Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting number 49, on Thursday, October 30, 2014. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, June 20, 2014, we are resuming consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

We have a number of witnesses here with us today. From the London Abused Women's Centre, we have Ms. Walker, the executive director. We also have Ms. Jong, as an individual. From Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin, we have Monsieur Fortier and Monsieur Tremblay. From the Criminal Lawyers' Association, we have Mr. Krongold, a member of the board of directors and chair of the legislative committee. And from the Chiefs of Ontario, we have Grand Chief Yesno, which is a great name, and with him is Ms. Restoule, the director of the justice sector.

We're going to start with presentations in that order.

Ms. Walker, I know that you handed these out, but the rule here, unfortunately, is that these need to be bilingual to be handed out officially—

[Megan Walker, Executive Director, London Abused Women's Centre]

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

—but what you can do is this. As members leave, you can make sure they get one as soon as the gavel goes.

[Megan Walker]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We'll make sure that happens for you.

We're allowing 10 minutes for each organization, and then there'll be questions and answers.

For the members of the committee, I'm going to try to save about 10 minutes at the end of the meeting to talk about what we're going to do in future meetings on this particular topic. Is that okay?

Ms. Walker, the floor is yours.

[Megan Walker]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today as a women's and victims' rights advocate to speak in favour of Bill C-32. I think it's really timely that I'm here today, particularly in light of the victim blaming and shaming by eight complainants toward a CBC celebrity.

Most of the work done by the London Abused Women's Centre is providing counselling support and advocacy to girls over the age of 12, and women who are abused by their intimate partners. But we also provide support services to families whose loved ones have been murdered by men that they trusted to love them. As you may know, we also provide services to prostituted women.

As you may know, Statistics Canada reports that half of all Canadian women, since the age of 16, have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence. You are also likely aware that according to the Department of Justice the economic impact of domestic violence in Canada amounts to $7.4 billion per year, with $6 billion of that attributed to victim costs.

For far too long it has been our belief that we have focused on the rights of the accused and the convicted. At the London Abused Women's Centre we see firsthand, every single day, both the incredible pain and suffering of women and children who have been victimized, as well as their courage and strength as they try to move forward toward a life of freedom, peace, and healing.

We need to recognize that for many reasons most sexual assault and domestic violence victims will never call the police or enter the criminal justice system. When they do, the conviction rate in Ontario of domestic violence cases that go to trial is only 1%. There are many, many reasons for this.

The courts, as you know, move very slowly. The longer it takes to move through the courts, the more likely it is that abused women will either not appear to testify, or will perjure themselves on the stand. For some, they have moved on in their lives by the time their case makes its way to trial. For others, they have gone through counselling, as have their abusers, and they have reconciled. Many still remain too terrified to go to court.

In London right now the superior court is taking approximately one year before it gets to a preliminary trial, and two years before it gets to final trial stage. Provincial courts are taking anywhere from nine to fifteen months before they hear cases.

I have read a recommendation from some that is proposing to allow victims status as an intervenor in the proceedings. This has huge unintended consequences that will make it much more difficult for abused women to access the courts. It would further backlog and delay the court proceedings. There are huge costs associated with that, and you should know that the criminal justice system currently bears a cost of $545 million per year. And there are feelings of pressure, guilt, and inadequacy on the part of victims regarding their performance, when they are asked to participate at that level.

Abused women are fearful of their abusive partners, particularly that they will represent themselves in their defence and that women will face further abuse during cross-examination by their abusers. Bill C-32 specifically addresses this issue in proposed subsection 486.3(2), which orders that the accused not personally cross-examine the witness, unless the judge or justice is of the opinion that the proper administration of justice requires the accused to personally conduct the cross-examination. From our perspective, this is a great positive and removes a huge barrier for abused women in accessing the criminal justice system.

Further, this bill legislates protection, security measures, and opportunities for testimony for women and victims outside of the court.

