Justice Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

[Bruno Serre]

I would just like to add that Valérie Leblanc's family is also involved with the AFPAD.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

We will now resume the meeting. We are studying Bill C-37.

Welcome to both of our witnesses.

Thank you for being here today. You each have six to seven minutes to make your statements. Afterwards, the committee will ask you questions.

Ms. Harvey, could you start us off?

[Yvonne Harvey, Chair and co-founder, Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims Inc.]

I'm trying to get the sound.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Would you like us to talk to test the sound and see if the earpiece is working?

Is it working? It's very low.

Anyway, it's you we want to hear, not me.

Please be my guest, Madam Harvey. We'll start with you.

[Yvonne Harvey]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to address the committee on Bill C-37.

My name is Yvonne Harvey. I am the chair and the co-founder of Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims Inc.. I am here today in support of Bill C-37, which is intended to double the federal victim surcharge amounts and make them mandatory in all cases, thereby eliminating judicial discretion to waive the surcharge during sentencing.

My presentation will focus primarily on the importance of ensuring that the waiver option is removed in reference to undue hardship to the offender.

First, I would like to give you some background by addressing what represents, for victims of crime, undue hardship of a non-financial nature, and following which, I will give you tangible examples that define, for victims of crime, what is unquestionably financial undue hardship.

Few people can appreciate the true impact of murder on a family, yet any one of us could find ourselves in this position. One day we are leading a normal life and the next day we are thrust into a foreign world, through no choice of our own, having to deal with police, lawyers, courts, as well as intrusive media. Our lives are no longer private.

The day that changes one's life rarely comes with a warning, yet in an instant, the time that it takes to pick up a telephone, life as we once knew it disappears, and the future becomes a struggle between moving on and hanging on. We are left with a hole in our soul. We are now challenged with reconstructing our lives. There is no guidebook to tell us how to do this, because everyone's journey is as unique as one's fingerprint. Living in the aftermath of murder is a constant emotional and spiritual struggle. These are challenges that threaten to destabilize, and often do, the entire family unit.

What does financial undue hardship mean to us? As the mother of a murdered child and as the chair of CPOMC, I can attest to the unexpected and unpredictable undue hardship that victims of crime suffer. I will use my own experience as an example; however, let me assure you that my situation is not unique. Thousands of other Canadians who have become victims of crime have suffered worse challenges, including bankruptcy.

Immediately following the murder of my daughter Chrissy, I and my family were confronted with notable financial expenses.

It cost $3,000 to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland to secure my daughter's remains.

Travel expenses to bring my daughter's remains home to Ottawa from St. John's, Newfoundland, and funeral expenses in St. John's and again in Ottawa combined for a total in excess of $8,000.

There was a legal bill in excess of $60,000 in order for my brother and his wife to obtain permanent custody of my granddaughter. This was done to ensure that the person who had been charged with murdering my daughter would not have custody of my granddaughter.

I contribute to ongoing support payments of $600 a month to help with the additional expenses that my brother and sister-in-law sustain in order to give Ireland, my granddaughter, a comfortable, stable, loving environment in which to grow.

As a self-employed nurse, I had to absorb a considerable loss of income while I tried to deal with the overwhelming grief of having lost my only child to murder.

I currently receive counselling for post-traumatic stress resulting from the murder of my daughter. I pay a rate of $175 an hour, biweekly. That is ongoing.

These are undeniable financial hardships.

The implementation of Bill C-37, which amends subsection 737(2) of the Criminal Code, would increase the victim surcharge from $100 to $200 for offences punishable by indictment. This new amount could cover one hour of post-traumatic stress counselling, but it's still a positive step forward.

When the court waives a federal victim surcharge, it is required to provide reasons why it is not imposed and to enter the reasons in the record of the proceedings.

In 2006 an operational review documented the imposition and collection of the federal victim surcharge in provincial courts in New Brunswick. In 99% of 831 cases reviewed where the federal victim surcharge was waived, there was no documentation of reasons for the waiver in the file. There was no documentation indicating that the offender had established to the satisfaction of the court that undue hardship would result, yet all judges interviewed consistently cited the offender's inability to pay as the reason for waiving the surcharge. Therefore, a number of judges in exercising their discretionary powers to waive the victim surcharge are not fulfilling their responsibility to justify their actions.

Once again, the victims suffer because funds that could provide them with crucial services are not being made available to them. Bill C-37 provides the opportunity to make the federal victim surcharge more effective. Therefore, I ask the committee to support these amendments and make offenders more accountable for their actions. These measures will force offenders to demonstrate concrete actions in terms of rehabilitation. This is another positive step.

