Evidence of meeting #6 for Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was dangerous.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Muise, do you know the occupancy rate of Ontario prisons?
3:55 p.m.
Director, Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
No, I'm not. I'm sorry.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
So you haven't conducted any studies to determine what impact increasing terms from two to five years would have on the overpopulation of Ontario prisons?
3:55 p.m.
Director, Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
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.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
So you also haven't studied the budgetary impact that increasing the period of incarceration of dangerous offenders from two to five years would have? You don't have any figures on the subject?
4 p.m.
Director, Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
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.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Mr. Muise, first, we talked about dangerous offenders in the context of evidence that we recently heard—it was Dr. Bonta, I believe—and of documents we received. We were told that 30% of reoffences could be prevented if it were possible to treat dangerous offenders. So it was thought that, in cases where offenders could be treated, improvements could follow.
Second, the Library of Parliament sent us documents stating that it was possible to determine that 88% of dangerous offenders had committed offences under the Young Offenders Act and that, in 96.6% of cases, the youths concerned had been charged with violent sex offences. It is therefore possible to determine that some dangerous offenders are youths who might perhaps be rehabilitated through treatment.
What do you think of the idea of using a more rehabilitating, less coercive approach?
4 p.m.
Director, Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
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.
You're right that it would be a good thing to spend money on that, but that said, at the end of the day, I think it's important from a public safety perspective to target the most dangerous. I think Bill C-27 helps us target the most dangerous.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
I can ask you a practical question.
Individuals who have committed robbery, break and enter or sexual assault could automatically be declared dangerous offenders and be held for an indeterminate period.
Don't you think that's a bit...? This bill doesn't just concern extremely serious offences.
4 p.m.
Director, Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
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.
I understand and I agree that it should be a difficult proposition. It should be difficult to have somebody declared a dangerous offender and incarcerated indefinitely with opportunities for parole at seven years and four years. You don't do that lightly. But equally, I don't think we've captured in that legislation all the people who are dangerous in this country.
4 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Muise, for being here again.
Just to pick up on this point, on the Callow case, when I started studying it, my initial reaction was that they didn't have enough evidence, that he hadn't committed enough crimes. But then when I explored his history, combined with the five convictions, it seemed to me that he was a classic case for it.
Do you have any knowledge as to why the prosecutors in Toronto did not move for dangerous offender? They certainly didn't need this legislation to do it. They didn't need the third time around. They didn't need to give him a third time. Do you have any idea why they did not?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
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. I don't know. I'm guessing, the same way as you might guess, that they negotiated some sort of arrangement. I just don't know.
He is someone who, if I was a crown attorney or if I was the lead cop, I'd be saying, Mr. or Madam Crown, what are we doing about making this guy a DO? I just don't know why they didn't go down that road.
Having said that, we do know that the next time he commits a serious crime, this proposed legislation would capture him.
June 13th, 2007 / 4:05 p.m.
Director, Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
As it did last time, yes.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Yes. Do you have any information as to whether there's any type of inquiry going on, even internally, in Ontario as to why there wasn't an application at that period of time, back in 1986?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Public Safety, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
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. I think that goes on, on a regular basis, and that you'd have to be out of touch with what's happening in the real world in a provincial attorneys general office not to realize that this was important not only politically but, more importantly, in terms of public safety. So I think people in those offices are having a lot harder look at the cases as they roll through.
I'm not aware of anything formal being done, at least publicly, to review why. I heard the provincial attorney general say the legislation was different then, but I don't understand that. I heard it in a news release. I think that must be some sort of misunderstanding, probably, of the question, though.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
In your career as a police officer, were you involved in any applications for dangerous offenders?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Do you have any indirect knowledge as to whether financial considerations, resource considerations, enter into the equation when a prosecutor is determining whether they're going to move for dangerous offender status or designation?
