Evidence of meeting #8 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 women.
A recording is available from Parliament.
October 27th, 2011 / 8:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I will call the meeting to order because time is always of the essence with the committee and we do have a quorum. This is meeting number eight of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and we are studying Bill C-10.
We have a panel. I have spoken to most of them, but I will reiterate that there is a five-minute opening opportunity to address the group. I will let you know at four minutes where we are, so you can judge your time.
Mrs. Campbell, please start.
Ellen Campbell President, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here.
I am speaking on behalf of victims. I'm with the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness. I am a victim. I can tell you as a victim what happens when you are sexually abused as a child. I had a destructive life and was suicidal 20 years ago. It also brings up another person you may remember, Martin Kruze, from the Maple Leaf Gardens, who was sexually abused. He was one of the first of 200 men who came forward. Martin's perpetrator Gordon Stuckless got two years less a day, and Martin took his own life. I am sorry to say that survivors deal with depression, addictions and, unfortunately, many times, suicide.
We did round table discussions seven years ago throughout Ontario on recommendations for protecting children. This was with crown attorneys and police. We saw all the front-line workers. The number one issue with the front-line agencies was minimum sentencing.
We work with the prisons, and about 85% of the women in prison have been sexually abused. With the men, I believe it's even higher. Of course, billions of dollars are spent every year on health care.
I firmly believe that a pedophile cannot be rehabilitated, so I feel very strongly that the minimum sentencing should be even longer. With this bill, I am encouraged that perhaps someone who is just at the entry point—maybe it's for Internet child porn—may be discouraged from moving forward and perhaps acting out on a child.
I was on the advisory committee for judicial appointments. We recommended some really good judges. With all due respect, I feel that judges don't use the legislation they have as it is. I feel strongly that minimum sentencing is absolutely necessary. Canada has a reputation as a place where pedophiles like to come, because of our judicial system. I really believe this is also going to be a deterrent to people coming here.
I would like to take it even further. I would like to see, in addition to the minimum sentencing, electronic monitoring after release. Right now, for instance, Gordon Stuckless is out there somewhere. We don't know where he is. Monitoring works. It's in use in Florida, for instance. They get a minimum sentence, and when they get out, there is monitoring.
I am very encouraged that we are starting to do minimum sentencing. It tells victims that there is value to their lives. As a victim, I can tell you that we have been wanting this for a long time. We are a national organization. We have had such a great response to our raising awareness about this issue. I encourage this committee to go beyond what we are doing now. I'm hoping that this is a first step and that we can actually increase the minimum sentencing down the road, with the addition of electronic monitoring. Since we work with victims, we are also working with drug-endangered children, along with the chiefs of police. We have a safe haven law that we're working on. As a victim who works in this area, and on behalf of all the victims, I can tell you that this is absolutely necessary. I want to take the ability away from the judges to give house arrest.
Thank you so much, and I appreciate that we've been able to say today.
David Cooper Director, Government Relations, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs
Good morning. It is a pleasure for me to be here today. I will be making my presentation in English, but you may ask me questions in French.
Good morning, and thank you for providing me this opportunity to comment on Bill C-10, specifically part 1 pertaining to the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.
The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs welcomes the government's reintroduction of the proposed Safe Streets and Communities Act within Bill C-10. As most of you are aware, the idea for this specific legislation was conceived seven years ago, and has died and been revived several times. We hope that with your resolve the act will finally be passed.
Before I move to the substantive part of my address, I'd be remiss not to applaud the perseverance and hard work of those who initiated this legislation, specifically the Canadian Coalition Against Terror and their volunteers, Danny Eisen, Maureen Basnicki, and Sheryl Saperia. I am also heartened by the fact that over the years this legislation in its various iterations has generally received all-party support.
In principle, the organized Jewish community, for whom I speak, is highly supportive of this important measure to support victims of terror. Domestically, the Jewish community has been the target of terror plots. As you will recall, in August, 1999 two members of an Algerian cell in Montreal discussed detonating a gasoline tanker-truck in an area of town frequented by a large community of orthodox Jews. It has also been the real target of politically motivated violence, for example, in April, 2004, a fire bomb was thrown at a Montreal Jewish school.
Outside of Canada, in July, 1990 a young Jewish woman named Marnie Kimmelman was killed by a pipe bomb when sitting on a beach while visiting Israel.
