mr Munk, for appearing before the committee this morning. Obviously all three caucuses are very happy about your willingness to serve in another capacity, helping the people of this province. Thank you very much for being here this morning.
Mr Munk: Thank you very much for having me here.
RANGASAMUDRAM S. SWAMINATH
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Rangasamudram S. Swaminath, intended appointee as member, Ontario Criminal Code Review Board.
The Chair: Our next intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board this morning is Mr Rangasamudram Swaminath. I know I've just done a terrible job pronouncing your name, but I welcome you warmly to the committee this morning. Perhaps if you would like to come forward, you could tell us how to correctly pronounce your name. Feel free, if you wish, to address the committee for a few moments or we can just start with the rotation of questions. What would you prefer?
Dr Rangasamudram Swaminath: I think you did good in struggling to pronounce my name. Swaminath is my last name; Rangasamudram is my first name.
The Chair: I didn't do too badly actually. Do you wish to address the committee or would you like them just to start asking questions?
Dr Swaminath: I'm quite comfortable with questions being asked of me.
Mr Curling: Welcome, Mr Swaminath, to this committee. Lately, actually I would say over the last five years, crime has gone up in certain areas and also gone down in certain areas. There's a great concern about the protection of the innocent or the protection of people who want to feel safe in their communities.
This board itself that you will serve on is an extremely important board. I think in the near future or in the immediate future, a lot of questions will be asked about paroling and about how we review the whole system itself. Do you have any views on any new direction or any suggestions that you feel you'd like to bring to this board?
Dr Swaminath: My contribution would be in the area of providing the board with the benefit of my medical expertise and particularly my training and experience of working with mentally ill offenders. So in terms of that, I can help the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board in that area.
As a member of the board, I have to look at the evidence that is presented to the board as such, and in particular the evidence from the expert witnesses who appear before the board, and weigh that evidence and see how that can be applied in terms of the mandate the board has, which is to look at the mental condition of the accused, the need to protect the public from dangerous people, the needs of the accused and also, in the interests of the community, reintegration for the accused.
I have to weigh those and see how that can be applied in the context of the least onerous, the least restrictive alternatives that we have. So we are in this balancing act, and as a member of the board, I can only go by the evidence that was presented before the board.
Mr Curling: It depends on what statistics we read. There are times when we feel that in Canada we have more people incarcerated or in jail than any other society in the world.
Mr Frankford: The US is higher.
Mr Curling: Is that so?
Mr Frankford: Way higher.
Mr Curling: I'm hearing from Dr Frankford that we are very high in that.
There are concerns about, I forget what they call it, where they put these attachments on people but they stay within a certain area, monitoring them by these electronic means. Do you see that we're doing more of that? I don't know if it's even done here. I only see this on TV, where people are monitored that way.
People are crying for the need to protect them from dangerous persons. The perception sometimes in people's minds is that if someone is charged and sentenced for some crime, they feel they are dangerous for life, whereas sometimes economically it's much cheaper for them to serve their sentence within their own home or within their own environment. Do you see any encouragement for that kind of recommendation coming forward for such legislation?
Dr Swaminath: That is a matter that should be looked at by the parole board and how the parole decisions are made in respect of an offender who is serving a sentence for the crime that he or she has committed.
As a member of the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board, my area would be in looking at the mentally ill offenders who appear before the review board and who have either been found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder or who have been deemed to be unfit to stand trial on a specific criminal charge. I'm not sure whether the parole test can be applied by the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board, because the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board has a specific mandate.
Mr Curling: Just following up on the same protection from dangerous people, there have been concerns also about releasing the names of people who have been convicted and have been released on parole. I presume this board will be dealing with some of those things, the decision itself as to whether or not one should release names of dangerous persons. That debate has been going on. I don't want to drag you into something that is so complex and so emotional itself but, just by chance, have you had a chance to have any views on that?