Accountability is crucial to the work we do at the London Abused Women's Centre. We are of the view that the creation of an external adjudication process is not only a costly duplication of bureaucracy, but it is completely unnecessary in addressing victim concerns and complaints. We say this because of our own experiences in working collaboratively with the criminal justice service providers who we work with in London. We therefore believe that the federal departments and agencies that are recommended in resolving the issues are equipped to address complaints and concerns, provided they are given clear expectations as to their roles.

What we think is required to assist victims is a complaints mechanism that is well understood, transparent, and accessible. We recommend that all victims be provided with information, including a complaints process and contact information at the first point of access. We further recommend that all victim service community partners be provided with similar information that we can post online and provide directly to the women and victims we work with.

For safety, protection, and emotional well-being, victims must be kept informed not only during the active criminal process but during incarceration and post-incarceration of the offenders. We know that currently, despite the very best intentions, victims are sometimes forgotten at certain stages of the process, and this may increase the risk of serious injury and even lethality to those victims. We recognize that including in this bill the guidelines for communicating with victims is a positive and much-needed inclusion.

It's also important to recognize that while crown attorneys across this country would have a responsibility to inform and consult with victims, we do not want, under any circumstances, victims influencing crowns to drop charges. Prior to the mandatory charge policies in this country, abused women were often coerced by their abusive partners to drop charges, to meet with crowns, and to pressure the crowns to drop those charges once they were laid. Men's violence against women is a criminal offence, and like other criminal offences it should not ever be left up to victims to lay or drop charges.

I really do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and there is much more to say. If there is an opportunity to respond to questions, I would particularly like to comment on issues around spousal immunity and restitution orders.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Ms. Walker.

Our next presenter, here as an individual, is Ms. Jong.

[Joanne Jong, As an Individual]

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, good afternoon.

My name is Joanne Jong, and I am the daughter of a law-abiding 88-year-old man who was cowardly murdered. That makes me a victim of the worst possible crime.

Had it not been for the brave actions of Kevin Vickers during last week's ordeal, your loved ones might have become part of this less than enviable club as well. Fortunately, neither you nor they have to experience what I did, but last week's tragedy no doubt brings home to you what the families of murder victims must go through.

Parliament passed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—which I also refer to ironically as the charter of criminals' rights—and it has been in effect for some time now.

So I am delighted that lawmakers finally understood the importance of creating a Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in order to restore balance to Canada's justice system. For law-abiding citizens who fell victim to criminal acts, like myself, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights has been a long time coming. Finally, it is becoming a reality.

Looking at the world through my victim's lens, I cannot help but notice that the definition given for the word victim in clause 2, on page 2, is the same as that found in clause 45, on page 39:

an individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission or alleged commission of an offence.

But a very different definition of the word victim appears in clause 3, on pages 8 to 9, in the part setting out the amendments to the Criminal Code. As a victim, I'd like a single definition of the term victim to apply to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in its entirety, the one that appears on pages 8 to 9.

If we apply the definition of victim on page 2 of the bill to last week's events, the term victim would include the friends and families of the terrorists, as well as 35 million Canadians, subtracting, obviously, the 90 individuals who became radicalized. Clearly, all of them suffered consequences of the two murders, but that does not make them all victims.

Conversely, the definition of victim used for the purposes of the Criminal Code, on pages 8 to 9 of the bill, is much more specific and fair to victims of crime:

a person against whom an offence has been committed, or is alleged to have been committed, who has suffered, or is alleged to have suffered, physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as a result of the commission or alleged commission of the offence....

By that definition, the only people who would be considered victims of last week's tragedy would be the loved ones of the members of the military who were killed.

I'm also pleased to see that the victims bill of rights duly addresses restitution to victims of crime. If criminals want to be seen as having paid their debt to society, making restitution to victims for the damage they have caused is a decisive step in that direction. Personally, I would go even further. I would make it mandatory for the criminal to satisfy a restitution order before they could be considered for parole.

