Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Sir, I wish I did. I agree with you. I think a lot of people are wondering. I do know, for instance, that he was sentenced in 1986, so the current statutory regimen around dangerous offenders, as I know you know, was effective in 1977, and similar legislation back to 1947 and 1892.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, I don't, and I highly doubt that anything's going on. I want to be fair. I think there's an ongoing process that takes place in provincial attorney general offices across the country. I think there's a general recognition that there has to be a very onerous, hard look at all cases likes this.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, I was not.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I want to be fair. Cost is always an issue. For instance, a police officer, particularly in a small jurisdiction.... I think it becomes an issue because it's just looked at in the context that we can't do this because the person taking care of sexual assaults is the one and only person taking care of sexual assaults and criminal offences in that small, small jurisdiction.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The financial impact, if section 810 orders were increased from two years to five years, would decrease on the people who have to get these orders, because you'd be doing one every five years instead of two. The cost would go down for the administration of justice.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I support rehabilitation, clearly, because the vast majority of offenders end up out in our communities. Any support we can give to somebody who is a potential sex offender or a child sex abuse offender.... I'm certainly not a clinician, and all of you know that. I do know from reading about this—and I suspect you folks have read the same thing as I have—that there are no guarantees.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  My last job at the Toronto Police Service was at the homicide squad in charge of the retroactive DNA team. I looked at thousands of criminal records. I saw records that, quite frankly, dropped to the floor and the people had never been declared dangerous offenders. So my experience is that we have a whole lot of people who are dangerous, who haven't been declared dangerous offenders.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It was that an automatic “three strikes and you're in” would not be charter-proof. For instance, if you committed one robbery, two robberies, three robberies, that would be three strikes, and you'd be in as a dangerous offender. Our organization realized that might not withstand section 1 charter scrutiny.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Do I share the opinion that the threshold to declare a dangerous offender is high? Yes.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Thank you. It's a good question. There are two reasons. The first reason is that the section 810.2 orders are given to very dangerous offenders, generally. They go to warrant expiry date, and there is nothing else to control them. Most of those who get these orders are men like Paul Callow.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, I'm not. I'm sorry.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'm sorry, I might be confused, but I thought we were talking about increasing section 810 orders from two to five years. Those are post-sentence orders where these people are out in the community. So I'm not sure how that's going to impact the incarceration rate in provincial institutions.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I didn't get the grant; it was given to the CCAA. I'm just guessing now that they received it around 2002 or 2003. I think it was in 2003, because they went around the province in 2003-04, released the report--

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It was the Government of Ontario that provided the grant to the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness. It was a grant from their victims' justice fund. They give out money on a yearly basis, usually for one-off projects. This was project money to conduct this review around the province of Ontario, because it was an Ontario grant; to speak to people on the front lines of the criminal justice system, crime victims and survivors; and then to prepare a report and submit it.