Dr Swaminath: The patients in hospitals who are detained under the Criminal Code Review Board disposition order are protected under the confidentiality provisions that exist. Any information relating to their release will have to be dealt with within the guidelines that we have on releasing confidential information. The police have knowledge of the persons who are detained under the provisions of the Criminal Code, and one of the things that is done is to work in close cooperation with the police. But that rests with the hospital where the accused is detained. I'm not sure whether Criminal Code Review Board itself is mandated to do that.
Mr Curling: I doubt it rests with the hospital though. It's the review board that would make the decision as to whether that person would be discharged from the hospital or whether that person can be discharged from the institution and allowed out in the community.
Some people feel they should be told the names of people who have been active in violent crimes and who will live in their community. I'm not saying it's an easy answer at all, but I just wondered if you had some comment on that. I have no other comment or questions to you on the matter. We could go on all day on this. Thank you very much.
1040
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. I look at your résumé and it's pretty impressive. The board hearings are conducted by a three-member panel. It says the chair must be a judge, often retired, one member must be a psychiatrist and the third member a layperson. Have you ever been aware or watched the board operate? Have you been involved at all?
Dr Swaminath: I have not been involved as a member of the board, but I have sat on the other side and presented evidence for the board on an accused who has appeared before it.
Mr McLean: In your position as assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Western Ontario, would you sit in on some of those hearings?
Dr Swaminath: I would if I'm appointed to the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board as the psychiatric member.
Mr McLean: Would this appointment involve travelling in different parts of the province, or is it mainly the St Thomas psychiatric facility you'd be dealing with?
Dr Swaminath: It's likely to involve a certain amount of travelling outside of where I am.
Mr McLean: Do you feel that the system is providing adequate safeguards for the public?
Dr Swaminath: The Criminal Code Review Board has developed certain standards and one of the standards is to look at the protection of the public from dangerous persons. There is a representative from the Ministry of the Attorney General who specifically looks into that kind of issue when an accused is appearing before that review board. So there is that safeguard there for public protection.
Mr McLean: But these people do appear to be getting out into society, and maybe they should be and maybe they shouldn't. Do you feel there are some getting through the system who shouldn't be?
Dr Swaminath: I'm not sure whether I can say that. All cases, in my opinion, are reviewed very carefully and a lot of weight is placed in terms of how the accused is doing now, what is his state of mind at the present time, what are the risk factors that have to be taken into account and what are the needs of the person in terms of getting back into the society. So it's a balancing act that we have to do. Of course, it is not foolproof and it is not risk-proof. There is a certain amount of risk involved, as there would be in any situation similar to this.
Mr McLean: I want to turn it around, and maybe it's not in your duty, and talk about a victims' bill of rights or some rights for victims who have been hurt due to the fact that some have been let out. It doesn't matter whether they've been let out or not, I'd like your view with regard to a victims' bill of rights. Some of these victims I see and I read about are really suffering and there don't seem to be any rights for those people. Do you think there should be more?
Dr Swaminath: I think there is an increased awareness I see, and this is aside from the Criminal Code Review Board itself, in terms of the impact on victims in any violent offence that is perpetrated on them. I'm aware that the Ministry of the Attorney General is trying to provide some victim protection and support for victims in terms of helping them through that ordeal. I'm not sure whether it falls within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board.
Mr McLean: Thank you. I wish you all the best.
Mr Frankford: Good morning, Dr Swaminath. Mr McLean asked part of the question I'd been thinking of asking. You have been at the board as a psychiatrist, so you've been able to observe it from another perspective. Could you perhaps elaborate on how you observe it functioning? Do you have any thoughts on how you would like to change the way it operates maybe?
Dr Swaminath: As I've indicated to the honourable member, I have sat on the other side, which is basically representing the hospital where the accused is subjected to the Criminal Code Review Board disposition order. As a psychiatrist working in that hospital, I have under my direct care a certain amount of patients. Whenever their cases come up for a hearing by the review board, I appear before it to give evidence on the psychiatric condition of the accused, so that the board not only has the benefit of a report from the hospital but also has the benefit of actually examining the witness and asking questions relating to the accused, his state of mind, the risks and so on. Mostly I have done a lot of those during my years in St Thomas, but I have never had an opportunity to sit on the review board as a member, making decisions on the accused.