In clause 29, on page 25, the bill of rights states that the amount of the damages must be readily ascertainable. The families of individuals who have been murdered or assaulted, or had crimes committed against their person, experience significant harm and suffering, and those effects are difficult to quantify. I recommend creating a table that quantifies suffering, like the ones insurance companies use in the case of death or bodily injury. Such a table would make it easier to put a figure on these very real and present damages.

Our justice system already makes use of this kind of tool. Just consider the Child Support Table Look-up, a tool that enables the justice system to run much more smoothly.

I would also like the bill of rights to impose the requirement that criminals work during their incarceration in order to satisfy the restitution order. Such a requirement should take precedence over any other rehabilitation or training program. Law-abiding citizens have to work to take care of their responsibilities, so why should criminals not have to do the same?

That said, I see the introduction of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights as a vital step towards making Canada's justice system fairer to us, the victims of crime.

Nothing can prepare you for stepping into the unfortunate shoes of a victim, unlike criminals, who willingly committed deliberate, planned and destructive acts against law-abiding citizens. Suddenly, we become victims at their hands, a fate we in no way deserve.

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss such an important matter and for giving me the opportunity to express my views on the bill, which is crucial to making the justice system fairer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Our next witness is from the group Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin, or VASAM.

Mr. Fortier, you have 10 minutes.

[Alain Fortier, President, Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin]

Good afternoon everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

Finally, a bill that recognizes the rights of victims!

Established a year ago, VASAM is an association that assists men who have been victims of sexual assault. Although barely a year old, our young association has already accomplished a great deal for male victims. We are the first organization working to assist male victims of sexual assault in Quebec.

We already have a few hundred individual and corporate members. Further, we work in conjunction with organizations that assist female victims of sexual assault. We believe that, in 2014, sexual assault is no longer just an issue for women or men, but for victims.

Our organization's mission is to raise awareness among the public and political bodies regarding the problem of sexual assault against men during their childhood; direct and guide men towards appropriate resources to help them survive the trauma and health problems from which victims suffer long after the assault; and encourage men of all ages who have been victims of sexual assault to request assistance in order to break out of their isolation and retake control of their lives.

When it comes to victims' rights, our association responds to all draft legislation, always asking for reaffirmation and reinforcement of victims' rights and demanding that legislation be brought in line with the rights of perpetrators.

Today, we are pleased to tell you the reasons for our wholehearted support for Bill C-32.

It is well-established that, whenever we request a better legislative framework to protect victims, groups that provide assistance to perpetrators argue that we are interfering with the offenders' rights. Whenever we request tougher sentences, such organizations say we are automatically anti-rehabilitation. Regardless of the approach, it is often the victim who feels guilty for requesting more information, greater security, involvement in the process or restitution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Could you just slow down a little bit, just for translation. Thank you.

[Alain Fortier]

Regardless of the approach.

I'll repeat if it's okay? Just continue?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We just need you to speak slower. The French is fine, just a little slower.

Merci.

[Alain Fortier]

That is why we believe that a victims bill of rights is essential to clearly set out and recognize victims' rights.

Now, I'd like to turn to the right to information and the right to participation.

When a criminal complaint is filed, the prosecutor immediately becomes party to the process, while the victim takes a back seat. Too often in the past, we have seen victims given little information and left feeling abandoned by the judicial system.

Now, with this bill of rights, victims will be able to obtain information regarding programs available to assist them, information about the process and status of legal proceedings, and information about reviews while the individual is subject to the corrections process.

In addition, the victim will have to be notified of an agreement between the Crown and the defence prior to a guilty plea. It will be possible for victims to present an impact statement and provide their views regarding decisions made, and the authorities will be required to consider them.

Providing a framework for the right to information and the right to participation clearly shows that the judicial system respects victims.