As a community at risk, we believe that Canadian victims of terrorism should have the ability to seek direct civil redress from those who commit and support acts of terrorism, including foreign states. It is our hope that this bill will serve as a significant deterrent to future acts of terrorism against Canadian citizens. Having said that, we do think that some amendments, as expressed Tuesday morning by Ms. Basnicki of C-CAT, can be made to improve its efficacy.
Our first concern relates to subclause 4(2), dealing with access to Canadian courts by potential victims of terror when incidents occur abroad. As the legislation stands now, it states that: “A court may hear and determine the action referred to in subsection (1) only if the action has a real and substantial connection to Canada."
Our concern is with this ambiguous language. We would like to see it tightened up so that access to the courts is guaranteed on the basis of Canadian citizenship, or permanent residence status alone.
The second matter of concern is that the present legislation only allows suits against states that sponsor a listed entity. As Ms. Basnicki noted on Tuesday, this would effectively limit or shield countries that directly carry out acts of terrorism by state institutions, such as in the case of Libya and the Lockerbie bombing. While most governments like Iran tend to sub-contract terrorism to agents such as Hezbollah or Hamas, it's not inconceivable that in the case of Iran, it would use the Revolutionary Guard, an instrument of the Iranian state, to carry out direct attacks.
To safeguard against frivolous suits, we are open to both of the remedies proposed by C-CAT in their brief, or contained in Irwin Cotler's private member's Bill C-483.
On a related matter, the current legislation allows for a foreign state to be sued only if it provides support to a listed terrorist entity under subsection 83.01 of the Criminal Code. While we have great faith in the listing process, it is often time consuming, and many terror organizations often commit acts under different aliases, or outsource their acts of terrorism to other terrorist bodies that may not yet be listed. To close this gap in the legislation and to prevent states or terrorist organizations from evading responsibility by masking their activities, we would propose amending paragraph 4(1)(b) to include "terrorist groups acting at the direction of or in association with a listed entity."
Our third concern relates to causation. Since many acts of terrorism will inevitably occur in locations where effective tracking of evidence linking specific funds or acts of assistance to the terror attack will be difficult, if not impossible, in our view the mere evidentiary proof that a state has sponsored the listed entity involved in the attack should be sufficient grounds for liability. We therefore concur with the recommendations made by C-CAT on this matter.
Director, Government Relations, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs
Okay.
Finally, we'd like to ensure that states cannot shield assets through instrumentalities or proxies they direct or control. Again, we concur with C-CAT's proposed amendment to the bill on this matter, both in terms of referencing them and adding a provision that the government assist in identifying them.
Distinguished members of the committee, the world has largely failed in its efforts to go after terrorists, to punish them and make them pay for their heinous crimes. This is our chance as Canadians to do more, and to do what is right, to empower victims to take some sort of control in their efforts to go after those who have gotten away with terror. The passage of this bill will allow everyone who has been harmed to mobilize in their fight against terrorism at the civil litigation level.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you, Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Trudell, go ahead. I will let you know when you are at four minutes.
William Trudell Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.
I was thinking this morning as I got on a plane that the CCCDL, the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, will celebrate its 20th anniversary next year, and throughout the years, we have appreciated the opportunity to come here many times to assist where we could on proposed legislation.
As a defence counsel, I know there are a couple of aspects of the bill that you have heard some concerns about. I don't intend to spend time on those. There are aspects of the bill that I think are important and positive. For instance, we welcome the five-year review. We welcome the direct indication in this bill that terrorism will not be accepted. I echo the comments of my friend Mr. Cooper.
One of the other provisions of the bill that we laud and are very grateful for is the clause--I believe it's clause 43--that calls for a drug treatment program, which may indeed allow a judge to consider something other than a mandatory minimum sentence. As you know, of course, we are concerned about the latter, as it erodes judicial discretion.
But the most important message I would like to leave with you today is the following. In almost 40 years of practice, I don't think I have ever experienced a groundswell like the one being experienced in this country right now on the issue of mental health. From the police to the judges to the crowns to the defence counsel, to witnesses to government leaders and members of the public--and in this regard there's the example Bell Canada's wonderful “Let's Talk” program--we have reached a point in this country such that we are leading in the discussion on mental health. There is no difficulty in giving great credit to the government of this country, which has been proactive in establishing the Mental Health Commission.
In May, I had the privilege of attending a conference sponsored by Justice Canada and Justice Alberta called “Building Bridges”, at which representatives of the whole industry, from victims to police officers, from defence counsel to doctors, got together and talked about mental health as it affects the criminal justice system. Minister Toews was there to discuss it.