Mr Frankford: As the hospital psychiatrist, the expert witness, you would bring the patient's file and presumably you would be able to help the board with your impression of people's overall behaviour in an institution and any factors that you thought were either warnings that they shouldn't be discharged or, conversely, that you felt comfortable that they should be.
Dr Swaminath: Those are the very issues that we get into during the hearing process.
Mr Frankford: To put it very simply, what the board is trying to assess is whether people are mad or bad. I understand that the old Lieutenant Governor's board of review didn't publish statistics about the cases it dealt with. Do you think that would be something which would be helpful, for instance, to society and members of the Legislature, to get a better understanding of what the types of problems are that we are confronted with?
Dr Swaminath: Sure. Statistics would be helpful to the public, to know what kinds of persons are held within the system, how the system is applied to them in terms of making decisions about their release and so on.
Mr Frankford: Do you have any idea about the total number of individuals being dealt with in the province?
Dr Swaminath: I'm not quite up to date with how many detainees there are within the system right now, but my guess would be about 450 to 500 approximately.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Welcome to the committee, sir. Have you had any experience with drug addicts?
Dr Swaminath: Yes, I have.
Mr Mammoliti: What type of experience have you had?
Dr Swaminath: My experience goes back to my days in training in psychiatry. Part of that involves working in addiction rehabilitation programs.
Mr Mammoliti: I feel comfortable in asking you this question then: What improvements can the government make in terms of rehabilitation centres in Ontario, and how would that help you as a board member?
Dr Swaminath: It is important to see what problems are present for the accused himself, whether drugs have played a major role in the offending behaviour. If that is the reason, then what is it that the accused pleads in terms of rehabilitation from that point of view? There are programs within the province, there are programs in hospitals which are both residential and outpatient programs wherein the accused can have the benefit of trying to get an insight into his drug addiction problem.
Mr Mammoliti: Do you think drug addicts who commit a crime would be better served in a rehabilitation centre outside the correctional facility or do you think we should continue placing some of these people in our correctional facilities?
Dr Swaminath: I think the cases that are dealt with by the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board are those that are found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder. So if drug addiction is a problem, we'll have to look at that problem in that context. I can offer my own opinion as to what the corrections --
Mr Mammoliti: That's what I'm looking for.
Dr Swaminath: But I'm not sure whether that would be my mandate, sitting with the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board.
Mr Mammoliti: What the hell.
1050
Dr Swaminath: I think it is a problem. It is a problem that is escalating. We know that alcohol and drugs do play a part in offending behaviours. We know they're potentially disintegrating agents which can have a profound effect on human behaviour to an extent that they can unleash lethal instincts resulting in a tragedy that we do not want to see. It is a big problem. It is a potential problem. I think there has to be an awareness of that and we have to see how they can be dealt with in terms of getting them the rehabilitation, and also keeping in mind the resources that we have to work with as well.
The Chair: There are three minutes left.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): We'll be brief. Good morning and welcome. There's a very common concern across the country about the safety of our communities, certainly in my area of Niagara, and what people call "the system." They're worried about whether the system provides adequate safeguards. One of the questions we have been discussing in the justice committee under a victims' rights idea is whether or not victims, say of sexual offenders, should be given notification of the date of release of the perpetrator, and issues around that. What would be your opinion of that?
Dr Swaminath: Let's say it's a very sensitive issue, it's a very delicate issue, especially when it is dealt with in the context of a Criminal Code review. The person being detained in a hospital, recovering from a mental illness and being treated for that, how should that be looked at in terms of the impact on the victim in cases where there is a potential release of that individual from a psychiatric institution? There are provisions in the code which now require the hearings to be held in public. My guess would be that the victims would have access --
Ms Harrington: They could have access or would have access?