Now, let's discuss the right to security. We know that nearly 90% of sexual assaults are never reported to the police. Fear is one of the factors behind that statistic. Victims are afraid no one will believe them, afraid of the judicial system, afraid their family will abandon them, afraid of retaliation and afraid of facing their attacker again once their sentence is completed.

If we want to increase reporting rates, we must work on mitigating these fears. Supported by the victims bill of rights, we can reduce fear in the following ways.

To help victims overcome their fear of the justice system, it should provide for the right to request testimonial aids, for example, enabling them to testify outside the courtroom so they don't have to see their attacker. Furthermore, on application by the prosecutor, publication bans for victims under 18 years of age should be made mandatory. Cross-examination of witnesses under 18 years of age should also be prohibited.

Victims are afraid of retaliation. The appropriate authorities in the judicial system should provide protection for victims' security and privacy. Orders for judicial interim release should also indicate that the safety and security of victims has been taken into consideration. And victims should have the right to protection from intimidation and retaliation.

When we talk about fear of retaliation and intimidation, we do not need to look very far to find an example of boldness on the part of an alleged attacker. Last May, at the Quebec City courthouse, while an alleged victim spoke with the media, her alleged attacker stood right behind her in an attempt to intimidate her, in full view of the cameras.

Victims are afraid of facing their attacker again. One of the greatest fears faced by victims once they have been through the trial and obtained a guilty verdict is that they will one day face their attacker again after their sentence is completed. The reason is that Quebec's judicial system has long shown that perpetrators are released immediately upon finishing their sentence, regardless of whether or not they have made progress in prison.

Unfortunately, the victim is often faced with this reality even sooner than they expect. Sometimes, victims are just starting to begin the healing process when they learn that their attacker will be out in a few months. It does nothing to help.

We hope one day for a revamping of the release procedures. In the meantime, we applaud the changes proposed by the bill of rights: giving victims access to information about their attacker's progress while in prison; disclosing to victims the date and conditions of release; imposing non-contact or geographic restrictions to protect victims; and showing victims a photograph of the offender prior to completion of the sentence.

The judicial system cannot eliminate all victims' fears. However, by making the system more accessible, by humanizing the process, by reducing the risk of intimidation or retaliation, and by developing guidelines for offender release, the judicial system sends an important message to victims, that their safety is of prime importance to society.

Frank Tremblay will now take over the reading of our brief.

[Frank Tremblay, Vice-President, Victimes d'agressions sexuelles au masculin]

Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for having us.

My name is Frank Tremblay, and I am the vice-president of VASAM.

Continuing with our presentation, I will speak to the issue of restitution orders.

In cases of sexual assault, society often thinks that the damage is only psychological. By all accounts, there is always psychological damage, and it varies widely from one victim to another. However, the aspect of financial damage is rarely addressed. The community probably believes, wrongly, that financial damage is minimal, because victims have access to the same services that attackers do. Here are some consequences of sexual assault that can have a financial impact: loss of productivity at work, occasionally followed by loss of employment; marital problems, often leading to separation; high consulting fees for health professionals; problems with alcohol and drug addiction, gaming and prescription drug use; health problems; and sexually transmitted diseases.

With the bill of rights, victims will now be able to apply for restitution. Compensation is not intended to make victims wealthier but, rather, to assist them in coping with their ordeal.

We would like to underscore two very important points for us. First, if the judge does not award restitution, the reasons should be clearly set out in the file. Second, judges must not take into consideration the attacker's ability to pay. We believe that these points are critical in order to guarantee staying power for this section and prevent certain judges from wriggling out of it for spurious reasons, somewhat like the current situation with the victim surcharge.

We firmly believe that reparation automatically involves restitution. By doing this, we also reduce the cost to society of providing services to victims, because those who caused the damage will be responsible for reducing the effects of their behaviour, in accordance with the polluter-pay principle.

