Justice Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

That's very well.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4. [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

In that case, we will continue the meeting in camera to deal with the amended motion.

We will give the people who cannot be here during the in camera part of the meeting some time to leave the room.

We apologize. We will try to come back to you as quickly as possible.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

We are resuming the public proceedings.

I want to begin by thanking our guests. We apologize for the short delay. You are witnessing day-to-day democracy in all its glory.

Mr. Clerk, how much time will everyone have?

[The Clerk]

Everyone will have about five to seven minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

You will have five to seven minutes each to express your organization's positions on Bill C-37, which is currently before us.

Let's begin with Ms. Jong.

[Joanne Jong, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

I would like to begin by sharing with you the experience crime victims go through. I will then give you examples of essential services victims of crime need. Finally, I will explain why Bill C-37 meets the objective of making criminals accountable.

When police officers told me my father had been murdered, I felt like someone had dealt me a crushing blow to the head. I could no longer function. I could no longer do anything. I lost my appetite and couldn't sleep. I could no longer drive my own car, prepare my meals, shop for groceries or do my housework. In short, I could no longer take care of my basic needs. I was no longer a contributing member of society. Yet that's what I had been my whole life, until that tragedy.

When someone becomes a victim of crime or loses a loved one in a murder, they immediately need a whole range of services they would not normally need. For instance, I would have needed a response team to reach out to me and help me meet my basic needs, such as preparing my meals, doing my laundry and driving my car. All those small daily tasks had suddenly become too difficult and insurmountable. Those tasks are not complicated nor do they constitute a luxury. Those kinds of services would have helped me tremendously through this traumatic ordeal.

Becoming a victim of a criminal is not a choice we make. We don't prepare for it in advance. It is a state we find ourselves in as a result of criminals' choices and actions. When a criminal harms another individual, it is logical that they should pay the price for that crime. That's a principle set out in the Criminal Code. The damage caused by criminals should not be paid by society as a whole.

All the law-abiding Canadian citizens who are victims of criminals should have the right to the same basic services. For instance, Ontario's Victim Crisis Assistance & Referral Services program sends response teams specializing in practical support for victims to help them make meals, do their shopping or do the dishes. Other basic services include crime scene clean-up, psychological services and assistance for covering funeral costs. Those services should be available everywhere—regardless of the province of residence and of the province in which the crime was committed. The federal government has shown its leadership; the provinces should do the same by providing better services.

Currently, victims are treated differently from province to province. In addition, some victims of crime have practically no access to any services. Yet, they're all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast. All the law-abiding Canadians who are victims of criminals should have the same rights. The provinces should use the federal government's leadership as inspiration. Therefore, I invite the various levels of government—federal and provincial—to find a way to agree in the interest of victims and harmonize services across the country.

In civilian life, many fines are mandatory, as judges have no discretionary privileges with regard to that. For instance, a violation of traffic regulations can easily result in a fine of $200 or more. So I don't see why it shouldn't be the same when it comes to the Criminal Code. Accused people awaiting trial do not hesitate to raise significant funds for bail. By comparison, the victim fine surcharge is a nominal amount. I have no sympathy for criminals who have to pay it. The damages they have caused by far surpass the victim fine surcharge amount.

There is another important point. Currently, all taxpayers are paying for the damages inflicted by criminals. The victim fine surcharge covers only a fraction of the cost of assistance for crime victims. Increasing the surcharge would lighten some of the burden currently placed on all law-abiding citizens. The criticism that the $200 amount is too high for poor criminals does not hold water, as they can work to pay it off.

As a victim, I am relieved to see that the current government is implementing legislative measures to remedy the historical imbalance between victims' rights and criminals' rights. It has the political courage to legislate in order to make criminals accountable to their victims.

I encourage all the members to fully support this bill.

Thank you for inviting me and for listening to my comments on this bill, which is so important for victims of crime.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Thank you, Ms. Jong.

Mr. Surprenant, you have the floor.

[Michel Surprenant, President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared]

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Michel Surprenant. I am the father of Julie Surprenant, who disappeared on November 16, 1999. Following the disappearance of my daughter, I founded, with the help of Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared.

