Evidence of meeting #4 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offender.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I guess I've probably run out of time now, but, Mr. Muise, I'd like to strongly urge you to continue to lobby for your point of view. I'd really appreciate that.
There will be those who will say, why do we have to go this far for a small number of people who would be deemed dangerous offenders? I want to go on record here. Some may argue against this bill, but I think we have to look at the number of victims as a priority rather than the so-called small number of predators. If you were to have, say, 50 dangerous offender candidates over the next ten years, it's likely that each one of those people could have assaulted or victimized five to ten people, so now you're up into the range of 400 or 500 victims. That's important. Our duty is to protect our people from predators in our society, and that's what this bill is for.
I guess that was more of a statement than a question, but I would love to have your comments on that, if there is any time.
Director, Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
Thank you, Mr. Harris.
I didn't raise the point cavalierly and I certainly didn't raise it in a personal way. I understand that marriage legislation is a provincial jurisdiction and it varies in different provinces. I raised it because I believe it is an opening for those who would want to be with 14- and 15-year-olds who, notwithstanding safeguards, are not capable of making that decision and are the very people we need to protect.
That's why we were drawing a line in the sand. That's why the CCAA, the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness, suggested a five year close-in-age exemption. It suggested maintaining the exploitation section and raising it to 16 years old. We certainly didn't add in, “Oh, and by the way, marriage is allowed where the province allows it”. I think it's a mistake, and notwithstanding the comments of Mr. Comartin, I think it's something that at some point in time will be used, and I think this committee has an opportunity to turn back the clock on that. And in terms of your comments about raising it with others, I hope it's changed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Thank you, Mr. Muise.
We have about three folks who would like to speak. We do need about five minutes of time to go through the witness list to make sure.
I have Mr. Lee, Madam Freeman, and Mr. Moore. I would ask, for the sake of time, if you have your questions, please ask them, and we'll reduce our time to about three minutes per round.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm listening to Mr. Harris and Mr. Muise, and I'm sorry I've been sidebarred into this, but Mr. Harris is at liberty to propose an amendment to the bill if he thinks it's so egregiously out of whack with what the public interest is.
Secondly, the only way this loophole could be a loophole is if a judge or an attorney general became an unindicted co-conspirator with a child predator. This is absurd, and it shows a misunderstanding of the provision that was legislated in the last session. In any event, my question here is really directed at Mr. Cooper, and it has a general focus.
The changes to the old Bill C-27, to the dangerous offender application process here, will not in your view, based on what you've said, increase materially the volume of dangerous offender applications because it doesn't really make any direct difference in how those are commenced--i.e., on the decision of a crown attorney. But where it will make a difference is that it will expedite them, or facilitate them, because it shifts the burden now to the convicted person who will have had three serious convictions. It sort of alters the burden and changes the deck of cards in a way that shifts the burden away from the state and the people to prove something and moves it over to the accused. That makes it easier for the state and the public to designate someone and to take them out of circulation. Is that consistent with your view here?
Assistant Crown Attorney, Counsel to the Director of Crown Operations - East Region, Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General
Actually I'd like to clarify this, if that's what you took away from it. The provisions of the bill to which you were making reference will not affect how I do business because my standards are already higher than the standards that are proposed in the east region--and still, with those high standards we have 32 pending cases. I don't think there's another jurisdiction in Ontario that has nearly that many, but I don't know that for certain.
It may increase the volume when it heightens the awareness for crown attorneys in other regions of Ontario, in other provinces, or other territories. So there may be an increase in the volume of cases. It just won't affect what I deal with in my administration of this region.
Secondly, the facilitation is not, in my view of how it affects me, because it shifts the burden. Shifting of the burden is largely not a challenge for me because I'm not bringing cases to the court that are close to the line to begin with. I don't need the burden shifted with the way I practise law. My cases are well above the standard.
There will always be some debate whether the individual should be a dangerous offender or a long-term offender, of course. When I bring forward a case for a dangerous offender designation, if I come back with a long-term offender designation, I don't consider that a loss. The court made the decision about risk management and that's the court's responsibility. My responsibility is to assist the court. So the shifting of the burden thing may assist how things are managed in other parts of Canada, but it just doesn't affect the ten crown attorney offices that I assist with respect to this.
If I could just respond--
Assistant Crown Attorney, Counsel to the Director of Crown Operations - East Region, Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General
I've run out? Okay, very good.
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify something. This morning, I was not notified that the meeting had been rescheduled. To my mind, this committee and the serious work it is undertaking are vitally important to all of our fellow citizens. At least Quebeckers are interested in what we are doing here. Given the speed at which this legislative committee is proceeding and the authority it wields, I find it totally unacceptable that while at an in camera meeting last night, it was decided that this morning's meeting would start at 10 a.m. and that later in the evening, for one reason or another, the start of the meeting was moved up by one hour.
As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, that's not the right way to go about our business as parliamentarians. I hope this won't happen again. Mr. Comartin and I were not notified of the scheduling change and as a result, we were not on hand for the presentations by Mr. Cooper and Mr. Muise. It's truly unfortunate that such things occur as part of the parliamentary process. Thank you.
Conservative
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Unfortunately, I didn't hear the presentations they gave between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., since the meeting was supposed to begin at 10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Okay. Thank you.
Just in fairness, we did have this discussion prior to your arrival here. It was acknowledged that actually official notice was sent out to your office, to all offices, and phone calls were made to each of the offices of the members of this committee. I have apologized to the committee, and I certainly apologize to you personally that you did not receive those or didn't get them. They were made, and the attempt was to meet and to certainly give notification to everyone. I've indicated to the committee that we'll work hard to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Mr. Moore.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess...and I heard Mr. Comartin leaping to the defence of perverts who want to marry 14- and 15-year-olds--
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I didn't interrupt you when you were making allegations that--
NDP
Conservative
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, if you're in control of this meeting, you have to rule that kind of comment out of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
That's not a point of order, but I will say this. We've had a good meeting this morning in terms of hearing a lot of information. I would respectfully request each member of the committee, when they do make a remark, to do so in a professional way that does not infer a personal slant on anyone. I would respectfully request that from each member of this committee.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I agree, Mr. Chair, and I think we went off that track a while ago, at the suggestion that in order to appear at a justice committee meeting and speak to legislation that impacts on all Canadians, someone should be a lawyer. I mean, heaven forbid if all of us were lawyers. What kind of society would that look like? So I reject that as well.
Then Ms. Jennings was mentioning a report by Michael Jackson--we don't know who this individual is--that somehow Mr. Callow, the balcony rapist, is now a great guy, and we're going to table that. I think it's all very telling, because in the past--
Liberal
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
This is a complete mischaracterization of the statement I made. I do not appreciate the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice mischaracterizing my statement.
I never said the words you're attempting to put in my mouth, and I don't appreciate that.