We would like to comment on clause 52(1) of Bill C-32, which replaces subsection 4(2) of the Canada Evidence Act so that it reads as follows: “No person is incompetent, or uncompellable, to testify for the prosecution by reason only that they are married to the accused.”

Statistics show that, in 27% of sexual assault cases, the perpetrator is a spouse or ex-spouse. As a result, in 27% of cases, the woman cannot testify on behalf of the victim, who is usually a child. It is sometimes true that the woman—or, conversely, the man—is unaware of the acts committed. However, it is also sometimes true that the mother is aware of the act and does not assist her child. How often do children ask their mother for help and the mother refuses to act, by downplaying the behaviour or refusing to see the truth? We believe that the change to this section will benefit victims.

Times have changed, and we believe that if a mother refuses to testify, she is, to some extent, complicit in the spouse's actions. One question remains to be answered: if the law did not exist, what would the statistics be for crimes committed by a spouse?

Let us now turn to the notion of the right to a reasonable timeframe.

Despite all the positive aspects of this bill, we would like to suggest an additional section. The victims bill of rights should include a section entitled “Right to a reasonable timeframe”. We know that the judicial process can take three to seven years and that hearings are often postponed, which is discouraging to victims. The process takes much too long for victims, who must start their process of healing but not forget what they went through. We believe that a reasonable timeframe would be between one and one-and-a-half years, at most.

We cannot forget that we are working with human beings. We believe there should be a mechanism for speeding up cases involving crimes against people. The longer we wait to hear these cases, the greater the impact on the victims, and the longer and more costly the healing process.

In conclusion, we congratulate the federal government for its leadership and thank it for its work over the past few years towards better protecting victims. Whether it is increasing the sentences for pedophiles or proposing a victims bill of rights, you have shown great consideration for victims. We believe the Quebec government should look to your leadership in victim assistance, particularly on the statute of limitations issue.

Yet again today, with this bill, you are sending a clear message to victims: “Report your attacker and we will support you. The support will take the form of a system that will enable you to participate in the judicial process; inform you of your rights; make it easier for you to testify at trial; protect you not only during your testimony, but also once your attacker has been released; and consider compensating you for your financial loss.”

We want to reiterate our unconditional support for Bill C-32. We must always bear in mind that the proposed bill does not deal with property crimes, but crimes against people. If it were a stolen car or bike, or a break-in, the solution would be simple: pay to repair or replace the items. In the case of a victim of sexual assault, the solution is not so simple and quick. Often, years can go by before victims open up about what happened to them and start talking about it. Then, with assistance, they can begin a healing process that may take their entire lives.

We must remember that, behind all victims, there is a painful history with wounds and traumas that will always impact their lives and the people around them. With Bill C-32, we must assist and protect victims. The greater the protection we provide, the more likely victims will be to denounce their attackers, and this will make our streets and communities safer places to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Merci beaucoup.

Our next presenter is Mr. Krongold, from the Criminal Lawyers' Association.

[Howard Krongold, Member of the Board of Directors, Chair of the Legislation Committee, Criminal Lawyers' Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association has had the privilege of appearing before this committee many times, and I thank you for the invitation to discuss this bill.

Let me just say at the outset that victims are not an abstract concept to criminal lawyers. We know the victims are real. We know that their struggles in the criminal justice system are real. Indeed, the CLA takes no issue with many aspects of this bill. Many of the rights set out in the bill simply codify what really are best practices for prosecutors in dealing with complainants, witnesses, and victims.

That said, there are three aspects of this bill that, I'd respectfully suggest, require some closer consideration.

First, I just want to address a broad point, and in some ways I think I'm going to echo what Mr. Tremblay and Ms. Walker said. One of the most conspicuous features of this bill is increased participation for witnesses and complainants by being able to bring a variety of applications in the course of a criminal proceeding, applications that at present are generally brought by crown prosecutors, often at the request of a witness or a complainant.

