Evidence of meeting #60 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Board Member, Circles of Support and Accountability
My French isn't perfect, but I got enough.
I agree with some of the things Mr. Sullivan had to say in that we should really take heed of the lessons learned in Alberta and elsewhere where they've had this program. I did see the line in there that indicates it's only what has already been made public; I'm not quite sure exactly what that means. The concern I would have, and I'm not sure this legislation proposes that, is whether there's any way in which this information would directly earmark where people are or would locate them in the community. I don't think that's the purpose, as I understand it.
Of course, the Supreme Court of Canada, in another decision, would have had a problem with that, had the conclusion been that the giving of the first three digits of the postal code, the name, or photograph would have identified the location, it would have been a problem. The obvious problem would be that this would lead to a situation where the offender might not want to comply—through shame, humiliation, fear, and all these things—which could be counterproductive to a stable individual and therefore a higher risk to the public.
Those are just concerns I raise. I don't know if they'll be animated by this legislation, but I'd want to see what specifically they mean by this information being already disclosed.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
There's also the impact of the fact that the vast majority of sexual cases—it's a pretty well-known statistic—are within either the family or are...as you yourselves said. Would that create some type of problem for the victims in terms of perhaps seeing the names on the registry?
I'm trying to see how that registry could work and if we're not creating a monster that would create an adverse effect on what's intended.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, As an Individual
I don't pretend to be an expert on all sex offender research, but I've read a fair bit. What we know is that those who abuse within the family tend to have a lower risk for recidivism, whereas for the category of sex offenders who have a sexual orientation towards young children, usually of the same sex, those people have a higher risk. Those within the family probably wouldn't be on anybody's notification list. The Ottawa police aren't going to notify about Uncle Jim coming out, unless Uncle Jim has some other types of things.
Those familial offenders, incest offenders within the family, probably aren't the people who will be on the list. Those aren't the people who Susan is going to work with. You're looking mainly at the Graham James-type people who have this higher risk of reoffending.
If there was a publication ban for some reason—for example, it would identify the victim if you identified the offender—then I suspect the police service wouldn't make that notification.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
Our next questioner is from the Conservative Party.
Go ahead, Monsieur Goguen.
February 4th, 2015 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you to all the witnesses for your participation. It's going to be a little bit shortened here because of the antics on the Hill, of course, but one never knows what each day brings.
Mr. Gilhooly, you've been here a few times. I noted your concern about the totality principle, and I have a couple of questions on that. I know that advocates such as Sharon Rosenfeldt feel that basically people are being released too early because of the totality principle.
Earlier this week we heard from Justice officials. They were saying that the courts are taking note when there are multiple convictions for different offences that they would have imposed a lengthier sentence for one particular offence, but they're reducing it by a year or two in light of the totality principle.
Do you have any comments on the length of sentences as it relates to the totality principle and as it relates to child sexual offences?
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
The tough cases always make for the best points and the worst points at the same time.
I'll speak directly to the Graham James situation. Graham was convicted in the mid-1990s for hundreds of sexual assaults on Sheldon Kennedy and another unnamed person.
Three of us then came forward 15 years later. There were hundreds more offences. Graham was out on bail and decided to play around as long as he could, and was in a position where he agreed to some things and not others. We're talking about hundreds of sexual assaults.
This is difficult for me to speak to. I printed off the Court of Appeal decision. I actually cried when I read it again today in the airport. You have the Court of Appeal of Manitoba saying that the starting point for a major sexual assault perpetrated on a young person by one in a position of trust is four to five years.
I have thought very long and very hard about what I want to say to the Manitoba Court of Appeal, and I'm going to offend everyone in this room, so close your ears right now: “Fuck you, Manitoba Court of Appeal.”
That's the problem we have. We have justices out here. We as a society don't understand the pain that lingers with those who have been subjected to child sexual assault.
God bless my friends on this panel who talk about coming out of prison and the difficulty reintegrating into society. Until this government has funded an organization and an operation like Sheldon Kennedy and his group have set up in Calgary in every metropolitan area in this country, that group should not get a single dollar.
Those people have more therapy funded for them in prison than I've ever received. Graham was deemed to have been rehabilitated because he didn't reoffend between the time he was let out after the Sheldon Kennedy conviction and jail time and our time. Well, it took me 30 years to come forward.
We speak out of two mouths here. We say that most sexual assaults aren't reported, and then we're given statistics where all of a sudden the recidivism has gone down because such and such hasn't happened.
We have no idea what real statistics are in place when it comes to those who commit sexual assault. I applaud the government for taking steps to try to improve moving forward, but this doesn't get better until we, as a society, better understand the prison that victims live in coming out of child sexual assault. Help these prisoners who are among us first.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
In essence, the Court of Appeal valued what took place to you as a victim with a four and a half year sentence. The tradeoff is that in fact, through no fault of your own, you have sustained a life sentence, and the tradeoff just doesn't seem right.
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
It's actually worse than that.
What happened was that Graham decided to plead guilty to two charges but not three, to keep the convictions limited to a set piece of time. He pleaded guilty to the charges against Theo and Todd, and not me.
The reason the crown in Manitoba took that was that they didn't want to compel other witnesses, who we know are out there, and it wouldn't have been worth a trial. Even if they got a conviction on my charges, he wouldn't have had any more time in jail. That's exactly what totality is when you carve back the sentencing.
