Many of the presenters, particularly in smaller communities, were concerned about the “confidentiality clause” because, while it does make it easier for people to report on what they see to SCAN investigators, there is no safeguard in place to protect innocent people from vexatious and frivolous accusations. Civil remedies and separate legal recourses are not seen to be practical. Such remedies should be available within this legislation.

In all communities, people told us that persons looking to settle old scores or vendettas could abuse the powers under SCAN. In particular, there are many persons in positions of authority and responsibility who need to deliver “bad news” to their fellow community members as a regular part of their work, e.g. housing association members and income support workers.

Many felt that they could be subject to false accusations from community members. Even if those accusations were eventually shown to be unsubstantiated, often an accusation or even rumours of an accusation alone can do a great deal of harm to one's reputation and career in a small community. The lack of properly legislated recourse that ensures those being accused are given proper notice and have an opportunity to answer to the allegations does not sit well with the vast majority of the people who came and spoke to us.

Ms. Dorothy Loreen of Tuktoyaktuk supports Bill 7, but was very worried how she would be able to defend herself, pay for a lawyer and still look after her family, if someone has reported her under SCAN, even though she doesn't drink, do drugs or gamble.

The right to face one's accuser, know the case against one, and defend oneself against any charges is a basic right, and fundamental to democratic principles. People have told the committee the government must respect these rights and reflect them in the legislation at the same time as addressing the core issues targeted by the bill.

Mr. Speaker, now I would like to ask Deputy Chairman Yakeleya to continue with the report. Thank you.