The concern that I have is about adding procedural steps to what is already a strained justice system. I'd respectfully suggest that we ought to all give some thought to what I would say is perhaps one of the worst strains on everybody involved in the justice system, which is the glacial pace of litigation in this country. Trials, we know, take years to complete. We know that puts an extraordinary strain on witnesses, on victims or complainants in cases, and certainly on accused persons, who live under the shadow of criminal proceedings.

The reason is not that accused people have too many rights or that trials are somehow too fair. Courts and litigants struggle to do the best they can within a justice system that strains under the weight of the demands it faces. We're here today, I suppose, to focus on the plight of victims of crime. I'll say for my part, I can hardly imagine the agony a family member or a victim of a crime has to endure waiting years and years and years for the conclusion of a case. We have a system that, I would suggest, can do much better. What we need is perhaps not more laws, but more funding for courts and litigants to move litigation along. That's something that I would suggest would benefit everybody involved in the criminal justice system.

The second point I want to make concerns a very specific provision, clause 17 of this bill, amending the Criminal Code. If I leave you with only one point today, I hope it will be to ask you to take some serious consideration of this provision. I read it and, quite frankly, I'm a little confused by it and a little concerned. I have no doubt that everybody here believes in fair trials, and yet there's a provision in this bill that I have trouble making sense of. I notice that there's no legislative summary of the bill, which is initially where I went to try to find some clarification.

This provision seems to add a new section to the Criminal Code that seems to allow for witnesses to testify anonymously. That is of grave concern to my organization. It's no exaggeration to say that this is a significant departure from the standards of Canadian justice that we've come to expect. Some might say it resembles more “star chamber” justice. The idea that a witness would not be protected from publication of their identity or protection, potentially, from being cross-examined by the person who may have been accused of the crime is one matter. This is a situation where it seems to suggest that the identity of a witness could be prevented from being disclosed, it seems to anybody, and that seems to include the accused.

I'm not sure if I'm reading the provision right. I hope I'm not reading it right. But it's hard to imagine a more fundamental change to Canadian law, one less consistent with Canadians' visions of open, fair justice, where everybody has a chance to a fair trial, where they can make full answer and defence and confront the witnesses against them.

I hope that my reading of this provision is wrong. If it is, then perhaps the provision could be rewritten for a little bit of clarity. If it's right, then I would respectfully suggest that some serious consideration ought to be given to it.

[Megan Walker]

It's page 17, not clause 17.

[Howard Krongold]

I'm sorry, it's clause 17. It's also page 17. It's adding proposed section 486.31 to the Criminal Code, and I struggle to understand it. Initially, I thought it was maybe a publication ban, but I see a couple of pages later that clause 19 deals with publication bans.

As I say, I had trouble wrapping my head around what this provision was intended to say. There's no legislative background or legislative summary, so it's very hard to know what's intended here. The marginal notes don't help much, so it's a profoundly troubling provision, if I'm reading it correctly, and I don't know that anybody's brought this up before, so I felt I ought to do so.

Finally, let me just add on a bit of a whimper, and it's more of a minor point, that there's a provision in this bill with respect to changing the rules for spousal incompetency. It may well be that it's a good change; certainly, it's the way the provinces have gone. It may be the way of the future and it may be the way the federal criminal legislation should go as well, but it's a big change and it's deserving of study and careful consideration. It's a little bit out of place in a bill that's about victims' rights. There are numerous exceptions to the spousal incompetency rule that permit spouses to testify when they're the victims, and I believe when the children are the victims as well.

I'd submit that this provision would get the attention it deserves if it were severed and dealt with in another bill dealing with criminal procedure and evidence more generally. It's an important change and one deserving of careful consideration.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much and thank you for that presentation.

Our final presentation is from the Chiefs of Ontario, Grand Chief Yesno.

The floor is yours, sir, for 10 minutes.