The main thing I would like to leave with you today is this: The bill does not specifically address mental health. I would respectfully submit on behalf of the council that this is an incredibly important time to do it. This bill reflects laudable principles--having safe streets and communities--but it is silent on mental health. Whatever party you are from, whatever area you come from, whatever discipline you are in, there's one thing we all have in common: we are concerned about mental health.
So we are very grateful for clause 43, which I will call the exemption provision for a drug treatment program. It maintains the theory and purpose of this act, to have safe streets. I can tell you that one of the most impressive leadership-type movements on this issue of mental health and drug treatment comes from the police community. We have suggested a provision for your consideration, which may be of assistance, and I have given it to the clerk. In drawing up this provision, we have borrowed from the existing clauses and wording in the bill.
The proposed clause says this:
a) Upon conviction of an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed, the Court may when satisfied that a person requires mental health care, delay sentencing to enable the person to receive treatment or participate in a mental health program approved by the Attorney General;
--which brings in the provinces, and--
b) If the court is satisfied that the person has successfully completed a program referred to in subsection (a) or that mental health treatment is ongoing it is not required to impose the minimum punishment for the offence for which the person was convicted.
This mirrors the clause 43 that you have put in. It doesn't change the purpose of the bill, but recognizes mental health as something that we must deal with—and again, this is something that this government has been leading on. I ask you to consider this provision when you're looking at this bill.
Thank you very much.
Joanne Jong As an Individual
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Joanne Jong.
My father, an 88-year-old farmer, who was independent, active, clear-headed and in good health, was tortured and killed by two blood-thirsty, depraved individuals. They then hid my father's body and eliminated all traces of their carnage. Fortunately, they were forced to abandon the next step in their sadistic plan, the dissection of his body in order to scatter his remains.
My father, like other honest citizens who are victims of violent crime, was the innocent target of thugs. He didn't go looking for it. Throughout his life, he contributed to the general welfare of society. He was attacked at his home in broad daylight. His life ended in abominable fashion, and the atrocities were inflicted on him by killers, of whom one was a minor and the other had just turned 18.
As a victim, I am relieved to see that the government is taking statutory measures to ensure the protection of citizens. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives us the right to life and security of the person, and the government, through this bill, is shouldering its responsibility to support those rights. Respect for life and security of the person is a fundamental value of our society, and no one can claim the right to kill another human being.
Killers choose to kill. There is absolutely no justification for killing. It goes without saying that, by killing, killers cause victims: not only the persons they kill but also the relatives of those individuals. We victims are not victims by choice. We become victims as a result of the choices made by others and of the crimes they commit. It is a life sentence that we serve.
It is as a victim that I am appearing before this committee to comment on this bill, particularly the clauses concerning killers. Briefly stated, I would remove nothing from the bill under study because it concerns the most serious crimes and the most dangerous criminals. On the contrary, I would enhance it.
I think it is very important to disclose the identity of individuals accused of murder, even in the case of minors, because it is imperative that we protect the lives and security of citizens from the most violent and most dangerous individuals in society, regardless of their age. I am absolutely in favour of this proposal contained in Bill C-10.
If certain measures in Bill C-10 concerning adolescents had been in effect, my father would still be alive today. His killers began their criminal careers with numerous break and enter offences and car thefts for which they were not prosecuted.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act enables the provinces to recover from adolescents or their parents the fees paid to the lawyers who defend them. I believe this recovery process should be made mandatory.
I would like to ensure that the notion of victims of crime under federal legislation includes the immediate family, that is to say grandparents, parents, children, brothers and sisters, in murder cases.
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. It is important for victims that compensation and reparations for harm done be mandatory components of every sentence.
Under clause 54 of the bill, entitled "Purpose and Principles", I would add a section 3.2 to establish compensation and reparation for harm done as a fundamental principle of restorative justice.
That principle of restorative justice should be the first point of clause 55 of the bill, entitled "Correctional Plans". As inmates have the opportunity to do paid work, the value of their work would serve to pay damages and compensation for the acts for which they have been convicted by the court. There should be no right to release until they have paid the amount of the order in full because failure to comply with such an order should be considered as contempt of court.
When we say that killers must repay their debt to society, that obligation must be a priority. In my opinion, the fact that a killer winds up behind bars, spending his time watching television, playing cards and receiving visits, is inconsistent with the principle of repaying his debt to society.
As for pardons, I consider it imperative that there be no pardons for killers, in order to protect the lives and security of the person of citizens from the most violent and dangerous individuals in society.
