Justice Committee on Nov. 1st, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Rathgeber.

Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'd like to give my time to Pierre Jacob.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I want to start by saying that the NDP supports victims of crime and respects the recommendations of the ombudsman for victims. However, as you said, Ms. Rosenfeldt, nothing could ever truly compensate victims of crime. First and foremost, victims need services.

Ms. Pate, what can we do to enhance services available to victims—whether we're dealing with victims of crime or criminals, who themselves are victims—and make offenders more accountable?

[Kim Pate]

One of the challenges—and it's painfully clear to me, in the process I've been going through and in being in Toronto yesterday at the inquest into Ashley Smith—is that the false dichotomy of people being victims or offenders is just that; that when we have prisons filled with people who have survived residential school abuses or violence generally or mental health issues, and when we see the evisceration of social programs and health care, we see a creation of the climate for increased victimization of many people and the abandonment of those people by the state. I think that is the fundamental...whereby you can start preventing victimization if you provide supports.

The campaign by our aboriginal sisters for the missing and murdered women is a perfect example. Many of those women were also criminalized. It didn't mean they deserved to be taken and murdered—and I don't suggest that anybody is saying that. It's very much linked also to the challenge that our friend Cindy Blackstock is bringing on behalf of aboriginal children who have inadequate education, and the challenges that are being brought by the Native Women's Association of Canada with a number of young people and women who don't have access to adequate nutrition and health care on reserves.

I think we need to start much earlier than this. But to answer your question, once they are in the system, I think the greatest way to show accountability is to be accountable ourselves and to demonstrate the sorts of behaviours we want to see.

When we worked with young men and young women in the juvenile system, and when I worked with men in the adult system, one of the things we tried to do was identify with them who they had victimized, how they had victimized—sometimes these weren't people they had ever been charged for, maybe a family member, or it might be somebody else—and how they were also victimized. This was not to excuse their behaviour, but to help them get in touch empathically with...because many of them have been desensitized, by that stage, to their own victimization and therefore to the victimization of the people they've harmed.

I'm going now from people who have been in the system, including people who were victims who were part of the process or who were identified as victims by the system and those who were identified as perpetrators. The ones who have gone on and done very well in the community talk about understanding this—having opportunities to be contributing members of the community and being able to pay back in all kinds of ways.

Lisa Neve, who was once declared a dangerous offender, helps by trying to mentor young people. She had a horrendous history of victimization before she went on to be in the youth justice system herself and to be labeled one of the most serious young women in the system. Now, almost everybody would agree—she has been thirteen years out of the system—she contributes to the community and does everything she can to prevent anybody else from both being victimized in the way she was or victimizing in the way she did.

Those are some of the limited...you know, in the 30 years I've been doing this work, that's what I've been able to see. But very much I think modelling the behaviour we want to see is key at every level: for our teachers, for our educators, for our government, for those of us who do the work—it's key.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You have half a minute.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Pate.

So minimizing the number of victims means strengthening the social fabric through investments in education, health and social services. The way to achieve accountability is not necessarily by imposing a sum of $100 or $200, but rather by applying remedies and ensuring better rehabilitation.

In your opening statement, you said—and your words stayed with me—that a judge's discretion should not be taken away as regards the surcharge. You said it would do more harm than good and would be overly punitive in cases where extreme poverty and mental illness are present. In fact, you said that 91% of aboriginal women in prison and some 80% of women in prison overall had themselves been victims and were not able to access adequate health care or mental health services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You're way over time.

Mr. Albas, go ahead.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank both of our witnesses for their testimony here today.

I'd like to direct some of my questions to Mrs. Rosenfeldt. Thank you very much for being here today. In a previous appearance before this committee, you said the following:

It is worrisome that so many people have focused on the cost of crime, particularly as it relates to offenders and prisons, without considering the cost that crime has on victims. The cost of violent and serious crime not only consists of taxpayers' dollars but the loss of human life, of family, loss of law and order, and loss of faith in the criminal justice system.

Especially on that last note, I could not agree with you more. It seems that many people, including those who oppose the bill, have forgotten or have chosen to ignore the fact that crime has significant costs to victims. For this reason, it is our belief on the government side that victim services are extremely important and need to ensure the well-being of law-abiding Canadians who, unfortunately, have been victimized as the result of the unlawful behaviour of another individual.

By increasing the victim surcharges and making them mandatory in all cases, this legislation will ensure that more money will be sent to the provinces to increase the important services to victims across the country. Do you think this increase of funding through victim services will be well received by the provinces and the organizations on the ground?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

By all means, I do.

I'd like to make one comment on the questions given to my colleague, Ms. Pate, and her response. She talked about the incarcerated individuals, a lot of whom have been victims of crime themselves. She talked about prevention.

My response is, isn’t this what this bill is trying to do? To put more money into the system, into the provinces, so that we can begin to provide better and enhanced victim services so that maybe the victims that Ms. Pate is speaking about will get the help prior to their having to go out and commit crimes?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I think that's a very intriguing point: by making sure those services are there, people who have been victimized can deal with their victimization and hopefully find a way through it so that they can return to normalcy.

Last day, we talked about what counselling services are available, making sure they're not paying fully out of pocket to attend and to give victim impact statements, etc.

Oftentimes, I've heard reports of people who have suffered these kinds of issues who didn't even know there were victim services. Maybe that's something that could be looked at.