[Grand Chief Harvey Yesno, Grand Chief, Nishnawbe Aski Nation]

Good afternoon, and thank you.

On behalf of the Chiefs of Ontario, we appreciate the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

We believe that our experiences as first nations people in Canada, a demographic that's largely over-represented in the criminal justice system, as both offenders and victims, will bring a uniquely first nation perspective and insight to inform the committee.

The Chiefs of Ontario is a political forum representing 133 first nations within the province of Ontario. We appear before you today to make clear our position on Bill C-32. While the proposed victims' bill of rights is introduced to give victims of crime a more effective voice in the criminal justice system, we respectfully submit that it can better reflect the unique circumstances and needs of first nations persons who are victims of crime.

It is important to examine the issues of victimization and victims of crime in a broader context to fully understand its significance in relation to first nations people, persons, and communities. We invite you to consider the following facts and statistics.

A 2006 report entitled “Victimization and offending among the Aboriginal population in Canada” found that both crime and victimization rates are several times higher among first nations persons than non-first nation persons. This 2006 report found that a first nation person was three times more likely than a non-first nation person to be a victim of violent crime. Violent crimes committed against a first nation person are more likely to be committed by someone they know, such as a relative, friend, or neighbour, compared to non-first nation person. Generally on-reserve crime rates in 2004 were approximately three times higher than rates in the rest of Canada. The difference is even greater for violent crime, with an on-reserve rate that is eight times the violent crime rate of the rest of the country. A first nation person is more likely to be as victim of homicide than a non-first nation person. Between 1997 and 2000, the average homicide rate for first nations persons was 8.8 per 100,000 people, almost seven times higher than the rate for non-first nations persons of 1.3 per 100,000. The authors of this 2006 report indicated that it's possible that the statistics on the victimization of first nations persons may be even higher among vulnerable first nations groups.

It is to be noted that the current Conservative government has stated that it has completed 34 reports since 2006, out of the 40 total reports completed between 1996 and 2013, on the issue of missing and murdered first nations women and girls. While these reports focus on a specific subset of first nations citizens, namely first nations women and girls, they do highlight and support the disproportionate statistics of victimization within first nations communities.

The causes of the higher rates of crime and victimization among first nations communities are varied and complex. Continued colonialization and systemic discrimination against first nations persons have provoked traumas that have carried through successive generations and have manifested themselves through addictions, physical violence, and sexual abuse.

Victims of crime are not homogenous group. As such, the proposed Bill C-32 must recognize that first nations persons face unique difficulties within the criminal justice system and society at large.

The proposed victims' bill of rights has the potential to become a meaningful tool to reduce the over-representation of first nations victims of crime if it is amended to be inclusive of the following considerations.

First, the unique circumstances of first nations persons and communities that are victims of crime should be considered. If passed, Bill C-32 would allow the addition of the words “and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community” to paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. With this addition, it is our view that the consideration of the unique circumstances of first nations persons before the courts as offenders, as set out by the court in the Gladue decision and later affirmed in R. v. Ipeelee, should be extended to first nations victims and related first nations communities. Further, this information should be presented through independent counsel to the judiciary for consideration during sentencing.

In the 1999 decision of R. v. Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its interpretation of paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, acknowledged that within the Canadian criminal justice system, first nations persons differ from non-first nations persons because many aboriginal people are victims of systemic and direct discrimination.

It is clear that unique and dynamic relationships exist between first nations offenders, victims, and community. As stated in Gladue, the appropriateness of a particular sanction is largely determined by considering the needs of the victims and the community, as well as the offender.

One recommendation we have here is that a specific reference to aboriginal persons, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal victims, be added to clause 15 of the victims bill of rights and to subsection 672.5(14) of the Criminal Code.

Another consideration is representation of the voices of first nations victims and first nations communities. Our recommendation there is that aboriginal persons and communities who are victims of crime should be provided with their own independent legal counsel to represent their input in order to ensure that their unique aboriginal circumstances are represented within any criminal justice matter. This should be reflected in clause 27 of the victims bill of rights.

