Justice Committee on Oct. 27th, 2011

[Justin Piché]

I saw his testimony and I would note that Mr. Head repeatedly said that the Correctional Service of Canada is challenged by the legislation that's being put forward.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

I don't want anybody who's watching this televised committee hearing to be left with the impression, as you suggested, that somehow Canadians do not have a right to know what those costs are.

My next questions are--

[Justin Piché]

We could talk about the provincial-territorial components.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

My next questions are for Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan, you're the former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and you currently work with Ottawa Victims Services .

[Steve Sullivan]

Yes.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Maybe you can help me square this circle. You have concerns about this bill. In fact, if I heard you correctly, you do not believe that this bill will do much to benefit victims or to prevent victimization.

How do you explain that every time actual victims appear before this committee—and we had two on the previous panel—they all unequivocally support this initiative? They all support minimum mandatory sentences. They all support amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, including publication of offenders' names. How is it that actual victims support this legislation, but you as the spokesman for at least some of these victims tend not to?

[Steve Sullivan]

I would answer in a couple of ways. I think Mrs. Rosenfeldt mentioned when she was here that she didn't speak for all victims of crime. You've had a couple here, and I commend you for that. I know most of them and I have nothing but respect for all of them. But they don't represent the views of all victims of crime. I work with families where there have been homicides, and I've worked with sexual assault victims. Some have a different view. If the committee had time to hear from them, and if I could get their permission, I'd be happy to provide you with their names.

I would also say that many of the people we work with are not the type of people who are going to come to the committee and present. Women who are wondering if they're going to flee an abusive relationship and parents who are dealing with children who have been victimized, these are victims who generally do not have the opportunity. I also think that many of the victims who are most victimized are the most vulnerable—people with disabilities, new Canadians, people with low incomes. I've been part of the victims' movement and I speak only for myself. We haven't done a very good job of including those voices in a lot of our work.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

But the current ombudsman for victims of crime supports this legislation, and her mandate is to speak for all victims.

[Steve Sullivan]

I heard her testimony and I heard her speak about the provisions for the CCRA. I didn't hear her say she supported the entire legislation.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Well, she's certainly not as critical as you are. I was hoping that you could at least acknowledge that this legislation will benefit victims by allowing them to attend parole hearings. That will become legislative, where currently it's discretionary.

[Steve Sullivan]

Yes, it's policy right now. So we support that.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

But that'll become legislation, assuming this bill passes.

With respect to individuals who've been victims of child abuse, we heard compelling testimony from Mr. Sheldon Kennedy last week that the enhanced penalties for child abuse will be of benefit to victims.

[Steve Sullivan]

I've met Sheldon and he's one of the nicest guys in the world. I don't lose sleep over sex offenders spending time in prison; that doesn't bother me. If you heard Sheldon's testimony, one of the things he said was that in his own case the offender got three years. I'm not sure under which provisions he was convicted, but my understanding is that under this bill, there will be a one-year mandatory minimum penalty. If you're looking to increase sentences to satisfy victims, I'm afraid these numbers aren't going to do it. In a year or two from now, there'll be a family whose offender gets a year and they're going to say that's not enough. I've spent some time in Texas where the sentences are completely off the charts compared with ours, and there are victims there who say that's not enough either.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I have a supplemental question about Mrs. Rosenfeldt, who's appeared before this committee a number of times in the last Parliament as well as this one--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Your time is up, Mr. Rathgeber.

Ms. Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Société de criminologie du Québec, the Institut Philippe-Pinel, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec formed a common front in declaring that the bill would have a harmful impact on the public. Those organizations talked about over-populated prisons, wasted money, an ineffective system and impaired social reintegration.

Patrick Altimas, who is director general of the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec, said that what the government was offering was a solution looking for a problem. Michel Gagnon, from the CCJA, said: "This intransigent attitude toward individuals in trouble with the law is a major concern for us."

All members of Quebec's National Assembly have rejected the omnibus Bill C-10, and the Barreau du Québec recently denounced the proposed measures, saying that they met no real need in the justice system. That, moreover, is the argument the government often advances when defending Bill C-10, that is to say that it meets a genuine need.

Mr. Sullivan, listening to your testimony put me in mind of that of Susan O'Sullivan. I believe she appeared last week. She only told us about the good aspects of the bill, about the fact that the government wanted victims to be consulted more, particularly at parole hearings, and about the need for dialogue with those victims.

