Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Monsieur Lemay

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

With all due respect, Ms. O'Sullivan, I think that Mr. Dechert should review some of the sections of the Criminal Code, because he would have seen that Mr. Olson appeared before the superior court judge where the murders were committed.

No victims testified. He has the right to apply, but above all, the court has the right to reject his application. That is what people should understand. That individual, I will repeat this and I have said so openly, will never obtain parole. I don't think that any judge with the least amount of wisdom... That is why we have legal discretionary power, and that is why the Criminal Code was amended. It was to enable the judge to establish guidelines and preside over the first step. That is what Mr. Dechert and his team don't understand. The problem...

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

There's a point of order.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I just want to be clear. I think Mr. Lemay is misrepresenting. He said that Mr. Olson made a statement to a judge of the Superior Court in Quebec. He did not. He made that quote, which I read, to the National Parole Board on Tuesday, November 30. I have the transcript here, sir, if you'd like me to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dechert, that is not a point of order. Just as in Mr. Comartin's case, it's a point of debate.

I'll go back to Monsieur Lemay.

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

He told the parole board that. I don't think that Mr. Dechert has ever gone before the parole board, because he would know that its main interest is to defend victims. That is its main concern.

Not another point of order, Mr. Dechert!

The debate is on the following question: how can we protect victims? They are not informed. The best way is to not inform them that Mr. Olson appeared before the board. That way, they won't be traumatized. No, they must be informed! That is where the problem lies, and I would like to hear your view on that, Ms. O'Sullivan.

How can we prepare victims for the fact that a murderer who has reoffended may one day appear before a judge or the parole board, when everyone knows that he will not be paroled, even if he wants to make an application?

That is the essence of this question about information and protecting witnesses. Are you preparing anything on that? How can we prepare these victims? Unfortunately for some Conservatives, others will go before the parole board, or judges. Has that been looked at? Do you foresee doing that?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Can I answer, in a sense, in two ways? One is if this legislation is passed, then the families won't have to go before the parole board if the person is given consecutive sentences. That would be one issue. Second is if it is not a situation where it's consecutive and they have to appear before the parole board. These are the kinds of issues that certainly our office is looking into and working with, and I've had discussions with both the parole board and Correctional Service Canada, with their victims' services and with the policy centre for victims, about how—we know there are issues there—we can keep those open lines of communication to make sure that we leverage all of our knowledge and experience to be able to ensure that victims can be....

How do you prepare someone? How do you prepare someone to face the person who murdered their loved one? I don't know. In a sense, what I have seen from a lot of the victims' families is such strength, such commitment, and they're there because they're representing the people who can't speak, their loved ones whom they've lost.

When you ask me a question, I'm being very respectful. These are very difficult questions about how we can support.... And you have identified one of the biggest needs, which is the need for timely information, and not just about process. Again, I don't want to take up too much time, but a lot of those issues that you're raising have been identified in the recommendations that have been put forward by our office, and we look forward to having an opportunity to speak to those in the future.

Thank you for raising that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Norlock for five minutes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today.

I'd like to go back to something you mentioned. I want to thank the member, Mr. Lemay, for being sensitive to me because I'm a very sensitive person.

You said that the most basic right is the right to life. Would I be correct in saying that as part of your raison d'être as the victims' ombudsman, you feel an obligation to represent those who can no longer speak for themselves—and that's the deceased—the persons who can no longer have that right? Their right was taken away from them. Would I be correct?

May I ask how you see that happening as you progress in your job and your function as victims' ombudsman?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I would phrase it this way. I can't replace the voice of those parents or those sisters or those mothers who have lost. What I can do is be an amplifier for their voice. It's their story. It's their pain. It's their suffering. I have to say this. Victims understand that in many cases a large portion of offenders will be released. They don't want them to reoffend; they want them to have the supports they need. That's when we talk about the general population of offenders.

As I said at the beginning of my testimony, one of this office's biggest roles is to help bring that voice to the table. I also know that this committee and many committees have had the privilege of listening to people who have suffered loss and people who are national voices, in telling their stories and the need for change within the criminal justice system.

When we talk about rights, one of the number one issues is that they have more rights. In many cases, it's not about an either/or. It's about ensuring that their rights, that those legs of the stool, start to be equal, because right now they're not.

I build on Mr. Lemay's comments. How do we provide that information to them? How do we bring their voice to the table to have input and influence?

I also want to build on the other comments about how we broaden that national framework. This office is very committed to doing that. We've been very active in doing that so that we can bring the best information and voice possible to this table.

Thank you.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Just as a quick recap—of course, we know your background as a police officer—in the 30 years that you were a police officer, did you see a beginning in the early 1970s...? I can recall there really was no such thing as victim services, or at least if they did exist, I didn't know about it. As I retired I saw a great change in the attitude.

You talked about the legs of the stool being equal. We gauge the perception and the people we think most about, or the people we want to get our message out, at least at committees, by the witnesses who we ask to appear. In some areas, especially in the legislation that we're introducing, we see a pantheon of witnesses who are very concerned about the rights of the people who are accused of crimes, and we try to bring in, of course, the victims and the voices of those who have had the crimes perpetrated against them. I suppose that is supposed to be a balance, and I'm hoping we achieve that balance.

When you look at some of the hearings that this committee has, if you have suggested witnesses, feel free at any time.... I know as ombudsman, I would think that's your job, to recommend witnesses. So please feel free to do that for us.

When I go into classrooms and talk to young people, the first thing they talk about is their rights. I say, “Your rights devolve from your responsibilities as a citizen. So before you can have rights, you have responsibilities.”

If you were to go and talk to, let's say, a group of young people, would you take that tack? How would you go about talking about your job and what you feel is the most important part of your job when it comes to telling people out in the public who you are and what you stand for?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I went through the priorities and the mandate of the office. Interestingly, I know Mr. Comartin, at another committee meeting, talked to me about what the U.K. was doing. In some senses they're ahead of us because victims' rights are entrenched. Their conversation isn't around whether the victims have rights; It's about how do they implement.... That's the kind of conversation we should be having in Canada.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Have you a recommendation for this committee, for our researchers, as to how we can go about that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Give a quick answer.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I'd be happy to provide some.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. Thank you.

I note that we have about 10 minutes left.

Mr. Comartin, you didn't ask a question, and I'm prepared to allow you a question if one has come to mind. You have none?

Does anybody else wish to ask a question? None.

We want to thank you, Ms. O'Sullivan, for coming back to our committee. I'm sure we'll have you back again. Thank you for appearing.

We're adjourned.