Your organization is nationwide. Do you have any sister organizations at the provincial or regional level?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

No, we don't. We're just on the national level.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

The reason why I ask is that I'm a big supporter of letting people close to the issue identify the problems and possible solutions. Last day, I read into the record a number of these victim services that are offered.

I want your opinion on what people might suggest as being a good use of this surcharge money. I think provinces would appreciate the fact that it would be consistently addressed across the country, but also that this money is highlighted for services that are needed and wanted.

What kinds of services do you think your organization would support it going to?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

There is definitely a huge gap and has been for years. Historically, ever since I've been around, the provinces have been responsive to victims of domestic violence, mainly women, by providing funding for shelters; child victims of sexual abuse, historical child victims of sexual abuse, which came to light in 1993, I believe; and to provide services for female sexual assault victims, but not males. It has been across the board, I guess, in all provinces, where the provinces have responded.

It was 24 years ago when this victim fine surcharge came into force. Our organization and others were part of advocating for this, with the hopes that there might be some money for another set of victims, in particular for victims of homicide.

The gap is huge. For instance, in Ontario, with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, there is pain and suffering for all kinds of victimization other than for homicide, mainly because your loved one is deceased, has been murdered, but there is no pain and suffering.... There is no compensation for victims in our case, and in some cases we have had a very difficult time.

I was a board member on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for the Province of Ontario, and I chaired that board for a while. One of the difficult issues we struggled with was providing compensation for funeral expenses for a family to bury their loved one. They were denied because their loved one had maybe been trafficking in drugs. So the family was actually—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I think we're getting a little bit outside of it.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Oh, I'm sorry.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you very much. Thank you for your compelling testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Mr. Côté.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies, for being here today.

Ms. Pate, I want to congratulate you on the two awards you received from the Calgary police for your contribution to the community. I must say I was quite pleased when I heard about it.

Ms. Rosenfeldt, it was sad to find out how you and your husband were treated in the wake of Darren's abduction and disappearance, particularly the lack of consideration and empathy you experienced. You were already struggling with not knowing where he was; you did not need the RCMP giving you the answers it did. I very much appreciate the position you presented to the committee. I think it is quite balanced.

Beyond the payment of the victim surcharge, one of the most important considerations is the use of that money. During our study this week, we found out that the majority of the money was unfortunately not being used by the provinces; it was getting lost.

Could you comment on that?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

In my presentation, I think I made the suggestion, but I don't know how far that would go. It is very difficult, this being a federal piece of legislation, to have all provinces on side in relation to the possibility of providing an annual report on where this money is going.

I believe one of the witnesses mentioned that $2 million from this fund that is set up for victims is going to the Rick Hansen fund, which has nothing to do with crime victims. It's very difficult for us, as a victim organization, to try to downplay whatever services there are. However, I feel very, very strongly, and protective, as a long-time victims' advocate who was involved in this legislation from the get-go, that there is no transparency in how this money is being spent. I think the bill is a good step in the right direction to being able to continue providing victim services; however, I believe there has to be more transparency by the provinces.

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

To my mind, increasing the surcharge is a positive measure. The only problem, as I said, lies in how the money is used.

In the course of our work, we learned that judges and crown prosecutors were refusing to impose the victim surcharge because they had no assurance that the money was really going to victims because it was actually ending up in the province's consolidated revenue fund. That information came from an Ontario study done in 1994. That's a pretty big problem.

The other consideration is people's ability to pay. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Seeback for pointing out the fact that certain people subject to the fine would not be able to pay.

Do you not think the bill's intent to limit or remove judges' discretion could cause a lot more problems than it solves?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

I don't think so. I don't think it should be up to the crown attorneys or the judges to make an assessment on how this money is going to be spent. I think that is going beyond their discretion.

There is a large portion of the funds going to victim services today. That's why I think there has to be a mandatory piece of legislation in the Criminal Code that in fact tells them that this is what they have to do. It could really get abused as well by the perception of the crown or judges. Not everybody feels the same. When this bill first came about, it was really a shock to the Canadian criminal justice system that, “My gosh, victims are going to be allowed to make victim impact statements, and now we're going to have to levy a fine surcharge?”

You have to remember, that was 24 years ago. Today, it is much different, and there has been a lot more education done for judges as well as crown attorneys in having a better concept of what crime victimization does and the importance of having victims’ representations, and seeking a balance between the services for offenders, for instance, the rehabilitation of offenders.... I have no idea for sure how much money goes into that. There is no rehabilitation money for victims of crime. I don't know if I'll ever see that in my day, but this is a step in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you both for coming today.

I'm curious, Ms. Pate, about some statements you made earlier. I had an opportunity to practise law in northern Alberta for about 11 years, back in the 1990s. I have to tell you, I never did Legal Aid for more than six months. People who hired me could afford to pay, and they could afford a lot of money to pay for what they did, but very seldom was a victim surcharge put in place. I was always curious why, but I didn't understand what those funds went to.

If 100% of the money collected went to support victims, for counselling and other necessary services to help them get through their ordeal, would you support this legislation?

[Kim Pate]

I think you need to back up a bit, because part of the concern we have is that there are people who—and it's great that you had people who could pay—

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

I understand that, but that's not my question. I do understand that some people can't pay. I do understand that. I saw enough of the system to understand that, but my question is if 100% of the money collected, in this case for victim surcharges, went to the victims and to support mechanisms for the victims, would your organization support the legislation?

That is my question. It's just a simple question.