Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 13th, 2007

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

If the bill were passed and the burden of proof was on the accused, do you think the test would be as tough as it is now?

[John Muise]

The onus shift is only in relation to Bill C-27 in terms of the reverse onus. What I should also add about that is that at the end of the day the onus shifts, and there are two things that happen.

One, there isn't a legal aid fund in this country that isn't going to fund somebody without means for a dangerous offender hearing. That's something I want to clarify, because I think there was some concern that, well, these people are going to be on their own, hanging. Dangerous offender hearings will always have legal aid.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I didn't talk about cost; I'm not talking about cost. I'm talking about the burden of proof. Would it be as high?

[John Muise]

I think I said that in terms of the dangerous offender legislation, the existing dangerous offender legislation, the onus isn't on the subject; it isn't on the offender. In this legislation, all that happens is that the onus shifts to the accused. Nothing will change in terms of the onus, save and except that the onus shifts onto the accused.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

So it would be as high.

[John Muise]

I believe so, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Mr. Norlock, go ahead, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I'd like to pursue, actually, the cost to the alleged disadvantaged accused because of the reverse onus. I'm glad you did mention that legal aid would cover those costs, as it would cover the costs to the person if the reverse onus were not there, and the Crown were attempting to declare the person a dangerous offender.

[John Muise]

I didn't actually say that.

Absolutely, in any dangerous offender hearing, no matter where the onus is--so before or after this bill--dangerous offenders are going to be supported. Those who don't have the means--and most of them don't--will be supported by legal aid in every single province and territory across this country. That is a given.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Were you aware that recently the federal government allocated an additional $30 million towards increased funding towards legal aid?

[John Muise]

I know there have been some funding announcements. You're reminding me of the specific amount, but certainly I do know there's been money coming in. Additionally, in the provinces, attorneys general are talking about how they have to beef up their legal aid. There's a push. I know that many of the bar associations have pushed for it.

But at the end of the day, the dangerous offender will always be looked after.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

In your experience, are these dangerous offenders usually people of means who could afford a lawyer on their own?

[John Muise]

Most of them can't.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

In your great experience, your many years of experience, percentage-wise, how many people who are charged with these types of offences provide their own defence, at their own cost?

[John Muise]

I would suspect less than 5%, potentially less than 1%. That's a best guesstimate. It's a very small percentage, I'm sure.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

And would you agree with me that generally speaking for dangerous offenders, we're talking about people who have committed not just three major offences, but in all probability and in your experience and the experience you've had with other co-workers, significant other offences from--well, there wouldn't be a record for jaywalking--petty theft to minor assaults, etc.?

[John Muise]

That's a good question. Paul Callow, as an example, had about 15 convictions, along with what would apply as his primary designated offences. I know Peter Whitmore has a fairly extensive criminal record. Gordon Stuckless, who was the offender in Martin Kruze's case at the Maple Leaf Gardens, had a number of offences on his record. John Paul Roby had a long list.

I think it's a great question. I would encourage the committee to speak to the Department of Justice and the RCMP, and maybe just get them to send you a couple of hundred high-risk offender criminal records for those who haven't been declared dangerous offenders yet. Just have them scratch out the name and the FPS number--the identifiers--and have a look at those records. My experience when I was at the retroactive DNA team was that when you pull that record out of the file, along with some serious crimes, the list drops to the floor, because they are the consummate “in and out of the criminal justice system” offenders, with long and extensive criminal records.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Would you not agree with me that during their sentencing regime, as they're going through the courts, they're offered, at the first opportunity, pre-sentence reports to look at their socio-economic condition, to see who they are, where they come from, and how the state can best help them? We're talking about rehabilitation--how can the state best help them become a better person? Before they even get anywhere near this stage, they go through probation officers and counselling. If for the first serious sexual offence they go to a prison, they are offered all the assistance, from psychologists to medical professionals. They're also provided an opportunity to upgrade their education, so that they can become skilled workers.

Would you not agree with me that once they're in the prison system, once they've gone through all the pre-sentence reports and all that other assistance, before the state finally says it has to send them to jail, they are still provided with additional assistance? Wouldn't you agree that occurs currently?

[John Muise]

There's the odd one that suddenly, right off the top, commits a particularly vicious offence or murder, but for the large majority, yes, they often start off with getting a fine or being on probation. Yes, it's precisely like that, and I would agree.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

With a dangerous offender designation, you're not going to jail forever. After seven years, you're offered an opportunity for a parole hearing. Even if you fail that parole hearing, every two years subsequent to that, you're provided another opportunity, so that if there is a change in attitude, or lifestyle, or if you do show that you can be rehabilitated.... Would you agree with me that those opportunities are there, so that a person doesn't spend the rest of their life in jail and doesn't incur the terrible cost of incarceration on our society?

[John Muise]

The short answer is yes. I am aware of the fact that, for instance--and certainly the Department of Justice people can verify the exact number--there are approximately 20 declared dangerous offenders, because you get the designation for life, who are currently out in the community. Precisely where they are, I don't know, but they are actually out of incarceration and into communities.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Given the very nature of your organization, you have followed the repercussions of serious crime on the victims of crime. Would it be fair of me to assume that women and children who are abused tend to go through a lifelong process of medical professionals, counsellors, etc., to deal with the tremendous trauma that they and many times their families have gone through?

[John Muise]

Yes, and I would add that when young men are abused, it's the same thing. It was lifelong for Martin Kruze, who was abused. Four days after the provincial court in Ontario sentenced Gordon Stuckless to two years less a day, that was the last straw. He was let down yet again, this time by the criminal justice system. He jumped off the Bloor/Danforth Viaduct.

That's sort of the worst end. I've met a lot of survivors, a lot of crime victims, and the impact is lifelong. This notion that they get closure when somebody goes to jail, if they go to jail--nothing could be further from the truth. The impact is profound and demonstrable. Lots of them end up becoming offenders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you, Mr. Muise.

We're going to continue and hear one final and brief question from Ms. Freeman.

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

Mr. Chairman, this isn't a question, but rather a comment that I would like to make to my colleague Mr. Lukiwski, who said earlier that the Bloc québécois did not support this bill because it was too costly. That is not at all the case.

This is a very serious bill. The Bloc québécois takes the issue of dangerous offenders, of people who endanger the lives of other individuals, very seriously. This isn't trivial. We are studying it very seriously, as we do in all the committees. There is a reverse onus. We have heard a number of witnesses, and we will have to see what things we can improve. However, I don't think that we object to this bill because it's costly. Costs cannot be too high for certain dangerous offenders; that's obvious. So I wanted to clarify that point.