In conclusion, I applaud the Conservative government's proposed amendment to the victim surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code, but once enacted, I trust that the provinces will be accountable for administering the victim surcharge and its proceeds in an effective and consistent manner.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Thank you, Ms. Harvey.

Mr. Ducharme, you may go ahead.

[Christopher Ducharme, President, Founder, BC Victims of Homicide, BC Bereavement Helpline]

Thank you.

It's going to be in English, even though I have a French last name.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

That's quite all right, and just for the benefit of the two witnesses, you're free to answer questions in the language of your choice, even if you're asked in French or in English.

[Christopher Ducharme]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members. Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to be here and to speak on behalf of victims across Canada.

To attend this meeting is an honour for me. I have carefully reviewed the legislative summary of Bill C-37, and I am in agreement with all the provisions stated in it. I would like to commend the Conservative government for honouring the issues addressed in this bill by focusing on victims' needs, acknowledging their losses, and looking at ways to serve them with the highest possible regard.

My name is Christopher Ducharme. I am both a victim and a survivor. By the age of 30, I had lost five people to homicide, both personally and professionally, through my work as a youth worker in the downtown eastside of Vancouver.

In 1996, when I was 14 years old, my mother, Patricia Grace Ducharme, was strangled, beaten, and murdered by her live-in boyfriend and former Vancouver police officer Brock Joseph William Graham. This experience was horrific and unimaginable and unmanageable for years. Thankfully, I was able to find the right people to connect with to build a support network of my own, a system that did not exist for homicide victims in Canada in the Canadian criminal justice system, and still does not to a deserving level, in my opinion.

I am the president of the BC Bereavement Helpline, an organization initiated in 1986 by a number of concerned caregivers in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The organization became a registered charitable organization on June 15, 1988, and has served over 37,000 callers to date. We currently work with 300 groups and agencies in 76 communities across the province of British Columbia to provide education, support, and advocacy for professionals, the bereaved, and their caregivers.

To respond to the growing requests of homicide victims, I founded BC Victims of Homicide in 2011, an initiative of the BC Bereavement Helpline. Fifty-two victims were served in the first three months of the program's operation. In addition, I was able to connect with over 400 homicide victims internationally.

Given my experience, I am honoured to relay this feedback to the government to assist with future decision-making processes about this bill and others. It is of utmost importance to adhere to the victims' voices to ensure they are getting the support they expect, need, and deserve. It may sound simplistic, even cumbersome at times, or pointless to just listen, but when I see a victim interact with another victim, there is a magical moment of release. Over time, this relationship will flower into more relationships. What was once a heartbroken group of individuals becomes a lasting community of love, hope, and direction with purpose, laughter, and even joy. Finally, validation fills the void.

Also, there is much frustration and disappointment from both victims and professionals regarding inconsistent interprovincial policies. This incongruence and disparity of values is complicated for victims to understand, and does not rationalize their ineligibility for funding or support services.

With more consistent provincial support legislation, victims would feel they are being treated more fairly. From my understanding, provincial victim service budgets, under the Victims of Crime Act, have different mandates specific to each province. Some of these mandated allocations of funds simply do not appear appropriate or even relevant to what I see and what I'm getting feedback on from victims as being their primary need and priority.

Bill C-37 has clear intentions to solicit the resources necessary to implement victim services operations while reducing the unfairness felt by victims. It is truly actions like Bill C-37 that empower victims to find trust in humanity and government as they move forward from their victimization experience. This validation of victims' losses and needs yields most successful results.

Thank you for considering my recommendations for the betterment of the health and well-being of those who have been harmed.

The following concerns have been brought to my attention. It is important that each province address these issues on its own terms so that victims are treated with complete respect and fairness:

At least one peer support group should be mandated in the capital city of each province.

The counselling subsidy should be available to families even when the victim was supposedly involved in crime. It is unfair that sometimes these families are ineligible because the deceased was involved in crime.

There should be safe houses and respite homes in each capital city for when victims have to travel to other cities for hearings. There should be a safe place for them to go to get mentoring and to learn about the court system. We don't learn that from the victim service programs.

With regard to travel costs to get to hearings, the situation is different in every province. Sometimes they are funded and sometimes they're not.

