Justice Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

[Susan O'Sullivan]

The department of Mr. Nicholson.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

What approach do you intend to adopt? I am very concerned by victims, not just in general, but also among Aboriginals. There is an enormous pan-Canadian crisis within the Aboriginal population. It is extremely difficult to work with victims in Aboriginal society.

Have you already established a policy? Have you already begun to think about a specific approach in this regard?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Yes, absolutely. I want to organize a meeting with Sisters in Spirit. I also had a meeting with Chief Stan Grier, who represents the aboriginal police services in Canada, of which there are 38. Mr. Grier is co-chair of a committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. A meeting was held in Vancouver because one of the CACP's committee's priorities is to work with the office. I have held numerous meetings with other services, with the Inuit here, in Ottawa, but these are national services. So this is a priority for the office as well.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We're at the end of our first hour, so I'm going to bring that part of the meeting to a close. We'll now open it up for questions to Ms. O'Sullivan on Bill S-6, as per Ms. Jennings' request.

I am going to continue the questioning here with Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Is this committee going to make a report?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes, and thank you for raising that.

There is a standard customary motion that this committee could adopt, which would be that this committee has examined the qualifications and competence of Susan O'Sullivan to the position of Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and finds her competent to perform the duties of the position and fully endorses her appointment.

Is that your will?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I'll move it.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. Shall I report that to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll now continue with questions on Bill S-6.

Before we go to questions, I believe, Ms. O'Sullivan, you have an opening statement.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I have.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Bill S-6 and the faint hope clause. I have become aware of the statements made by various important witnesses who appeared before the committee and dealt with the issue from numerous different angles.

It is clear that the issue is not simple and that a vast array of valid arguments for or against the clause can be provided. However, I am not here to analyze these arguments. I am here as Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, to play the role which is our raison d'être: to give a voice to victims.

I am going to share with you what victims say in order that you be able to take this into account in your deliberations.

I have had the chance recently to talk to some victims and victim advocacy groups about the issue. Unfortunately, I have not conducted exhaustive consultations at this stage, as time did not permit. As such, the information I am presenting here represents those groups I did have a chance to talk to but cannot be taken to represent all victims as a whole.

During my discussions it was made abundantly clear to me that there is strong support for Bill S-6 based on three main areas it addresses: accountability, transparency, and compassion.

The first, accountability, is a big one. People who have lost loved ones to horrible, brutal acts of cruelty want to be sure that this person who did it is brought to justice and serves time. Depending on their individual outlook, victims may see that time as a means to rehabilitation and to assisting the offender to become a reformed and productive member of society. From another point of view, the victim may just want to ensure that the offender who did this isn't roaming the streets and that he or she has been required to pay for the life that they took. Either way, no matter your outlook, it would be important to you that the offenders serve their time and that this accountability be maintained.

Based on this, you can understand that it would be difficult for a victim to understand why, when given a sentence of 25 years, an offender would be given the opportunity to get out early, to pay a lesser debt to society for the crime they have committed, and essentially to pay a discounted rate for the life they have taken.

That is not to say that there are not compelling arguments for the impact this loss of hope might have on offender rehabilitation. That is an important discussion, and I am sure you will delve into that here, but I bring to you the victims' point of view.

My second point, transparency, has to do with how well victims are informed of the faint hope clause generally, when or if an offender applies, and what their rights are in terms of participating in the process. As members are aware, the notification process and requirement are a provincial responsibility. For example, in Ontario we understand that victims do not have a legislative right to be informed when an offender makes an application for faint hope, nor when their application is heard by the jury. This isn't to say that in practice it doesn't occur, but it is discretionary and without a right. Victims have no form of recourse if they are unable to participate in the process in any meaningful way.

I will not touch on this too much, as it is handled at the provincial level. I will say, however, that all victims deserve to be kept informed and to play a meaningful role in the criminal justice system should they wish to.

My third point is compassion, and it cuts to the heart of the matter for victims. The grief victims experience is devastating, and for those strong enough to try to move forward in life, having to rehash the crime and the trauma at a hearing can feel like reliving the worst time of their lives over and over again. Yes, victims can choose not to attend a hearing, but like anyone, victims often feel a strong compulsion to be there in person and to stand up for the very person who cannot--the victim.

Even before a hearing, the uncertainty can wreak its own havoc. Some victims will say that the worst feeling is simply not knowing when or if the offenders will apply, and if they do and are rejected, whether they will try again and how soon. This state of unrest causes anxiety and stress over and above what they're already coping with. In the current scheme, victims could be expected to face these hearings up to five times in any one life sentence, at 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 years.

There are various ways this could be handled. The suggestion in the bill is to eliminate the faint hope clause completely. Another way might be to apply the provisions suggested for already incarcerated offenders to all offenders and set strict timelines on how often an offender can apply, ensuring at least five years before applications for parole.

In the end, all victims want is that no one else experience what they have experienced. They want the offender to be held accountable for his or her crime. They want to participate fully in the process, if they so wish, and they do not want to relive the crime over and over, so as to be able to look towards the future and healing.

The bill, in its present form, fulfills some of these wishes, but it is not necessarily the only solution to the problem.

On behalf of my office, I reiterate my support of the victims we represent and I encourage members to support the bill as quickly as possible.

Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Members, here's what I'm proposing to do: five minutes for questions, maximum.

We'll start with Mr. Woodworth to continue on the rotation, and then we'll go to the Liberals and then we'll go to Monsieur Ménard. This is only a half-hour. I'm seeking your cooperation. Then I will go to Mr. Comartin; otherwise, he would be shut out if we kept on going, because the next would be Liberal and then three Conservatives, right?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Chair, as far as I'm concerned, this portion of our meeting is a completely new portion and therefore the rules determining the questioning apply. Now, I have no problem with reducing the amount of time to question to ensure that each one of the four parties has an opportunity to question this witness on Bill S-6, but this is not a continuation of the previous portion.

The fact that Ms. O'Sullivan is being heard directly subsequent to her hearing, her appearing before us with regard to her appointment, has absolutely nothing to do with her appearing as a witness on Bill S-6. Therefore the proper order of questioning is Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and then Conservative; and given the total amount of time, I've no objection that you divide it equally in four parts, but it begins with the Liberals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Great, I think we've solved the problem.

Yes, Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Under the agenda for today's meeting, it shows Mr. Sapers making a submission as well. Couldn't that happen now as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No. He has requested that he appear on his own. It was a specific request; otherwise we would—

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

At another meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No. Well, yes, a separate panel, essentially, at today's meeting.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So this we're going to do in 55 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Well, there are two witnesses—

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Typically we have two witnesses.

So we'll do that, then, because the effect is the same. If each of us takes five minutes, then each party will have a chance to question.

So who's starting, then, for the Liberals?

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. O'Sullivan.

I would ask, are you aware of the latest statistics on the number of inmates, offenders, currently serving life sentences in our penitentiaries? Yes or no.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I was just speaking to Correctional Service Canada. My understanding is there are 680 who may be subject to the faint hope clause. That may not be correct, but that's my understanding. There are approximately 3,000, however.