Justice Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

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

In fact, it's a senseless crime, in this particular case. One was a youth convicted of second degree manslaughter, I believe, and the other was an adult who was actually acquitted. It must leave a tremendous void in your life, and based upon my experience, a feeling of complete and utter helplessness and the fact that the government is not standing up for you.

[Joanne Jong]

It is helplessness. Currently, people can be responsible for killing somebody and get acquitted, which is really a horrible feeling. It's not something we can understand, why they get acquitted.

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

Do you believe these three changes are going to make future victims feel at least that.... It will never repay what they've lost—

[Joanne Jong]

No.

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

—but it will certainly make them feel that the government is standing up for victims instead of for criminals.

[Joanne Jong]

Yes, and that there's some help, because we become a victim as soon as a crime is committed. The trial can take a year, if they find the culprit. As soon as someone becomes a victim, if there are some measures in place to help the victim, at least the victim would feel that the government was not just saying that it cares for victims, but that it is doing something practical about it.

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

Thank you for your courage, Ms. Jong.

Ms. Boivin.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

Mr. Coderre, your turn.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Debates like this are always a bit heartbreaking. First of all, we don't know what it's like to walk in your shoes.

Second, you've been through a devastating ordeal, and yet we have a specific role as lawmakers. We cannot just act selectively. We must examine what we can do to create an environment that delivers greater justice. We must also find a way to help our fellow citizens who are struggling. With that in mind, I have a few questions.

Our compassion for victims crosses all party lines. But we may have different ideas on how measures should be implemented and what should be done.

In my riding of Bourassa, we have some problems. Mr. Serre knows what I'm talking about. Rehabilitation is also important. Can we rehabilitate while protecting and helping victims? That is my question. That is the first step, in my eyes.

The bill seeks to double the victim surcharge, the idea being to make the offender convicted of the crime more accountable. Why not raise the surcharge three, four or fivefold? How much is enough?

As a lawmaker, I personally want to make sure we actually help victims. I appreciate that some may say it is not society's responsibility to pay for everything, and yet in the meantime, you're struggling, you're dealing with awful circumstances, as you said earlier, Ms. Jong. We aren't going to wait until the criminal has finished paying.

The role of a government and a state is to ensure it gives you the tools and the resources you need. Do you think $200 is enough? Would you say that, at least, the criminal contributed something? I don't want to get into party politics, but if we truly want to support victims, should we not give them the tools to help them through their ordeal, considering what they've been through and will continue to go through? They will never be able to fully recover, of course. Wouldn't it be better to give you the tools and the resources? We will work with the committees and agencies that will help you. We will help your association because it does incredible work.

It's a bit unfortunate that the support happens only between victims. You need more assistance. You understand, then, that progress is made on that side of things.

How do you think the government should help victims?

[Michel Surprenant]

If all the money went into assisting victims instead of supporting infrastructure and roads, that alone would be a big step forward. Obviously, a $200 fine imposed on a criminal to support the victim directly is not enough. There is always an amount or a budget, but it has to go to the victims first.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The problem is that you're victimized a second time, and I'll explain why.

You become a victim when you go through the traumatic event. The person who committed that horrible crime should pay. But if that person doesn't pay or if the payment is overdue and you have to contact the provincial authorities—you mentioned deducting payments from social assistance benefits, for example—that won't necessarily work either. You will be victimized again as a result of the process.

We all have compassion for victims and we all want to help you, but if victim support is truly a priority, are we not better off doing what needs to be done and then exploring other options?

[Michel Surprenant]

Our association helps victims by referring them to the various services available, including psychological counselling. Our first goal, however, is to show them that despite what they have been through, it is possible to put the pieces of their lives back together. I don't mean erasing the trauma from their minds completely, but incorporating it into their lives in some positive way.

When we're talking about fines, clearly $200 isn't life-changing. But knowing that the criminal is going to provide some restitution for what they have done is a big step in the right direction for the victim, psychologically speaking.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

So it's not necessarily the fine or the $200 amount that matters. The point is to find a way to make the criminal contribute.

[Michel Surprenant]

This fund is a budget. As pointed out earlier, if the money goes to fixing roads, then something is wrong. But if all of it goes to helping victims—some of whom need more assistance than others—it will be possible to meet their needs.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Seeback, the floor is yours.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to add my voice to how difficult it is, the circumstances that you've all gone through. As a parent, I can't imagine the situations you've gone through, and, Madam Jong, of course, with your father.

Madam Jong, you made a great point and I'm going to repeat it, because I think it's important for people on this committee to hear it again. It's that victims don't make a choice; the criminals do. That's important for us all to remember when we look at these kinds of things. That's why the term is “victim”. They and their families have been victimized.

I think what we heard just now from Mr. Coderre is his complete lack of understanding of the legislation, because what we're not doing is saying that criminal A has to give $200 to victim B. That's not what's happening. The $200 would go into the victims fund, and the victims fund would then be used by the provinces to fund various programs to assist victims. These are great programs; I know many of them. I have a friend who works in the victim and witness assistance program in Ontario. She has a fabulous job.

While we're here at committee, perhaps we could ask all of you to comment on the types of programs these funds would fund. It's not just the doubling; the issue is that 80% to 90% of the time it was waived. There's going to be a significant increase in revenue for victims programs. If you could comment on that for me, please, so perhaps Mr. Coderre can be educated, and he will go back and tell his caucus, and they might support this legislation.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

A point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

We have a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Chair, I have always been respectful of my colleagues, and I don't think anyone should be schooling anyone else. No one should be claiming the moral high ground here, so I would ask the member to show respect for his colleagues.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Mr. Seeback, your turn.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

He was implying that the legislation was such that a criminal was going to pay a victim. That's incorrect. I'm trying to correct the record.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I never said that.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

We could keep going back and forth, but I would prefer we turn our attention back to the witnesses. Thank you.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Perhaps you could comment on, as I said, the programs that these funds could help, and how they would assist victims as they go through these terrible processes.

[Joanne Jong]

From my understanding, the money goes in a general fund, and then it is directed toward the victims to help them. My understanding is that in some provinces, the aid to victims is taken from the general revenue and not from what the criminals pay. What the criminals will be paying will be an increasing percentage of the aid to victims.

Making criminals contribute financially to victim support is highly commendable. Victims' needs are so diverse.

You become a victim from the moment the crime is committed, not just during the trial, which can take place a year later. But as soon as you become a victim, you need assistance. That is why I mentioned Ontario's Victim Crisis Assistance and Referral Services program. When I heard about it, I thought it was something that I could have used. It was an example.