The NCR—non-criminally responsible—issue is huge. I spoke just yesterday with Carol de Delley about the beheading on the Greyhound bus and justice. Victims don't ever feel as though they're going to find that justice. Their anger is actually directed toward the offender, not toward the system, but they take it out on the system. If you create a place where these victims can come together to share their stories, that is truly how we're going to help victims progress and move forward. I know this because I've gone through five murders.

In missing women cases or unresolved cases, some of those victims aren't eligible for support, which is also unfair.

There is also the issue of eligibility for support services in areas outside the province where the crime occurred. For example, in Yvonne Harvey's case, the crime occurred outside Ontario, and she was not eligible for support.

With regard to national and provincial referral systems, it took me 10 years to find support for family members of homicide victims. It didn't even exist in western Canada, except in Edmonton.

Compensation amounts vary between provinces.

With regard to applying for grant funding from the provincial victims services, I think it would be great if we could allocate a small portion to charities to apply and see what they can do, because sometimes the non-profits are more efficient. I say this with respect, because I highly respect our government, but I also respect the charities.

In the case of victims abroad, there is support, but most of the professionals, caregivers, and victims services workers don't know about it.

Provinces should increase their victims services charges to ensure that this money is collected. I don't understand how it all unfolds, but they should ensure that this money is collected.

This is just an update. In British Columbia, victims services have approximately $12 million coming into the account. Over the past several years, they've been going into a deficit on an annual basis. Most of the funds they bring in come from traffic fines. Out of that $12 million, a $2 million chunk goes to the Rick Hansen organization. I highly respect Rick Hansen and the program; however, it's for neurotrauma. I think maybe there could be a reassessment. Maybe they could look at homicide victims or suicide victims specifically.

Overall, I think our provinces, as much as we're making significant progress, are also lacking as far as what we should be aspiring to as Canadians. We have an amazing country, and I think we're all very proud to be here.

I thank you for your time.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Thank you very much, both of you.

We'll start the round of questioning.

Monsieur Côté.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will start with you, Mr. Ducharme.

One of my most vivid memories when I took office is a discussion I had with a lawyer. He told me it was my constitutional right to access services in French. In fact, it is a constitutional right to receive services in an official language. He encouraged me to fully exercise that right so I could clearly articulate my thoughts. He told me never to feel embarrassed doing so.

You have my sincerest sympathy. You have been through a horrible ordeal. We cannot know what you've experienced. It defies comprehension.

I was in Rome on the weekend for the canonization ceremony of Kateri Tekakwitha. I spoke to many Canadian clergy members, including one who works in Vatican City. He spoke with heartfelt passion. He could not understand how a country as rich as Canada could turn its back on so many and tolerate so much injustice. His words resonated with me. That is the reason I am involved in politics. I share the feeling of injustice you have and rightly so.

If we support Bill C-37, it means we believe that every additional resource that can be made available to benefit victims is welcome. As I stated earlier, I hope it will be enough, but I have my doubts. There have been no guarantees, but that is another matter. We will examine the bill alongside our government colleagues to see if we can't do more.

In any case, the intention to increase the compensation fund for victims of crime is a long-standing commitment on our part. It's absurd that the fund should be held hostage because of other considerations, including a lack of base funding as a result of broken promises regarding the implementation of the victim surcharge.

I don't know how both of you find the money to fund your organizations and run them. How would you rate your financial standing, your ability to act, your ability to help and support victims of crime and their loved ones?

[Christopher Ducharme]

For the last four years, when I moved from Edmonton to Vancouver and I realized there was no support in British Columbia and the only group in western Canada was in Edmonton, it inspired me to say that we needed to do something. I dedicated four years of my life, sometimes 15-hour days in addition to work. It was a sacrifice, but last year we applied for a $50,000 grant from the victims fund at the Department of Justice and we received approval for that. We're currently waiting on phase two. It is a long wait. We raised $50,000 from the Scotiabank Group Charity Challenge, a walk and run fundraiser. I brought all my family and all of these victims together. It's a community engagement program.

I think I got to a point this year where I almost burned out. That's one thing I told Ms. Kerry-Lynne Findlay when she came into the press conference with us. It's great that victims are doing this, starting it up, and they usually have enough juice and energy to get it going, but once they get it going, it would be nice for the government to step in and say that we had done all the ground work, which is unbelievable, and give us $50,000 a year. All we need is one staff a year.

Very simply, that's my answer.

I'd like to pass it to Yvonne.

[Yvonne Harvey]

Thanks, Chris.