In the Court of Appeal, they got to eight years and cut it back to five years because the sentence would have been unduly harsh on poor Mr. James. If my charges had been in there, it would have been four plus four plus four years is twelve years, carved back to five years because a sentence longer than five would have been unduly harsh on Mr. James. Fuck the Manitoba Court of Appeal.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
One of the previous witnesses, Mr. Butt, was talking about the importance of the transmission of information about high-risk sexual offenders: CBSA being informed, informing the sexual offenders registry of their travel, and all that. He was saying that we're obviously clamping down on sexual offenders here in Canada; those who can't be cured are going to have a tendency to travel elsewhere.
Do you agree with that? Do you see any benefit to basically giving the data, flagging the dates of departure, where and every place they are going to?
I'll leave that open to whomever wants to answer it.
Mr. Gilhooly, you can start.
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Absolutely.
Graham was found in Guadalajara. There are places to go and communities that support these people. There's a network of lifelines open to these people that goes beyond government money reintegrating them into society.
Don't get me wrong. We want to help people when they come out of jail. We're already doing a lot while they are in jail, and we're doing a lot more than we are for the victims.
We have a problem that we have to solve; that's tracking them when they get out, and doing whatever we can. Just because they leave our borders and go about their way doesn't mean they are inflicting any less ill on society. It's our responsibility.
5:15 p.m.
Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, As an Individual
I think if convicted sex offenders are travelling to Thailand, certainly that's the information you want to be able to share and to access.
I think the bigger problem about child sexual tourism, Mr. Butt, is with those who don't have convictions for anything and who are travelling.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, As an Individual
They're not on the radar. In some jurisdictions it's encouraged because it's good for their economy and those kinds of things. It's a complex issue.
But I think on sharing information about someone who has a conviction for a child sexual offence and who's travelling to one of those locations, absolutely.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Voices
No.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
Thank you for those questions and answers.
Our next questioner is Mr. Casey from the Liberal Party.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, witnesses.
I'm certain everyone here shares the goal you expressed, Mr. Foord, that we want fewer victims. We may differ on what's going to work.
In my previous careers, if you couldn't measure it, you couldn't manage it. Sometimes we seem to be shadowboxing, as Mr. Gilhooly pointed out, in that the statistics and evidence out there aren't reliable, or not worth a damn. How do we determine what's effective?
I'd like to start with the folks from CoSA. You started out with a statistic that Mr. Gilhooly didn't put much stock in. If I heard you correctly, the rate of recidivism for those who go through your program is 80% less than that of the general population.
You also said that federal funding for your program has been cut. Do you know why? Is it because there is evidence that counters that 80% number? Is it because they need to balance the budget? Is it because a longer sentence is a better solution?
5:15 p.m.
Program Coordinator, Circles of Support and Accountability
I would say it's a budget issue primarily. We have received funding from Correctional Services, the chaplaincy branch. I know their section has been severely cut. You've probably read about it. That's primarily it.
Another aspect, we understand, is that we work with people who have been released at the end of their sentence. Some from CSC have suggested that is beyond their mandate.
Clearly, we both have the same mandate of public safety. It's very difficult to secure funding for CoSA, not fitting into funding priorities from, let's say, the United Way or whatever.
We don't propose that we receive 100% of our funding from CSC. We realize it should come from the province, the city, or from other private foundations, but we believe there should be some core funding from CSC. This would help us leverage other potential funding and show support from the government, etc.
I don't know if that answers your question.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan, I remember your testifying here on the victims bill of rights. There's a recurring theme here, that there should be a greater emphasis on resources and less on drafting. I think that's essentially what I heard you say today.
In that vein, my thought on the goal of there being fewer victims is that instead of looking after the offence, we should be looking farther upstream, in education, mental health, poverty reduction, those sorts of things.
I'd like your thoughts on what's most effective in there being fewer victims, in what we see with these amendments to the Criminal Code and the lengthening of sentences as opposed to other programs you think would be more effective in creating fewer victims.
5:20 p.m.
Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, As an Individual
Yes, how much time do we have? I mean, we know in general that crime prevention programs can stem this in the very beginning. We're talking about a variety of different types of offences, so it might be people involved in gangs, certainly people who were abused children. If we can educate, prevent all those things in the beginning, we can stop a cycle.
One of the things that Theo Fleury recently talked about on an Ottawa sports radio station was how he's not as focused on the justice system anymore; he's more focused on healing. He talked about the Ray Rice situation in the U.S., which we're all familiar with. He didn't defend it, thought it was abhorrent behaviour, but he said it was a learned behaviour. If you can stop that as soon as possible, at whatever level you can, then Ray Rice isn't going to pass it on down to his own children, or his daughter, who's just going to get into an abusive relationship.
We know a lot of this crime in general stems from the experience people have as young people. The research in Canada shows that the impact of child abuse is $15 billion a year. Children who are abused sexually or physically tend to maybe have more problems in school, drop out quicker, may get involved in more promiscuous sex. Teenage pregnancy is higher, as is drug abuse, all those things that lead people down certain paths. If you can stop that in the beginning, have those programs available for people when they need them and where they need them, so that we, as governments, don't set up these programs that we think people need, but then they're not going to access them, which is what often happens now....
Prevention is the key, but prevention can take place in different places. In prison, for example, when a guy walks into a federal prison, he's probably got a fairly long history of doing some really bad things. The odds are against even the best correctional program in the world to change that person's behaviour. The best protection you're going to have when he comes out is if you can change his behaviour. He has to make that decision, but if we can give him some tools, like CoSA, which is a voluntary program, which helps people who are the highest-risk offenders.... These are the guys who are deemed to have 100% chance to reoffend. You can question the statistics, but certainly it's difficult to question the impact on many of those guys. So it's prevention, but at different phases, and trying to catch people.
I'm a practical guy. I want to see fewer people be re-victimized, and victimized in the first place. If there was evidence that locking people up longer prevented crime or deterred people, I'd be all in.