I am here to speak to you as the president of the AFPAD. I congratulate the Conservative government on Bill C-37. I want to explain why this bill is so important for victims. This piece of legislation will enable the provinces to raise the money they need to provide more services to victims.

In the wake of a crime or a disappearance, victims' needs are huge. Being a victim involves all kinds of unexpected costs. When my daughter disappeared, I had to deal with unexpected costs. Let's take psychological care as an example. Currently, Quebec covers only 20 counselling sessions. In murder cases, the province covers 30 sessions. That's insufficient for victims in that kind of a situation. Victims of sexual predators serve a life sentence. The consequences stay with them for the rest of their lives.

There is an urgent need to increase the funeral cost portion reimbursable by the provinces. Currently, the Government of Quebec pays only $3,300 for funeral costs, which come up to about $12,000.

There is a major need to help victims cover the costs of cleaning up the crime scene. That's why it is very important for the provinces to follow the federal government's example. They must increase the victim fine surcharges, as the conservative government is currently doing.

It's also very important for the provinces to use that money intelligently. The money should not be lost in red tape. It should be used to really help victims.

That's why this bill should be passed urgently without amendment.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Mr. Serre, do you have anything to add?

[Bruno Serre, Vice-President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared]

My name is Bruno Serre, I am the Vice-President of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared. I am also the father of Brigitte, who was assassinated in 2006, at the age of 17.

I want to thank the members for inviting us to testify on this important bill, which will help thousands of victims in Canada every year.

With Bill C-37, the government is showing once again, as it has been doing since 2006, that victims are a priority. This bill is greatly appreciated and applauded by the AFPAD. Our association has about 550 members. It was founded by victims and for victims. Our association provides a wide range of services to the loved ones of assassinated or disappeared persons.

In 2005, a year before the death of my daughter, Mr. Boisvenu received a $600 cheque as compensation for losing his daughter. He was in disbelief over the fact that, when dealing with a crime, the state's only responsibility was to send a $600 cheque.

In terms of politics, the AFPAD won a major victory when Bill 25 was passed in December 2006. As a result, compensation for funeral expenses increased from $600 to $3,300, and psychotherapeutic support could be provided to victims' families. The only drawback is that the Government of Quebec does not apply that measure to minors because they have not contributed to the Régime des rentes du Québec—Quebec pension plan. So, no compensation is provided in such cases.

The AFPAD applauds the new obligation whereby judges must impose a victim fine surcharge. It had become unacceptable for a section of the Criminal Code to be so unused. The fact that a component of the Criminal Code was so little used was an insult to victims and a lack of respect towards them.

Studies conducted in 1992 and 1999 showed that only 15% of victim fine surcharges were imposed and that only 2.7% were actually collected. That's too low. Victims need that surcharge to benefit from the quality services they are entitled to.

In addition, criminals having to pay a certain amount of money is a step toward their rehabilitation. That being said, regarding those who may not have the money, we feel that the criminals who do not pay should have administrative penalties imposed. For instance, the issuance of a driver's license or any other provincial administrative service should be blocked until the victim fine surcharge has been paid. I want to point out that the surcharge is not in the thousands of dollars. We are talking about relatively small amounts.

It's normal for a criminal who has murdered, raped, mutilated or assaulted another person to contribute to victim services. The more criminals pay, the less law-abiding taxpayers will have to contribute to those services. In addition, it may help make criminals accountable for their crimes.

We agree with the very healthy objective of Bill C-37—to promote a sense of responsibility and rehabilitation among criminals.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Thank you.

We will begin the question period.

Mr. Côté, you have the floor.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. Jong, Mr. Surprenant and Mr. Serre, thank you for joining us. I really appreciate your being here.

I'm very happy to have the opportunity to work on a bill that will hopefully make things better for victims of crime and their families.

In Quebec, there is an alternative justice organization called L'Autre Avenue. This organization made me realize how limited, even non-existent, the support to crime could be. We still have a long way to go. You have listed certain avenues other than the financial options, such as the victim fine surcharge. Thank you for that. It will give us food for thought and contribute to our dialogues with our provincial partners.

One of the conclusions we could have drawn from the application of the victim fine surcharge, almost 20 years ago, was that the original promises were not fulfilled. The provinces did not receive as much money as they had hoped.