With regard to funds, we have received some project funding from the federal government, which has been instrumental in moving us forward. First of all, we're in the process of developing an educational package that we would like to deliver across the country eventually. It is a package that deals with certain things that are very important when homicide is involved, especially the notification process, socio-economic problems, health problems, and that sort of thing. There have never been any studies or any research done, at least in Canada, on those issues as they pertain to homicide victims. As Chris said, it's a piece of project funding, and that's it.

With regard to operational funding, right now we are operating under the passion that we have to help one another. We do not have a staff. My husband acts as executive director. I'm the chair. I still work part-time as a nurse. I gave up 40% of my practice so I could dedicate time to this. We get phone calls at all times of the night, during the day and on weekends, and we make ourselves available to talk to families, to talk to survivors. We have developed the legal framework, the articles of association, so people can develop their own support mechanism in their area. Ultimately, that's what we would like to have, but it's very hard to do these things without any kind of funding.

I don't know if that answers your question, but—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

We had it in any case.

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

Your turn, Ms. Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the witnesses, thank you so much for being here.

It's good to see you again, Chris. Being from B.C. as you are I know your story. I know how hard you're working and how you continue to work for victims.

Ms. Harvey, we met you about a year ago. I believe you were here testifying. At that time, among other things, you spoke of the many, many expenses that you and your husband—Gary, I think—had incurred. At the time you hadn't yet gone to the actual trial. Is that correct?

[Yvonne Harvey]

That's correct.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Yes. Now you're here today and you have certainly opened our eyes to the fact that you've had further costs in addition to those expenses. At that time, I think, you felt that your costs were around $75,000. There are also the ongoing costs for your own recovery, which continues.

I want to thank both of you for being here. Not only are you advocates, but you've also lived this, and I think that's what makes you such superior advocates. We all feel terrible about your loss.

With respect to your previous testimony, Ms. Harvey, you mentioned that we all pay for this. You said that we pay for it in “taxpayer dollars, but also the loss of human life, which is immeasurable”. You also said at the time, “Equally immeasurable is the loss of family, the loss of law and order, and the loss of faith in the criminal justice system and in our government's ability to protect society.” I understand where those comments are coming from, particularly when dealing with the subject we are discussing today: victim surcharge. We see that waiver happens in close to 90% of the cases, and then, even when it is charged, the percentage of collection is very low.

Because at the present time that victim surcharge is applied with discretion, the revenue that perhaps was hoped for—and I think my colleague Monsieur Côté said that it was a hoped-for victim surcharge system—has fallen woefully short of expectations. We know that victims need money, and the victims aren't just the specific victims, but the families of the victims.

In Bill C-37, we're proposing to remove the waiver option and make it mandatory. I'd like to know, Ms. Harvey, what you feel about making this a mandatory provision.

[Yvonne Harvey]

This is crucial. This legislation has been around since 1989, and some amendments were made in 2000. There was a survey done in Ontario in 1994. The survey results showed that the Ontario revenues generated by the surcharge had declined drastically since the introduction of the act in 1989. I don't think our crime rate has drastically declined since 1989. It's obvious it's not working.

I would have to look at it like we do in health care and nursing. If we want to develop a minimum standard of care and we have a certain objective we want to achieve, there are three simple things that we do. We establish the minimum level of care that we want to deliver. Then we implement it. Then we enforce it. Anything less than that is pointless.

It's the same thing with law. If you are going to create a minimum level of law in a particular area, you need to implement it and you need to enforce it. We're not saying we want to cause hardship to offenders; that's not what we're saying, but they made the choice. Why should we suffer any more than we already do? Why should, not just victims of crime, but non-victims of crime—the average Canadian—shoulder the expense of having to fund services for victims? We don't even have in this country a standard level of service in victims' services. Some provinces have virtually nothing.

When it comes to enforcing it, there are two things that are important to me. Number one is that it is enforced, regardless. Number two is that the provinces become more accountable and transparent in what they do with those funds and in ensuring they go where they are supposed to go.

It's the only way you are going to achieve what this legislation is meant to do.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Thank you, Ms. Findlay.

Mr. Coderre, over to you.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much.

These kinds of discussions are always tough. We can see how much you have suffered and how hard this still is for you.

As I have said from the get-go, we cannot show partisanship and say that we like you more than others. We all have compassion for victims. But since the beginning, I have realized that you are in need of assistance.

I believe that a parliamentary secretary to a minister who is responsible for a portfolio like justice should realize that we need to start by addressing phase two, so you get the tools you need. We can't be content with simply imposing a fine on the killer. We also need to find ways to give you something that is ongoing,

what you call “sustainable funding”. That's what you need, because you need help.

