Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.
My name is John Muise. For those of you I haven't met before, I'm a recently retired 30-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service, where I've spent six of my last seven years on secondment to the Ontario Office for Victims of Crime, where I provided policy advice to a succession of attorneys general in the province on issues around criminal justice reform, public safety, and support for crime victims. I then returned to the police service, where I spent my last year at the homicide squad in charge of the major case management section and the retroactive DNA section that we formed arising out of legislation that was passed shortly before Karla Homolka was about to get out of jail after serving her 12 years.
I note that because part of being in charge of the retroactive DNA section provided me the opportunity to look at hundreds and indeed thousands of criminal records of serious offenders. It gave me a slice of the kinds of offenders that would be captured by this bill, particularly as it relates to the legacy Bill C-27 section.
I'm currently the director of public safety at the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness. We're a not-for-profit charitable organization. I provide consultation support to the organization with respect to the issues that relate to abused children and other people at risk. I do these kinds of things, like coming to committee, and try, where possible, to assist in having legislation changed to enhance public safety.
I appeared previously on Bill C-10, Bill C-27, and Bill C-35, which are all part of this bill. I submitted briefs at the time, and I suspect they've all been translated appropriately. As was the case with Mr. Cooper--although I read the bill last night for the second time, and I did that between serving candy to children--I don't have a brief today, and I apologize for that. In any event, I'm familiar with it. What I'll do is, for the most part, speak to the new sections of the bill that have come up in Bill C-27, in particular, since the introduction of the previous bills.
In addition, I would add that although I didn't testify on Bill C-22, it's probably one of the most important bills for our organization, with regard to the age of protection. We are the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness and Child Abuse. At the time I happened to be halfway around the world and unable to attend the hearings when they were scheduled.
I'll briefly go over some of my comments on the original Bill C-27. I referred to a number of cases. I made the point about whether Bill C-27 was fair and arbitrary, and about whether it was the least restrictive or intrusive measure possible in light of the purpose of the bill. I made the point in the brief that yes, indeed, I believed it was. I believe it is. I think the amendments that have been included, I understand at the urging of a number of provincial attorneys general, are good amendments.
I'll say right now that the bill as currently written in Bill C-2 is one that the CCAA does support. CCAA encourages all the members of the committee, once you have done your due diligence, to pass it at your earliest opportunity. I fundamentally support it, and our organization believes that children and others at risk will be protected.
To focus on who some of these offenders are as that relates to the Bill C-27 section, for the most part these offenders will have numerous and varied convictions, likely over a number of years, with a large majority of them being sex offenders.
A recent case that has been in the news and for which much of his criminal history is a matter of public record is the Paul Douglas Callow case. He was also known as the balcony rapist. Mr. Callow has a record dating back to the early 1970s that includes a number of convictions for property and violent crimes, including break-and-enter and assault. Mr. Callow also has a conviction for loiter by night--being a peeper--on his record. He has a rape conviction, a historic offence--that is also, in accordance with Bill C-27, a primary designated offence--for which he was sentenced to four years in prison, and an offence for which he was subsequently recommitted as a mandatory supervision parole violator. We now call that statutory release. Then again he was sentenced in 1987, which is his most recent conviction, for five counts of sexual assault, and those were the balcony rapist convictions. Of course sexual assault convictions are primary designated offence applicable. He was given a total of 20 years in prison. Mr. Callow served every single last day of that sentence and was released, to much public scrutiny and fanfare, and was put on a section 810 order, which applies to sexual assault offenders, in the Vancouver area.
There are more than a few people who are wondering why he wasn't declared a dangerous offender at the time of his conviction in 1987. Be that as it may, he wasn't. I suspect there was a plea negotiation. Quite frankly, the sentence, in the context of the criminal law here in Canada, was a pretty good one.
The important thing for this committee to recognize is that it will be the likes of the Paul Douglas Callows that will end up being captured by the legacy Bill C-27 provisions of the current proposed Bill C-2. If he went out and committed, for instance, another sexual assault of any kind and the judge saw fit to provide him with a sentence of two years or more, the old Bill C-27 section would kick in. And this is an offender for whom the crown would have to declare whether he or she was proceeding, and it would fall within the realm of the contemplated section.
Are there other Paul Douglas Callows out there? Absolutely. I don't think there's any doubt about it. And those are the kinds of people who would be captured, much like the current and ongoing dangerous offender sections of the Criminal Code. I think about 85% of those who are dangerous offenders--and I understand we have between 350 and 400--are sexual offenders like Paul Callow.
The end result, particularly in light of the kinds of offences that have been designated PDO, primary designated offences, will be that we are going to capture more people like Paul Callow. Keeping in mind that it is three separate convictions where somebody does penitentiary time of two years or more--in the main, offences that are sexual or sexually based or sexually based against children--at the end of the day, those are the kinds of people who are going to be captured. In essence, we'll capture more dangerous offenders than we already do. I understand there have been estimates of potentially 25 more a year across the country. I'm guessing. I suspect that is probably sort of a best guess. I suspect that it's not far off.
From my reading of the many criminal records that I did review when I was in charge of the retroactive DNA team, my recollection is there are not a lot of people who have two separate sexual assault convictions and are going on for a third. If anybody is worried about capturing hundreds and hundreds of people and making them dangerous offenders, I just don't see that happening. In any event, however many it is, with the new amendments to the legislation we see that the judge, in making a declaration of dangerous offender or not, is still going to have the option of saying “I am going to sentence you to an indeterminate sentence” or “I'm going to sentence you to a determinate sentence with an LTO, long-term offender order after that” or “I'm going to sentence you to just a determinate sentence without an LTO order”. There is a good fit with the new amendments.
I would add that the amendment that responded to the concerns of the provincial attorneys general, which, in effect, brings somebody back and says, hey, what are we going to do with you now, is a positive amendment and will assist in identifying those who just can't stay out of trouble.
One last thing I would like to point out is that I did not testify on Bill C-22. There was one section that was added to the definitions. I'm not talking about the transition section. I'm talking about the section that was added with respect to people who got married and there was an exemption for the age of consent. I understand that was around concerns with folks in the territories. Although, of course, we support this legislation, and we support it going forward, I can tell you that if all of you could see fit to remove that particular amendment, it would be a really good thing. The specific reason is this. When people in places like Bountiful, B.C., cotton on to this, it will be a recipe for...I can't be any more blunt than this: “Girls, come on down and get married because the law is allowing us to continue to get married.” I ask you to think about that.
I'm happy to respond to questions.