Another consideration, where first nations victims and communities are concerned, is that first nations-based restorative justice mechanisms must be utilized. Our recommendation there is for the addition of a provision stating that any criminal justice matter in which an aboriginal victim and/or community is involved should be referred to a restorative justice mechanism should the victim so choose.

Another consideration is support for first nations communities through programs and services specific to the needs of first nations victims. Our recommendation there is that a federal first nations victims justice fund be created to support aboriginal programs and services that respond specifically to the urgent need for adequate and culturally relevant programs and services for first nations victims of crime and their families, similar to that of Ontario's victims justice fund, and be used to administer various programs and provide grants to community agencies to assist victims of crime.

Finally, another consideration is addressing the systemic barriers for first nations victims. Our recommendation there is that a specific reference to the provision of support mechanisms for first nations victims and communities be added to the victims bill of rights.

In closing, we wish to reiterate our view that the considerations that we bring forward to you today with respect to the proposed victims bill of rights have the potential to begin to address the overrepresentation of first nations victims of crime. For almost 20 years, much work has been done to address the growing problem of first nations overrepresentation. We firmly believe that amending the proposed victims bill of rights to consider the specific and unique circumstances of first nations victims and communities will be a step forward in reconciling the overrepresentation of first nations persons within the Canadian criminal justice system, as offenders and as victims, and a move towards healing first nations persons and communities.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Grand Chief.

I thank everyone for your presentations.

We are now going to the rounds of questions. Our first questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank all of our witnesses.

I appreciate what you are doing for victims. Most of you are doing this through your groups. I especially want to thank you for taking an interest in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

I will begin with Ms. Walker, who was the first to take the floor.

Welcome back to our committee, Ms. Walker. I appreciate what your organization does for victims, especially in those types of situations. It is absolutely not easy.

What is the number one problem that the victims whom you counsel and help have with the justice system? Is it to file?

I was absolutely flabbergasted when I saw the statistics on the number of complaints that are not filed because either the person doesn't trust the justice system or doesn't believe they'll have....

You started with the CBC thing, and we can all see the types of comments people receive for—let me say it in French—

daring to file a complaint or protest about something.

What is the number one problem victims face within the criminal system?

[Megan Walker]

We can't narrow it down to one problem, because every woman who comes in to our office, in the same way as every man coming in to your office or your organization, would identify a multitude of problems. There is tremendous fear of their partner, should they have to testify against them. We know that the time when women leave an abusive partner is the highest-risk time for them, with respect to either serious injury or homicide.

They're very fearful that if they report, they will suffer complete backlash, and shaming and blaming, and their family will abandon them, their church will abandon them—everybody will abandon them.

It could result in separation, and they cannot financially take care of themselves. They'll become homeless.

Legal aid certificates don't provide enough hours.

There's a variety of issues. Then, to access the criminal justice system is extremely difficult. To go to the police and have to tell these terrible, horrible stories.... Although we try our best to train police officers, there are still some who ask, especially in sexual assault cases: “What did you do? How much were you drinking? What were you wearing?”

There's a variety of issues.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

And it goes through the courts, and so on and so forth.

Is it fair to say, from reading the charter of victims rights, which I think has a lot of good intentions behind it—it's very hard to fault good intentions—that nothing in the charter would change those aspects that you're describing? It won't make the victim less fearful of filing against a husband, a wife, or whomever. It doesn't address those issues. It addresses the people who are going in front of the justice system.

It goes to what Mr. Krongold was mentioning, that we are not solving our number one problem with the justice system, which is—I think your expression was—“glacial” speed, which is really frightening and is becoming a big problem. You can give all the rights you want to whomever you want, but if your access to justice is still slow, I'm not sure we're achieving anything at that point.

What type of resource do you think, Mr. Krongold, we would need—