Evidence of meeting #48 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was services.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
For those who were not here, let me repeat what I had started to say.
We support victims of crime, their families and communities, as well as the recommendations of the ombudsman for victims. At the same time, we recognize the importance of supporting judicial discretion.
I also have a number of questions in mind.
Ms. Latimer, we have been able to see that provincial fine programs are not standardized. Three provinces do not have compensatory programs. How is it possible to ensure that the surcharge money will actually go to the victim groups that need it?
The other question that bothers me has to do with individuals who are unable to pay, whether because of extreme poverty, mental health issues, intellectual disabilities or other reasons. You have briefly talked about that in your speech. Can we add an exception, so that we do not completely strike down this piece of legislation?
Furthermore, I was pleasantly surprised to hear Mr. Waller talk about prevention. If memory serves, he said that prevention has worked out well for Great Britain. It is true. That really is the way to reduce the number of potential victims. Of course, we can increase the number of police officers, but the quality of our social fabric needs to be improved, which includes education, social services, and so on.
In addition, I don’t think that making offenders or criminals pay an extra $100 or $200 will really make them more accountable. Prisons need to have more rehabilitation programs, as well as programs that make people face the consequences of the actions they have committed so that they really have an opportunity to become accountable and reintegrate into society. They will then be able to participate in restorative justice programs.
I know that was a long question.
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
May I answer in English?
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
It is a long question, but I think you've hit on something very significant, which is that I think we would all like to see more programs available for victims.
The question is—I think Professor Waller pointed to this as well—how are you proposing to fund that? You point to something, which is the alternative that is set out in the legislation for those who can't afford it, our fine options programs, and they are not universally available. Some of the John Howard societies offer fine option programs; many of them don't.
You're not going to have an even uptake of options, other than the surcharge. You are leaving very vulnerable a great slew of people who will be automatically hit with a surcharge and will have no ability to be able to pay that off. There are mechanisms in the Criminal Code of Canada, such as subsection 787(2), which allow for incarceration of those who are unable to pay orders of a financial nature.
The likelihood that you are going to see people who are impoverished heading towards provincial jails is increased with this legislation, unless you make an amendment that allows judicial discretion to not impose the surcharge where it is pretty clear that the person cannot discharge the surcharge without financial hardship.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you.
I will give you a chance to talk about prevention and restorative justice programs.
4:30 p.m.
President, International Organization for Victim Assistance
I'd just like to comment that, when you look at the reporting rate by victims to the police, 40% of victims in Quebec report to police, compared to 30% in Ontario. This is, in my view, the direct result of the Quebec government's deciding to use public servants to deliver victim services in the mid-1980s. They basically covered the whole province with professional services for victims. It's not quite as perfect as I would like, but it's going in the right direction.
Quebec also pays considerably more in compensation than, for instance, Ontario, where a recent report called the compensation program “adding insult to injury”.
It is important that we do actually get better services, that these are funded appropriately, and that the people working in those services are paid appropriately. In terms of prevention, this committee has heard me before, but I will repeat some of the highlights.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
President, International Organization for Victim Assistance
Okay.
The most spectacular example anywhere in the world in terms of crime reduction is a Winnipeg example with an 85% reduction in car theft. The past president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is going to be in charge, probably, of victim issues, since he's now a deputy minister in Saskatchewan and has been adopting the Glasgow model.
There are a lot of things that we can do in this country to reduce the $83 billion in harm. We need to do that. That's on an annual basis. It doesn't matter if police-recorded crime is going up or down: that harm is there. We need to face it and we need to do something about it.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I thank the witnesses for testifying and sharing their insight.
Mrs. Latimer, everyone around the table knows that your organization is unwavering in its opposition to the government's justice agenda, and of course this agenda is one that seeks to hold criminals accountable and ensure the safety and security of victims and law-abiding Canadians. Of course, we understand that your organization's role is to stand up for criminals, but I find your position distressing in that it takes in no element of protection whatsoever for the victims.
Professor Waller brought up the fact that the cost to victims was $83 billion. I guess the cost of crime in 2008 was $99.6 billion; let's call it $100 billion, for the sake of argument. The cost of crime borne by the victims is $83 billion. That's rather staggering. Let's put that in perspective: that's four times the $21-billion carbon tax proposed by the NDP. It's staggering, so my question is, does your organization—
4:35 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
—ever consider the rights of victims when taking a position on legislation?
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Well, I'm so pleased to have received the question.
First of all, let me explain that the John Howard Society supports just, fair, and humane responses both for the offender and for the victims of crime and its consequences. We do believe that offenders need to be held fairly and proportionately accountable when they commit crimes. There is no question that we are an organization that supports a just and fair approach.
In terms of taking into account the interests of victims, we provide many services for victims across the country. We are interested in addressing the harms immediately that fall to victims. We're very, very interested in preventing re-victimization, or victimization in the first place, by working with those who may be at risk of offending or may have already offended.