Furthermore, killers must automatically be declared dangerous offenders, starting with the first conviction, because killing another human being is the worst crime of all, and it is imperative to protect society from these criminals.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Sorry, Ms. Jong, we're out of time. Perhaps one of the other questioners here will allow you to finish, so mark your spot.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair, and I want to thank all of the presenters for coming to share their views with us.
Ms. Campbell, thank you for telling us your story and your views.
I have great sympathy for the consequences of sexual assault for its victims. I represent a large number of people who were victims of sexual assault by the Christian Brothers in an orphanage in Newfoundland in the 1990s.
On the sentencing side, you mentioned the minimum sentence that we have here. Some of these perpetrators received sentences as high as 13 years, which were upheld on appeal. There certainly wasn't any sense of leniency, because the circumstances and the effects on the victims were taken into account. All of that is possible in the current justice system. I think you should get some comfort from that. Obviously there are individual cases about which people complain.
Mr. Trudell helped us by pointing out the mental illness issue, which is also a big factor for offenders. I just received something yesterday from the Mood Disorders Society of Canada suggesting that the numbers on women offenders in our prisons who have histories of physical and/or sexual abuse are as follows: 72% of provincially sentenced women, 82% of federally sentenced women, and 90% of federally sentenced aboriginal women. So in addition to the pain and suffering you've talked about and that we're all aware of, in terms of addictions, post-traumatic stress disorder, and all of the other things that go along with that, many women show up in our prison population as a result of what has happened in their lives.
We have Internet luring—and some of the new provisions in this bill to deal with this, we support. By the way, I moved a motion in the House of Commons yesterday to take the sexual abuse of children section out of this bill and have it fast-tracked through the House of Commons and the Senate, because it's been there before. There are other aspects of this bill that are controversial. We've had some witnesses tell us that it will lead to greater crime and not less crime. We need to look at that clearly and more intensely.
I was told that the government objected to this, saying it was a frivolous motion. But I don't agree with them.
But I want to ask you if there are some things we should be focusing on in terms of prevention. Making Internet luring and the putting of pornography to children offences could have the effect of stopping perpetrators before they actually offend physically. Are there other things that we and society should be doing to focus on the prevention of sexual abuse and of crime in general?
President, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
Absolutely. Our agency is the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness, and that is our mandate. We're getting better at it. How to teach children to be safe and parents to be safe with their children is part of the curriculum in schools.
One of our big issues is Internet child porn. That is really increasing. For instance, Holly Jones was a young girl on her way home from school. The man was watching Internet porn. It was a crime of opportunity. She just happened to be there.
But my understanding is that because Internet porn is so available and so many more people are participating in it, people who normally wouldn't act out their desires on children are, and crimes against children are going up. It's like any addiction. After a while you go higher and higher, and eventually you act out.
On prevention, absolutely, we agree with you. The bottom line is that we need to protect our children at any cost, so prevention is huge. When you're dealing with a sexual addiction, once somebody has crossed into that addiction mode, as stated by my friend here, it's also a mental health issue. Then you have a dual diagnosis and you get into addiction.
It's very complicated. The bottom line is: what can we do to protect the children? First is sentencing. We just need to get them off the streets.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Would you see the individuals in prison as victims, as well, the women we're talking about here who need help as well?
President, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
Absolutely. We go in and help. A lot of people who have--
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we have a full round of people who want to ask questions, and as the last man on the totem pole here, I'm usually cut off. I notice that you did refer Mr. Harris to his time being out. I would appreciate the opportunity to have questioning time, too.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you. Mr. Harris, you actually used up a fair bit of time in your question. I'm sorry, but we have to end it there.
We'll go to Mr. Goguen.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses.
Thank you all for coming.
Ms. Jong, as you were unable to finish your statement, I'm going to afford you the opportunity to do so.
As an Individual
Thank you very much. Thanks as well to committee members for allowing me to comment on Bill C-10 and to express my point of view.
We often hear criticism of the cost of implementing Bill C-10. I do not view those amounts as costs, but rather as an investment in the protection of our lives and security, guarantees conferred by the Charter. My taxes will be well invested as a result. Furthermore, what these critics fail to mention is that the costs associated with victimization, with lost productivity, will decline substantially as citizens are given better protection from the worst criminals. The imposition of restitution orders on criminals and recovery of legal fees from persons responsible will reduce costs even further.
I would like to emphasize that, according to one poll that has been published, 77% of Quebeckers feel that crime is not punished enough.
Thank you.
Conservative