We had a few concerns about this bill. One of the things we were wondering about was whether another similar deception may not be involved. We realize that some convicted criminals do not have the means to meet those obligations. They must use other ways to pay.

The bill talks about options for paying a fine with regard to programs applied in the provinces. In other words, convicted individuals could accumulate credits for the work they do. Those programs exist in certain provinces. However, that won't necessarily generate hard cash. It's almost impossible to measure what that will represent.

Is that a concern for you?

[Bruno Serre]

That's a small concern for me. Currently, prisoners in penitentiaries work and are paid. Instead of paying them, the authorities would just have to use that money for the Victims Fund. If the surcharge is $400 and the prisoner is paid $10 an hour, the money they earn in 40 hours could go to the Victims Fund.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

It should be understood, however, that a prisoner who has opted for that alternative will only have time to give, but not money. In a way, they would be paying by contributing to society.

We are asking ourselves questions about infrastructure. We are wondering whether the organizations will be able to accommodate that surplus of individuals. That approach does not necessarily or automatically generate money. We don't know to what extent this alternative may be used.

[Michel Surprenant]

If that person has no money, they probably receive employment insurance benefits or welfare. A certain percentage of those benefits could be collected.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

What do you think, Ms. Jong?

[Joanne Jong]

I think that only a small minority of criminals have no money. Many of them are charged for crimes other than murder. Many of them raise bail for their release. If they can raise bail money, they can afford to pay $200—a fairly small amount.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies estimated in 2011 that four incarcerated women out of five were serving time for poverty-related crimes—in other words, poverty had led them to crime. Although we cannot automatically assume they would be unable to pay that amount, this reality should be considered.

What do you think?

[Joanne Jong]

What does "poverty-related crimes" mean? Are we talking about prostitution? If so, that's a very lucrative profession. So they should have a lot of money.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

That's a possibility, but we could also be talking about crimes such as shoplifting at a corner store or something like that.

[Joanne Jong]

Shoplifters are not usually the poorest people.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Obviously, that is your point of view.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Thank you, Mr. Côté. Five minutes goes by quick.

It is now over to Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your attendance today. I very much appreciate it.

First of all, my heartfelt sympathy to all of you for your loss. I can't imagine what it would be like, but I can imagine that it would not be fun. I want you to know that we all feel that pain here today, especially when we hear your testimony.

My dad was a World War II veteran also. Madam Jong, I know that your father was, and I know that he was also a farmer and rancher. My father was as well. He settled in Westbank instead of Quebec, hence the last name that has a ring of French in it.

You testified some time ago in relation to the Safe Streets and Communities Act. I think it was in October 2011. You said:

Sentencing serves a number of purposes, including ensuring compensation for harm caused to victims or the community. Compensation must therefore be an integral part of the sentence. However, compensation is currently optional and imposed only if the amount can easily be determined.

Maybe that's in part why we're here today. Congratulations on that, and for speaking for victims.

I was a lawyer for some period of time and I saw it waived on a continual basis and I couldn't understand why that was. Often these people would have the ability to pay, but it was waived just as a matter of principle. In fact, in up to 90% of cases, it's waived. That is troubling indeed.

What I was curious about in relation to this was what you thought of the agenda itself. There are three things in particular. We're doubling it. We're making it mandatory. We're also going to try to make sure in cooperation with the provinces that they have a fine option available as there is in Alberta.

What do you think of those three particular strategies? Are they consistent with your view of protecting victims instead of criminals?

[Joanne Jong]

Yes. That's a big step in the right direction because the criminals have to be made aware that they're causing damage. They might know that they're causing damage, but currently they're only sentenced to jail or to serve time. As a victim it doesn't feel right that they might go to jail but we suffer the hardship, when it's a choice that they made. They committed crimes on purpose.

As victims we're honest citizens. We try to live the best possible life. We can't be prepared for that. Their voluntary actions make us victims, so they should pay for it. They should have financial consequences like we do. If we break a window, we have to pay to have it repaired. In civil life it's the same. When we cause damage, we pay. It should be the same thing for criminals. That's what this law is going to be tending toward.