Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 5th, 2007

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Hoover and Mr. Minister, for being here today.

Sometimes what gets lost in all this as we discuss the details of a bill is what exactly we are talking about. I'm wondering if you could comment a bit on who is a dangerous offender. It's a relatively small number of Canadians. There are over 30 million Canadians, and yet we have these very few people who are designated. I'd like maybe a snapshot of what type of person, what type of traits these people have shown with regard to the justice system and with regard to their fellow Canadians.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's one of the reasons psychiatric assessment is done in these matters, to get a better insight into that individual. But suffice it to say that this bill is particularly directed at those individuals who have shown a repeated pattern of sexual violence against individuals for which they have received considerable penitentiary terms, or the individuals have received two or more years in the past over a number of occasions. They have been convicted.

It's not a question that we get the right person or the wrong person. We have the right person here, because they've now been convicted on three separate occasions.

So these are the worst individuals, the most dangerous individuals, and these are the ones who I think Canadians, for the most part, are most concerned about. And Canadians want to see them dealt with in a manner that's consistent with their respect for the rule of law and their respect for the criminal justice system. To not take the steps that I believe a bill like this takes has the opposite effect on people's confidence in the justice system.

But again, in terms of the profile of that individual, I think Mr. Hoover—or perhaps it was Monsieur Ménard, I forget—indicated that by this time they're usually in their forties. It's usually not somebody who is in their early twenties. These are people who have shown a consistent pattern of unsocial behaviour that results in violence and pain and suffering for those around them. That's who it's directed at.

Did you have any comments on that?

[Douglas Hoover]

I believe you will be hearing from Mr. Jim Bonta of the correctional directorate at Public Safety Canada. He has a great deal of expertise in this area and is much better able to answer those types of questions than I am.

I would add that Correctional Service Canada is perhaps noted around the world as one of the leading agencies, not just for keeping high-risk sexual and violent offenders in prison, but for attempting to analyze and understand what makes them tick in the first place and what types of programs can help treat and cure the propensity for violent sexual behaviour. Essentially we rest much of our analysis for dangerous offender proceedings on the expertise coming from there. From those psychiatric assessments, the judges are now looking for indications that individuals are simply unable to respond to the treatment that state-of-the-art facilities and psychiatric caregivers are providing, and that by failing to respond they show that regardless of how many resources you pour into them they are going to reoffend violently and sexually.

I think Mr. Bonta will be able to provide a lot of detail on that process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Madame Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Good day, Mr. Nicholson. Thank you for joining us. I have two or three short questions for you.

Under this bill, if a criminal commits three primary designated offences at the same time, namely kidnapping, attempted murder and sexual assault, will he automatically be declared a dangerous offender? Is that how it will work?

[A voice]

No.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Right now, we understand that offences may have been committed in 1990, in 2000 and in 2007. The reverse onus provision applies after the third primary designated offence is committed in 2007. However, if the criminal commits three primary designated offences at the same time, what happens under the bill?

[Douglas Hoover]

There's a fine line sometimes. You break and enter, you steal something, you might commit a sexual assault, and there might be a robbery. There might be a number of primary designated offences in those acts, but if they were all connected they would only be able to count as one offence, for example, assuming you got a total of two years.

Today you can be convicted for a bunch of different offences you did historically--one in 1978, one in 1982, and one in 1985. Those would most likely be interpreted as three primary designated offences, because the acts were not connected in time and there was no nexus. So based on current jurisprudence, in that scenario the latter would have three primary designated offences qualifying for the presumption, and the former would not.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I see.

What happens to the offender who commits three offences before the bill passes into law?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

An application could still be brought on the first offence, as Monsieur Comartin indicated. The crown attorney could make an application for a designated offence. The change this brings is if we have three of those convictions under the circumstances Mr. Hoover enumerated, on an application.... Again, it's still discretionary by the crown attorney whether to go forward with that, but if they do go ahead there would be a reversal of the onus. The onus would shift to the individual who has been convicted for the third time.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

My question was somewhat different. I was wondering about crimes committed prior to the coming into force of the bill. If the proposed legislation is in fact adopted, how would offences committed prior to this time be dealt with?

[Douglas Hoover]

Again, given current jurisprudence regarding the issue of retroactive/retrospective application of current law, if an individual was, for example, charged prior to the coming into force of this legislation, these provisions probably would not apply. But if a person committed the act, as I say, in 1978 but was charged after the coming into force, we believe that a court would find these provisions consistent with prior jurisprudence. So yes, they would apply for those types of individuals.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

You will take into account...

[Douglas Hoover]

Yes. As long as the trial started after coming into force, I don't think there would be any question. There might be some question if the trial started before coming into force but he wasn't sentenced until after coming into force. So there might be a gap, and that'll be for the courts to decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Before closing, I know Mr. Comartin wants to raise a point of clarification to the minister.

Mr. Comartin, go ahead, please.

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

Mr. Minister, I think you left an impression here that's not accurate, and I'm not suggesting that you did this intentionally. You indicated, in response to a question from me, that there are about 50 cases a year that would get caught by the reverse onus. My calculation is that it's as little as four or five.

There are two types of designation. There's the dangerous offender, and there's the long-term offender. In total at this point, those are running at, according to the stats we have, about 53 a year: 14 dangerous offenders, 39 long-term offenders. Of the dangerous offender designation, my assessment of it is that only four or five of those will fit into the category of third serious criminal violent offence.

Do you agree with that assessment? You've left the impression that there are going to be 50 to which this is going to apply. My sense is that it will be only four or five per year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Mr. Hoover.

[Douglas Hoover]

We actually do have some data we can provide. It's a little bit rough, because we're looking at the number of offenders who committed one of the primary designated...and then is there another one, and is there another one? It's sometimes a little bit difficult, because they can show up more than once.

According to the analysis--and we can provide the numbers--that our research department did, it varies from year to year, but 30 to 50 individuals actually are convicted of a third offence and actually receive jail sentences of two years or more. So I can undertake to provide that to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Merci beaucoup. That's it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I feel that your presence will help the members to make an analysis and a decision concerning this bill.

This meeting is adjourned.