Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I believe so, yes.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  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 s

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  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 kno

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Most of them can't.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  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 L

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I would suspect less than 5%, potentially less than 1%. That's a best guesstimate. It's a very small percentage, I'm sure.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  First, I'd like to correct the record. I think I made it clear. From where we sit, the reverse onus provisions that are contemplated in Bill C-27 are absolutely appropriate in the context of the charter. As we worked to craft the Martin's Hope recommendation, we believed that the

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The test is very high. In law, it is significant. The test you have to meet to have somebody declared a dangerous offender is high.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  If I understand your question correctly, in the current dangerous offender legislation, the onus is on the Crown to prove that somebody is dangerous.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  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 somebo

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Well, I agree. I know it's expensive to incarcerate somebody. I think it might be $90,000 or $100,000 a year. I get that. That's a fraction of the overall government budget. That is a lot of money where I come from. I'm a penny-pincher. I buy cheap suits. But in the overall budge

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, I haven't and I don't know whether the information exists. But I can tell you that when people came to speak to the CCAA during the round tables for the Martin's Hope report, one of the recommendations was that the province pick up the tab for the cost of the police investiga

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  That's a good question. There is a cost in terms of actually conducting the dangerous offender investigations. I certainly don't deny it. And it's not pennies; it's a lot of money. But I weigh all of these issues: not how much it costs to do that investigation, but rather the cos

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  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 189

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  As it did last time, yes.