Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on Nov. 1st, 2007

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Well, they're pretty useless, Mr. Chair, since I didn't get the notice that we were starting early and I didn't hear any of the testimony we've had so far. It would be like boxing in the dark, so I'll just pass.

I just want to say for the record that this should not have happened. I understand that you've committed to not letting it happen again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for appearing and for the very knowledgeable testimony.

One of the scenarios that Bill C-2 contemplates is someone who breaches their long-term supervision order. I wonder if either of you would care to comment on the changes proposed in Bill C-2 in dealing with someone like this.

Mr. Muise, you mentioned a couple of different individuals and put real faces to the types of long-term offenders we may be talking about and perhaps how dangerous they are to society. You even mentioned cases where someone is actually shadowed by another individual to ensure that they comply with their supervision order. But we know that all too often there are in fact breaches of the long-term supervision order.

I wonder if you can comment, either of you, on the changes contained in this bill. Then I do have one follow-up question for Mr. Muise.

[John Muise]

I'll briefly repeat my point about the amendments that are contemplated in relation to both those who breach and those who commit another serious personal injury offence while on a long-term order. These are the very people who....

As I stated before, sex offenders make up approximately 85% of the dangerous offender population. If you accept the truism that it's a small minority of offenders, particularly when it comes to sex offenders, who commit a disproportionate amount of this kind of crime, and those very same people just keep coming back to the well, the amendments that the provincial attorneys general have said we should include will be very good in terms of identifying those particular people.

If you put that together with the amendment that in effect creates a hearing where somebody is declared, the way the legislation is written is that rather than having to go through the dangerous offender hearing down the road, the hearing then converts to a situation where this person has already been declared, and now it's up to the judge to decide what to do. This person was originally put out on an LTO, potentially, and now what to do: am I going to now create an indeterminate sentence, or is there evidence to convince the court that yet again he can be put out on another LTO?

So I think the two amendments, those two pieces, are going to do a good job of making the court and the criminal justice system aware of those particular people and bring them back in a way that is not overly onerous. It puts it back yet again in front of a judge. It's not saying, “You struck out on the LTO, you're going to be indeterminate sentence.” It's not even that far. It's back in front of the judge.

Also, for those who were concerned that it might appear like a three strikes and you're out, I believe nothing could be further from the truth. I think it strikes certainly a balance that should, I hope, satisfy most.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks.

[Terrance Cooper]

With respect to breach of long-term supervision order, it's very important to realize that we're not looking necessarily simply for further offences. The individual was assessed by experts to begin with under his or her first part XXIV hearing, and there were, no doubt, found to be certain things that escalate the risk. Perhaps the individual has a drug or alcohol problem, or perhaps being near children or a public park or something such as that is a catalyst for future offences. So quite often when we're pursuing a breach of long-term supervision order charge, we're looking at one of those things, and it's incredibly important that that be addressed as a very significant elevation of risk. When the individual has begun drinking when he or she shouldn't be because doing so has resulted in offences before, that's something as serious as committing another offence in terms of managing the risk. That's what it's all about.

Clause 43 in Bill C-2, which calls for a mandatory assessment for a breach of long-term supervision order, is a blessing. We've never had access to that situation. So we've gathered up all the same evidence for any part XXIV hearing, only we can't present it to an expert unless there's some consent, and that's unlikely to happen.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Do I have a few more minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

You have about 15 seconds.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Muise, maybe you'll get an opportunity in another round of questioning, but you did mention that the provisions that were in Bill C-22 for raising the age of protection were very important to your organization, and I wonder if you might just want to take the opportunity to comment on that a bit.

[John Muise]

Yes. The section that deals with an accused who is married to the complainant--I'm not talking about the transition section, I'm talking about the section going forward--I suspect was included with the best of intentions. What will happen is that communities like Bountiful, B.C., will see this as the welcoming mat for those who are 30-, 40-, 50-year-olds wanting to get married to 14- and 15-year-olds in those kinds of communities. It's a big problem in certain communities. This particular clause, with the greatest of respect, I think will just make it worse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thanks.

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I want to thank you both for a lot of the information that you have brought before us.

Mr. Muise, when you came before the previous committee that was dealing specifically with Bill C-27, you talked about Paul Callow, also known as the balcony rapist. I believe there may have been one or another witness who also raised that case as an example of a repeat offender who normally should have been designated as a dangerous offender, received an indeterminate sentence, etc., and who has now been released and presents a high risk.

I was contacted over the summer by a member of Mr. Callow's family, because he is out; he is a under a section 810 recognizance order. The member of his family was quite upset with the way he is being portrayed today and the risk that he represents today and sent me a report that was compiled by Professor Michael Jackson, Queen's Counsel, at the University of British Columbia faculty of law. It was done on June 5, 2007. It's a documentary review of all of his files, all of the assessments done, the programs he participated in or did not participate in, correctional files, you name it.

It's 56 pages, and he uses the actual reports and quotes the actual reports stemming all the way back to 1987, I believe, when he was first convicted and all the way up to his actual release in February 2007. I would like to table this, because I think it's important that we don't simply rely on one or two words. I would like to quote from page 1 of this report.

In the extensive media portrayal of Mr. Callow at the time of his release, based upon information provided by the correctional and law enforcement authorities, he was in fact described as an untreated dangerous sexual offender who has either refused to undertake treatment or not responded to treatment and had shown little or no remorse for his crimes. This portrayal has fanned the flames of widespread public fear and political calls for changes to the law, including indefinite civil commitment of those believed to be dangerous sexual offenders. This portrayal of Mr. Callow is however misinformed....

He provides the documentary evidence. With the agreement of the members, If members are interested in reading the actual documentary review done by Professor Michael Jackson of Mr. Callow's case and forming their own opinion following that as to whether or not Mr. Callow remains an untreated dangerous offender with a high risk, I would ask the indulgence of the members to table a copy of this actual report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

What I would suggest, Madam Jennings, is that as you suggested, if someone is interested in reading a copy perhaps they could get a copy from you. Would that be a fair way to do it? There is an issue with tabling it. You can certainly forward a copy of it. Is it translated?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

No, I didn't think of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

The only suggestion I would have is that if anyone from the committee is interested, they get a copy from you.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I'd be more than happy to provide them with a copy of this, because I do think it's worth reading. It does not in any way put into question the government's Bill C-2, Bill C-27 portion. It's simply a report that astounded me. I listened to the testimony, and I went away thinking, my God, you have communities now and women who are at a real risk. Then I received this, and I went through it, and it's significantly different today from what it was twenty years ago, or even ten years ago, in terms of the expert opinions and so on. So I would encourage the members to contact my office, and it would be my pleasure to make this available.

Do I have any more time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

You do not have any time left. You're pretty much right at your time limit.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I have a point of order. I think it's a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

All right. Mr. Harris, on a point of order.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Ms. Jennings has made this report available for us. I wanted to ask first, Ms. Jennings, if you have a copy of the credentials of Dr. Michael Jackson. Is there a copy of his credentials that would go along with that report?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

May I?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

No, no, no, I mean....

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

It's part of his report. It lists his entire experience.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

If I request that, I'd like to have a copy of his credentials as well. Thank you.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

His credentials are in fact described in the report itself: who Mr. Jackson is, what he has done, what kinds of awards he has received, etc.