Justice Committee on Nov. 4th, 2014

[Sue O'Sullivan]

Yes, that they would have an opportunity, because it's the crown attorney then who presents the plea. That's right.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Okay, that's fine.

My next questions go to Ms. Lebel.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Your work is certainly moving the rights of victims forward. I know that you have done a lot of work in the justice system and the fact that you are here to provide us with your point of view is much appreciated.

Clause 52 of the bill amends the Canada Evidence Act to allow a person to be compelled to testify against his or her spouse. That will help the crown to prove that a crime took place.

What is your opinion on that? Do you think that the amendment will improve the system and benefit victims?

[Lise Lebel]

If I consider my own situation, I think that would be the case.

In his testimony, the lady's husband said what he wanted, but, comes the time for parole, we find out that the story is different. Everything that was said in court was a story that changed at the parole hearings, because the husband had not revealed all the evidence.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

So by compelling the testimony of the husband, the evidence can be complete.

[Lise Lebel]

If the husband had been compelled to, the crown could have asked more in-depth questions, which was not possible during the trial.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I have another question for you.

and if I have any time left, I'll give Mr. Wilks the occasion to ask a question or two.

The bill provides for a victim surcharge. The money from the surcharge would go to organizations providing services to victims. Would a surcharge like that be helpful? Should the provinces try to improve their victim surcharge programs?

[Lise Lebel]

Certainly, because, with that money, the organizations would be able to—

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

The money is the key.

[Lise Lebel]

Yes, it is.

We have to start from the basics. We are discussing victims today, but basically, what they most need is to be supported. If small organizations like ours lack the means to help victims all through the process, the injuries they have suffered will certainly take longer to heal.

While my organization does not currently deal directly with victims, we are working so that fewer and fewer victims find themselves in the situation.

But certainly, everything is always about money.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I gave you two minutes, you only gave him one.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

I'll keep it short because I want give Sheldon some time.

Thank you for that. The best analogy I can use is the U.K. code of practice for victims of crime, which was based on their lessons learned. They said that it was necessary to build into the legislation information about who exactly is responsible for providing what. If you tell police organizations that this is what they're required by law to provide, then they'll provide it. There is much more technology being used. I'll just refer to the state-wide automated victim information notification systems being used in the United States, and a new one in the U.K. called TrackMyCrime. There are all kinds of available technologies that are being used.

I'll stop there because I want to give him time. There are 30 seconds left.

But I thank you for that question. That's exactly our recommendation, to clarify who does what.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Let me tell you, you're a kind gentleman.

My question is for both Ms. O'Sullivan and Mr. Kennedy. It has to do with what you brought up in your statement, Sue, with regard to informing the victim of how things happen. I come from a law enforcement background. Sometimes it can become taxing for the police when they're holding on to 40 or 50 files that they're trying to keep a line on.

What I'd like to hear from you is whether you have a vision of how one would hand off notification from the police to a victim, to the crown, to the courts. It seems to me as though, sometimes, if all else fails, it all just gets dumped on the police. The problem the police say is that, “Well we've done our investigation. We've filed everything with the crown, and we're moving on.”

Sheldon, could I hear from you with regard to how your group deals with that?

I only have a minute.

[Sheldon Kennedy]

What we've done is to create working memorandums of understanding between all six different government systems on the ways they are going to share information amongst each other. They triage each case every morning. There's a manager from each group. Whether it's the police, child and family services, Alberta Health, the crown prosecutors, they sit around the table and discuss each case. They're very clear on exactly who's doing what so that it doesn't matter what door a family goes through: they will get a consistent answer.

To me, we need to be consistent with information. It doesn't matter what door the victim goes through, it has to be consistent. We need to be working together collaboratively with the same approach and the same language. We might have to work a little bit differently from each other depending if we are from the health sector or the police force, but the message and the outcomes we're all trying to achieve have to be consistent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner from the Liberal Party is Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for the work that you do and for the obvious effort that you have put into your statements.

I'd like to start with Minister Denis.

Minister Denis, first of all, thank you very much for coming forward. I am very concerned about the issues you've raised. Here we are debating a bill that's going to impose some serious financial obligations if it is to have any meaning. It is not entirely clear how big the envelope is going to be and who's going to hold the envelope for those financial obligations.

I know that you recently had a meeting with your colleagues, the other federal and provincial ministers. You should know that we've invited all of your colleagues to testify before the committee. You're the only one who has accepted the invitation. Do you have any sense of why the others are reluctant to come before us?

[Jonathan Denis]

Thank you very much for your comment.

