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

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, I was not.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I can't speak to the kinds of conversations that happen behind closed doors, because I've never been part of one of those conversations. What I can tell you—

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I want to be fair. Cost is always an issue. For instance, a police officer, particularly in a small jurisdiction.... I think it becomes an issue because it's just looked at in the context that we can't do this because the person taking care of sexual assaults is the one and only

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

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

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

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It was that an automatic “three strikes and you're in” would not be charter-proof. For instance, if you committed one robbery, two robberies, three robberies, that would be three strikes, and you'd be in as a dangerous offender. Our organization realized that might not withstand

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Do I share the opinion that the threshold to declare a dangerous offender is high? Yes.

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Thank you. It's a good question. There are two reasons. The first reason is that the section 810.2 orders are given to very dangerous offenders, generally. They go to warrant expiry date, and there is nothing else to control them. Most of those who get these orders are men like

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, I'm not. I'm sorry.

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

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It was the Government of Ontario that provided the grant to the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness. It was a grant from their victims' justice fund. They give out money on a yearly basis, usually for one-off projects. This was project money to conduct this review around the prov

Bill C-27 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I didn't get the grant; it was given to the CCAA. I'm just guessing now that they received it around 2002 or 2003. I think it was in 2003, because they went around the province in 2003-04, released the report--