Yes, we are cognizant of the concerns of victims, and we take those into account when we are forming positions on justice policy that reflect the John Howard Society values and mandate.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I'm wondering, Mrs. Latimer, if this is a paradigm shift in your organization's position, because back in March of 2011, your predecessor, Kim Pate, testified before the legal and constitutional affairs committee. She was testifying on Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Her quote at that time, back in March 2011, was: “I want to be clear that, as we stated before the house committee, we do not support this bill. We do [not] support issues to protect the rights of victims and to protect victims generally. We feel that if that was the objective, many more initiatives could be undertaken rather than, after the fact, undertaking a bill of this sort”.
So wow: 180 degrees....
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Well, Kim Pate is the executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; she's not with John Howard and she doesn't speak to the John Howard position. I don't think that's really reflecting a 180-degree shift in John Howard thinking.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Well, I'm wondering which justice initiatives your organization has actually supported. Are there any that come to mind? I don't seem to recollect that there's been much support coming from your organization.
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
That would be a very narrow perspective. There are elements of Bill C-10 that we supported. For example, there was a provision in the elements looking at youth justice where they were going to ensure that young people would not be housed with adults in the same facility. We supported that.
We've supported a number of specific provisions, but the difficulty is that when they are amalgamated into giant omnibus bills where we find we have objections to some of those provisions that fail to meet the John Howard standard of being just, humane, and effective, we have difficulty supporting the entire bill, that's for sure. Yes, that's true.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Well, this is by no means an omnibus bill. I don't think there are very many clauses. I'm wondering if it's reasonable to say that for a reasonable bill initiative like Bill C-37, regardless of how reasonable it is, wouldn't the John Howard Society be pitted against it?
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
We're not pitted against Bill C-37. We're pitted against the removal of the judicial discretion to not impose the victim surcharge if the person is unable to pay. That's a fairly fundamental principle of justice that has been reflected in fine provisions, that's embedded in the Criminal Code, and that have been reinforced by the Supreme Court in the decision of R. v. Topp.
You can't get blood from a stone. If you try to get resources from people who do not have the resources or are unable to participate in the alternative, which is the fine option program, you're going to end up putting in jail the people who are unable to pay. You're going to end up with a new form of debtors' prison and the John Howard Society certainly does not support that.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to just advise Mr. Goguen—I believe he'll appreciate it—that Ms. Latimer was a distinguished public servant in the department working on issues of victims' rights, among others. I don't think we should go into issues of whether a person cares or does not care for victims' rights simply because they're an executive director of a particular organization. Let's all agree that everyone here cares about victims' rights as part of our concern with regard to criminal justice.
Let me go to the issues themselves. I might add parenthetically that one can oppose this bill precisely because one cares about victims' rights, in the sense that it would remove judicial discretion with regard to the impoverished accused and the like, who would end up being incarcerated. Mental illness considerations may be involved as well. A commitment to the rights of victims could invite one to critique this bill on the basis of victims' rights.
One of the things I wanted to speak to and ask both of you, because in your presentation, Mr. Waller, you gave some very compelling concerns that deal with the whole question of how we ought to have a more comprehensive policy and strategy in these matters, which would deal with issues of.... All the things that you said very compellingly, I won't go into.
In a throwaway line, but not an unimportant one, you mentioned that we can pass this bill, but that these are the other things we should be doing. My concern is if one passes this bill, one may not get to do all the other things you've been speaking to because people would say we've done what we need to do with regard to victims' rights. I think your agenda is one that we need to take seriously, and I would hope on a bipartisan, tripartisan approach, as you put it.
First, do you think that passing this bill would be without any adverse fallout on the merits? Because I think Ms. Latimer has raised some concerns.
Second, on the pragmatics of it, is it not possible that if we do pass it, we may not get to the point of doing that which you so persuasively put before us as an agenda?
4:40 p.m.
President, International Organization for Victim Assistance
Well, I'm not the politician, but I certainly watch what goes on in other countries. What I've heard from the current government is that they want to champion victim rights. My assumption is that this is one step and that they will in fact look at what they can do to bring prevention, services, and rights for victims up to international standards.
The neat thing about 2012 is that the European Union has just shown that you can have standards across countries—27 countries—and I think this is a very useful document to look at. We also have more than 20 years of legislation in the United States, including the Justice for All Act, a very important initiative in 2004. I think we're in the rather wonderful position that we can look at and learn from other countries.
My main concern would be not that they will not follow through on services and rights and in providing leadership and help to the provinces, but that they will not balance these with the sorts of prevention we need. I think we're going to see the provinces moving on prevention, but the federal government, in my view, has to put its money where its mouth is.
If you look at the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, you see $1 billion put into not just services but also into compensation in the United States. I think this shows what can be done.
The McMurtry report's evaluation in Ontario talked about the importance of the victim being informed. It also talked—and this is a really important point, to me—about evaluating whether we're meeting the needs. In this country, if we're going catch up with other countries, we have to begin to look at whether what we're doing for victims actually meets the needs.
I don't want to slow down Bill C-37, because you don't need legislation to evaluate the needs. In the budget, the $16 million or whatever it is that the federal government spends on victims is seriously peanuts. They should be putting money into looking at the gaps between services and needs, in collaboration with the provinces. These are all things that have been recommended. It's a question of action.