Unfortunately no, I do not. You are correct that we did just have a federal, provincial, and territorial justice minsters meeting in Banff where we discussed many of these issues, including this particular item.

I'm sorry, I can only speak for myself.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

You've raised three areas in particular where you say you want to have a closer look. Thank you for that.

You've talked about the definition of “victim” and how, if that definition is going to be as broad as it is formed in this bill, it may have implications for your budget and your resources. You've talked about the complaints process and how if it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, as it is now, as this gives rise to greater complaints, that will impact your provincial budget.

Finally, there are your comments with respect to the likely increase in restitution orders and therefore the demand for information with respect to restitution.

You have identified those three. Here's my question for you on those. Have you costed out what you expect the impact of these changes will be on your budget, on the provincial resources?

[Jonathan Denis]

First off, you raised a couple of questions there.

First, in dealing with the definition of victim, my biggest concern is actually for victims. The fact is that I want the definition to be consistent, at least in a particular province. We're dealing with rank-and-file everyday individuals. If they're victimized—again, through no fault of their own—I don't want them victimized a second time through the system by basically getting a runaround. Many people don't have the clear delineation between the federal, provincial, municipal governments that we deal with every day. That's why I want there to be a consistent and common definition so that, again, it becomes easier for them to navigate what can be a very complex justice system.

As far as the process goes, we are actually in the process of reviewing how much that actually would cost. That again goes back to our request for a brief continuance here, for roughly six months, as I'd indicated to the earlier commenter.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Are you satisfied with the level of funding you receive from the federal government with respect to legal aid?

[Jonathan Denis]

As I've indicated before, legal aid is a federal-provincial jurisdiction. The federal government funds roughly $10 million of legal aid. We tried to reach an agreement at the last federal-provincial-territorial meeting. Unfortunately, we weren't able to do so. We fund over 80% of legal aid. We would like to see the federal government step up in that respect.

I recently announced a further funding increase here of $5.5 million to increase the eligibility requirement of legal aid in this province. However, legal aid does not primarily deal with victims, which is of course what we're discussing today.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I would suggest to you that when you look at the additional procedural steps that will be available as a result of what's being brought forward in this bill, there is undoubtedly going to be an impact on the legal aid budget, on the crown counsel budget, and on the budget within the provincial courts. If there isn't an increase in resources, there will be further delays. Do you see where I'm coming from, in that the potential slowing down of the system, if the resources aren't allocated, is going to be another problem that's going to land in your lap?

[Jonathan Denis]

Realistically, we are responsible for the administration of justice. The federal government is responsible for the Criminal Code, as I'm sure you're well aware. I think the principle here, though, is that the victim has to be put first, ahead of the rights of the offender. That is why we do see this bill as positive.

That said, though, if there are additional resources and they do help victims, I personally think that's money well spent.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Flaherty-Spence, when Ms. O'Hearn passed the floor over to you, she promised that you were going to talk about Gladue. I'd like to give you an opportunity to speak a bit about the impact of this legislation on the Gladue principles. Former justice minister Irwin Cotler has said that “Bill C-32 would appear to limit the application of the Gladue principles by specifying that the sentence must be 'consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community'”.

I have a two-part question, one that arises out of testimony we heard from the Chiefs of Ontario. First of all, what is your reaction to Mr. Cotler's comments that Bill C-32 will compromise the Gladue principles? Second, given that we have enshrined in the Criminal Code provisions to deal with the unique situation of aboriginal offenders, do you not find that the absence of any such provisions in the victims bill of rights is problematic?

[Alyssa Flaherty-Spence]

I'll go to your second question first.

In terms of the victims bill of rights, I want to focus more so on Inuit with regard to the Gladue decision. The Gladue decision requires a CSO. For aboriginals in Canada, most of them do have the resources available. Inuit, in terms of the regions, do not have those basic, basic resources that every Canadian should have. As a victim, you do not have those resources. So speaking specifically to Inuit in terms of the Gladue decision, how is a CSO supposed to be brought forward when Inuit don't even have those basic resources? How are the courts, the judges, supposed to implement that CSO?

So the courts are feeling powerless, really. The judges don't really know what to do. They're supposed to give these decisions without...and then they're seeing the offenders come back into their courts very often.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

You did say that, and now I get it. Thank you.

Ms. O'Sullivan, I know you're familiar with someone by the name of Maureen Basnicki. She lost her husband in the 9/11 attacks. In my meeting with her, she was quite concerned that the definition of “victim” contained in the victims bill of rights excludes her.

Is that also your interpretation? Do you share her concern?