Dr Swaminath: They would have access. But they may have to apply before the review board and seek its permission or at least notify it that they will be attending that hearing.
Ms Harrington: If you do have time, you might want to elaborate a little further on what you feel about victims' rights and whether things should be changed in our system.
Dr Swaminath: It's a balancing act that we get into. Victims, in my personal opinion, quite aside from the Criminal Code Review Board, have an equal say in terms of determining their own needs, particularly when a violent crime is committed against them. There is that anxiety the victims go through and it is an anxiety-provoking thing for them when they see that there is a person who is facing imminent release. I think we have to balance again the needs of the accused and how we are going to get him back into society, and at the same time within the context of the victim being part of that society.
The Chair: There are about 30 seconds left, Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: I'll be very fast because I'm expected downstairs. Mr McLean and I share a certain facility called Oak Ridge, which is actually in his riding but both of us represent that area.
Mr McLean: It's mostly your constituents.
Mr Waters: It's mainly my constituents who work there, not who are held there.
One of the things that I've heard time and again is the guidelines and the rights of those people who are being held. Some people feel that their rights are excessive. In fact there has been a story where one inmate actually had the plans to the facility under freedom of information. Do you feel the people who are being held have too many rights, that there's too much freedom of information, or do you feel that's adequate and shouldn't be changed?
Dr Swaminath: This goes in with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we have in terms of the rights of the accused or anyone who is detained in an institution. It's a difficult question for me to answer in terms of how far one can go in handing down their rights as opposed to what is in the best interests of them and also in the best interests of the institution. It's a very difficult question for me to answer. I think the charter does say very clearly that everybody has rights, including those who are detained in hospitals.
Mr Waters: I have one more question. The question was proposed by legislative research. It says, "Would the witness discuss how a psychiatrist would approach determining whether an accused in a sexual offence is a dangerous offender or a habitual high-risk offender?" I'm curious how you would do that, because there's been so much talk about that particular type of offence.
Dr Swaminath: Again, it hinges on what is known about the accused, what was the accused's modus operandi in the past, what are the behaviours that need to be particularly targeted. So in that sense, the more knowledge you have about the accused, the better you are in terms of understanding how that individual would function in a given situation. I guess this applies to all offenders, including sex offenders.
The Chair: I would like to thank you, Dr Swaminath, for your appearance before the committee this morning, and a second apology, because I didn't address you as doctor at the beginning, simply because I hadn't done my homework. I didn't realize that you were a psychiatrist. Thank you again, doctor, for being here.
Dr Swaminath: Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the committee.
The Chair: Members of the committee, we did have a third appointment this morning, Mr Bruce Stanton, but unfortunately he was not able to attend at the last minute. Mr Waters, I think you wanted to speak about Mr Stanton's appearance, because he was one of your selections.
Mr Waters: Yes. Mr Stanton and I have been long-time acquaintances. I would move that we withdraw Mr Stanton's appearance.
The Chair: It would be automatically expiring anyway, wouldn't it?
Mr Waters: Yes.
The Chair: Mr Waters has moved that the request for Mr Stanton's appearance before the committee be withdrawn. All in favour of that?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): It doesn't need a motion. It's his option.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Would you like me to move concurrence on the two appointees?
The Chair: Yes. That would be great.
Mr Marchese moves the appointment of Peter Munk as a member of the University of Toronto Foundation and also the appointment of Dr Swaminath as a member of the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is unanimous.
Members of the committee, we'll see you next week if the House is sitting. There are four appointments scheduled for next Wednesday. If the House isn't sitting, I'd like to wish you season's greetings and see you in the new year.
Mr Marchese: And to you likewise.
Mr Curling: I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for the excellent job you've done through the session and hope you continue to get the cooperation of all members, especially the government side.
The Chair: Thank you. The committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1101.