I've been a minister of the crown myself. Of course we don't want to bug you with constitutional and jurisdictional issues, but because there has been collateral damage from all that, what we need to do, and it's our role, is to make sure that the Minister of Justice acts as a leader to find a way to bring everybody to the table, including the provinces. That's why I'm not sure Bill C-37 is sufficient.

I believe we need to provide you with sustainable funding. You're alone. You're here as a witness. We are offering you our condolences. We feel for you. But after that, you go home and you're still stuck with the issue. We have to find a way to be responsible as legislators, and at the same time to be partners. All of society is suffering right now as a result of what happened, and in your case specifically.

With regard to my first question, I'm not sure I understood something. I believe it's not up to politicians to tell judges what to do. I believe in discretion. I believe in the justice system. Some people may be against that, but this is what I believe. You have to separate the legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

As to whether we believe we should necessarily provide a mandatory surcharge, or we should say provide a list of.... You have to understand that I'm French Canadian so maybe the tone is not necessarily accurate. But instead of saying it's $200 for everybody, should we say that for some specific crimes those people should pay more?

Do you understand what I'm saying? Should we have a list of charges and let the judge use discretion, or is it up to us to determine the charge and that's it? I think that's a fair question to ask as a start.

Madam Harvey and Mr. Ducharme, could you address that?

[Yvonne Harvey]

I think, ultimately it doesn't matter whether it's a sliding scale. The important thing is that it be enforced. That's the key. You talk about responsibility and you talk about the government. Yes, certainly, we look to our provincial and federal governments. When you talk about responsibility and more than one person being responsible for helping victims, I think it has to start with the person who committed the crime. We wouldn't be looking for this if we hadn't been victimized. We have to hold them accountable.

We're not talking about a big dollar amount. We're talking about a small amount, which tells criminals or offenders that they have to be accountable. They have to pay this fine, unless they are mentally or physically incapacitated and can't pay the fine. That's different, but that's not the case in most cases.

We need to have some kind of administrative sentencing measures so that, first of all, with the removal of the waive option, we don't have to worry about proving they don't have the ability to pay. If this is mandatory, and there are no exceptions, then we need to have administrative sentencing measures in place at the provincial level that will be enforced. That doesn't mean incarcerating someone, because that doesn't solve any problems, I don't think, when the crimes are small. Instead, they should be denied the ability to renew their driver's licence, denied the ability to register their car. They should be denied fishing and hunting licences. They should be denied any GST rebates. Something should be done whereby they recognize that they have to be accountable in some measure.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Thank you.

Mr. Seeback, your turn.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As everyone has said, we feel terrible when we hear the stories, but I want you to know that we very much value the evidence you give us. We listen to it very carefully. It's very productive and helpful for us to hear it. I want to thank you on behalf of all my colleagues, for coming here to testify. I know it's no easy task.

We've had two panels of witnesses on the enforcement of collecting these fines. What I'm hearing clearly from the people who have come here today is that it is important to make sure that everyone who commits these crimes pays in every circumstance. I think both of you said that it was important for two reasons. First is accountability. Second is that it's going to add funds to the victims funds. In 90% of cases, they are not being imposed. Even if we take out collection, at 2%, it would seem that by making it mandatory, the funds available are going to go up by 90%. I'm a lawyer, not a mathematician, so my math could be very weak, but I think that's progress in and of itself.

I asked the previous panel where these funds would go, and I'm going to ask you. Where do you think these additional funds could go, and to what use could they be put to help victims? That's the key for us. We're focusing on two aspects: offender accountability and trying to find a better way to help victims of crime.

Could both of you comment on that?

[Yvonne Harvey]

I think this is a whole other area.

I think one of the things that fails victims in this country is the fact that there's no minimum standard of service across the country. For example, Newfoundland has virtually nothing for victims. They have a small fund to provide psychological help, and that's a sliding scale depending on the severity of the crime.

I think what fails victims right across the country is the fact that if the crime happens in one province, and the family lives in another province, then you fall between the cracks. It's what I call the gap in services. With respect to the extra funds that come in, I think we need to get the justice ministers across the country together, maybe at one of your federal-provincial meetings, and table this because I don't believe that the funds.... It's great to collect the funds, but it's really important to make sure those funds are used for the intended purpose, and I don't think that's happened. I hear the provinces are accountable, but I think there could be more accountability. I think it could be more transparent.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Ducharme.