This bill is enormous because it concerns a large number of acts. We're told that its purpose is to make the streets safer, to ensure that sentences are proportionate to and more representative of the crimes committed, so that violent crimes, serious crimes, are punished. I hear an individual who has worked and is still working with victims telling us that's not at all the case. That's what a number of specialists also assert. As an individual who is studying this bill for the first time, I must admit that it troubles me a great deal. When I associate it with other comments that we have heard, yours does not surprise me.

I would like to ask Ms. Pate the following question.

Our prisons are already quite over-populated. This will have an impact on women incarcerated at prisons for women. Prisons were not always built for women.

In your opinion, is this an additional problem of Bill C-10?

[Kim Pate]

Yes, I do. I think that in order to fund this bill, as we've already heard and a number of witnesses have stated, we're likely to see resources taken out of other areas.

As Mr. Sullivan said, we already know what women and children need. They need more equality. We've had cuts to Status of Women, rape crisis centres, and to shelters, which are overcrowded and can't take everybody. We've had cuts to mental health services, where women have historically been overrepresented, and we've had cuts to social services. So we're seeing more women in particular coming in for essentially trying to survive in a community that is increasingly inhospitable. Looking at indigenous women in particular, when I started in this work almost three decades ago, they were around 10% of the federal jail population. They're now at 34%, and it's growing. I was just at the Edmonton Institution for Women, and the maximum security unit was full of indigenous women. As I said, the overcrowding is already problematic. This is only going to increase that.

As well, when people come out of prison, if they haven't had access to the services and some of the supports they need, not only will they come out with potentially more mental health issues and challenges, they'll also go into a community that will be less able to deal with their issues and less able to support them, and they'll be less able to contribute because of all the cuts to those areas. As the National Council of Welfare pointed out in a report on poverty they recently released, in countries where you have more humane, more human rights focused, criminal justice systems you see less poverty as well, and you tend to have those policies go hand in hand.

In terms of the issue of victims attending parole and parole board hearings and having information, that already exists. I know it's only policy, but that's the perfect example of a piece of legislation that is not required, because if a victim wants to attend, I don't know of any parole hearing where they have not been permitted to attend and have not been funded. Now I can understand—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

The time is up.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to our witnesses here today.

There's so much that I would like to ask about, but I'm going to begin by reassuring Ms. Pate a little bit regarding correctional programs for women. I want you and others who may be listening to know that our government is not simply cutting back such programs, and I will offer up to you, as an example, a program that was recently funded in my own community. It's a new approach to women's programs to assist them transition into the community. Here I refer to the community justice initiatives' stride circles program. It's a great innovation, which I suggest you look into.

I would like to ask Mr. Sullivan about something. I'm not sure, but I think I heard you say that the things that are in this bill are not what you hear victims talking about. Did I hear that correctly?

[Steve Sullivan]

Yes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right.

And this intrigues and puzzles me, because, in point of fact, almost all—in fact, I would say, every—victim this committee has heard from over the last two-and-a-half years or so that I've been sitting on the committee has raised his or her voice to say that, indeed, sentences are not proportionate to the crimes committed against them in Canada, that the balance isn't right. In fact, I will say that without exception, every victim who has come to this committee has made that point loud and clear. And I have every confidence in my colleagues from the opposition that they're out there scouring the country for victims who would say otherwise, and yet they have not been able to produce one for this committee.

Even today, for example, we heard evidence from Madam Jong that 67% of Quebeckers believe that penalties are insufficient for the crimes. We heard evidence from Ms. Campbell even today that minimum sentencing is very important to front-line workers in abuse. We have heard from victims such as Sheldon Kennedy, and from Ms. Sharon Rosenfeldt, who heads an organization dedicated to victims of violence.

Even apart from what this committee has heard, CBC has ran a great program in the last week or so on victims of abuse in the Boy Scouts. Every victim they had on camera made the point that they didn't feel their abusers were being treated proportionately to the injury and destruction they had caused them, the victims.

Now, you're not the only person who I've heard say they haven't heard these voices of victims. In spite of all of the voices of victims who have said this, you're not the only person. Academics and others don't seem to hear these voices.

I wonder if you can tell me how it is that you haven't heard these voices.

[Steve Sullivan]

Let me clarify. I have heard those voices.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Good.

[Steve Sullivan]

What I'm telling you, though, is for someone who works on the front line—and I've worked on a variety of different issues—when victims come to me and tell me what their biggest challenges are, it's not the sentencing of the offender, but where am I going to get the money to pay my mortgage? Nothing in this bill addresses that. And if the challenge is for me to find you victims who will come—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Let me stop you, because I have only five minutes and you've answered my question.