Human Resources committee  Yes, I do. I do believe it is a slam against not only victims but other individuals who have all kinds of problems. I could go into my own set of circumstances when my husband was ill, but I'm not going to do that here today. We have to make a choice. As I said, there are limitations in what governments can provide.

Human Resources committee  If you remove the clause?

Human Resources committee  —such as 104 weeks, rather than criminals. That's the decision that this committee has to make.

Human Resources committee  Well, sir, it's either the provinces or the federal government. It's one of the two; take your pick. You're a federal member of Parliament. It's either one or the other. No matter what, in a lot of cases the provinces do pay by way of social assistance. I would say that anybody who builds up a number of fines that they have not paid does not deserve to have benefits, such as having the benefit of applying for 104 weeks.

Human Resources committee  Maybe what we have to do is start giving more people better benefits—

Human Resources committee  The response I get is, “What? Are you kidding? I didn't know about that.” Not many Canadians know about this.

Human Resources committee  In particular, if you ask victims, of course, then what you get is, “Well, when this crime happened to me”, and they go on and on. I know all of that. I don't have time to tell you every situation today, but I can tell you that it is definitely not fair. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out what we as Canadians value, and whether there are limitations that governments have to make.

Human Resources committee  Thank you for asking that. There is very little. There is nothing, really, for rehabilitation. The way it stands for victims of crime in Canada right now is we take money, the 15% surcharges that are levied on various fines in each province across Canada. That 15% surcharge is federally regulated, but it is left up to the provinces to administer the funds in the manner they see fit.

Human Resources committee  Good afternoon. I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to give my views, as a Canadian and on behalf of the organization Victims of Violence, pertaining to Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, referring to incarceration. We believe this bill is clearly adopting measures to ensure that the employment insurance program is delivered effectively and fairly in a way that is most beneficial to Canadians.

Justice committee  Yes, I do. In response to what you just talked about, I must comment that there is no such thing as closure; however, there is satisfaction. Victims just have to learn a different way to live and to cope, but there is no such thing as closure. I would also like to say that it has been most confusing.

Justice committee  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Sharon Rosenfeldt, and I'm president of the organization Victims of Violence. It's a nationally registered organization that has been in existence since 1984—for 27 years. I've taken out a bit of my presentation because this is five minutes.

Justice committee  I spoke on that. I definitely agree with the repeal of the faint hope clause.

Justice committee  No.

Justice committee  Not at all, and again it's because he does not talk to victims. He does a lot of his work in the groups that work for offenders, so he's pro-offender. It's as simple as that. He's a very nice man, and so is Mr. Doob. All the criminologists and sociologists--all the “oligists”--are.

Justice committee  Given the way the law is right now, it is definitely better to be advised. There's no question about that, but what we're asking for in this piece of legislation is for a judge to have the discretion to sentence somebody like Clifford Olson to 260 years before he could ever apply.