Evidence of meeting #60 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
We'll hear from Ms. St. Germain, then Ms. Campbell, and then Mr. Butt.
Ms. St. Germain, you have the floor.
3:55 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
Thank you.
In terms of that, there's a couple of things I'd like to note. For one thing, in terms of the statistics showing increased offences against children, I think it's important to keep in mind that this is an increase in reported crimes against children, so these are the ones that get reported to police.
There could be a number of reasons for that increased reporting. It might be that there's increased reporting by victims because they feel better supported. It might be because there is an increased ability of adults to recognize and report abuse. It might reflect increasing policing efforts. As well, it might be an enhanced understanding of what child development is and what a disclosure looks like.
I don't necessarily think that the increased sexual offences are tied in one way or another to the increase in the sentence that is being imposed. I think they're two parts of the same thing.
3:55 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness
I guess my feeling is that we don't know how many children were saved, because we just don't know.... There's such an increase now in the problem that proportionately it might even be less had that law not been in place. I am not convinced that it didn't work; I just think it's a proportionate thing. Also, that just encourages me more: because I know this is getting worse and worse, we have to get tougher. Maybe it's not tough enough.
3:55 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Kids' Internet Safety Alliance
I think I have very little to add to those two previous answers. I endorse the notion that the increase in the statistics may be an increase in detection of a pre-existing problem. The logic of increasing may be as was suggested by Mr. Casey, but it may equally also be that the first increases weren't enough to have the desired deterrent effect and we need to actually redouble our efforts.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you for those questions and answers.
The bells are ringing, ladies and gentlemen, so we are going to suspend this meeting to go vote, and we'll try to be back here for 4:45 to start the second panel.
To our guests today, I'm sorry it was short, but we appreciate your taking the time to talk to us about this bill and your perspectives. We'll be studying it today and on Monday, and we'll be doing clause-by-clause study on this bill the week after next. We are away next week. It should be back in the House by the end of February.
Thank you very much for your time.
The meeting is suspended.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to call the meeting back to order.
I want to thank our guests for their patience.
This is the second panel for our orders of the day, pursuant to order of reference of Monday, November 24, 2014, Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the high risk child sex offender database act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
We have, appearing as individuals, Mr. Gilhooly, who has been here before, and Mr. Steve Sullivan, who is a former federal ombudsman for victims of crime. From Circles of Support and Accountability, we have Susan Love and James Foord.
Thank you for joining us.
You each have five minutes to do a presentation. We'll go in the order on the agenda.
Mr. Gilhooly, the floor is yours.
4:50 p.m.
Gregory Gilhooly As an Individual
First of all, thanks very much for having me. It is good to be back and good to address the group here on this piece of legislation.
I commend the government and this group for moving forward on legislation of this type, though in my view, it's not necessarily what this specific piece of legislation does so much as what it stands for. As a victim of child sexual assault, I sit here and put a smile on my face any time I see the government working to improve the lot of those who have been assaulted, to improve society's take on this, and to help edify society with respect to the need to focus on deterring child sexual assault on a go-forward basis.
The unfortunate reality is that no amount of drafting of legislation at this time can make the problem go away, nor can it make the problem go away in the legal-result setting, not the justice-system setting, because we don't have a justice system in the setting of legal results.
Here's a bit about me. I was abused by Graham James for over three years. The story is familiar to the group. I watched the system play out as the Criminal Code was then drafted. When I look at this draft legislation, I guess I am left saying that I love the fact that the government is taking steps. I applaud the government for taking steps to move forward in this area. I have so much sympathy for the government taking steps, because any time the government moves, it is with great difficulty in terms of being seen as being tough on crime. At the end of the day, I'm left looking at the legislation and seeing very little functionally improving that would have functionally improved my lot in life. But again, Rome wasn't built in a day, and you have to take these small steps to get to where you want to end up.
I say this from experience. Increasing the penalties is a wonderful approach, but as long as the principle of totality exists in the Criminal Code, as applied by judges who apply the law, nothing is really going to change. At the end of the day, you do a simple mathematical calculation, and you have a judge who sits back and looks at the other provisions with respect to sentencing in section 718, and you're left with the unfortunate reality of a judge who looks down at paragraph 718.2(c), which says, “where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh”.
As a victim of sexual assault—hundreds of incidents of sexual assault—“unduly long or harsh” is a phrase that makes me want to throw up. When I saw what the judges in Manitoba did, first at the lower court level and then in the Court of Appeal, it quite seriously made me want to throw up, and it made me want to do much more than that. We don't have to get into the impact the failure of the justice system has on victims in any detail at this time. Suffice it to say that whatever is put forward in this draft legislation wouldn't have changed anything with respect to what Graham James ended up with in his sentencing.
The starting point for sentencing on child sexual assault is four to five years. That phrase shows up in the decision and in the Court of Appeal decision. It makes you want to shake your head. It makes you want to get up and say, “No, something has to change here”. For the government to keep implementing mandatory minimums of one year.... I have an interesting take on mandatory minimums: I think you need them only when you don't need them. You have a bigger problem going on, and you're playing at the margin on the downside. So if you're dealing with a judge who doesn't see fit to convict to a year, you're probably dealing with a very special case in which a judge should be exercising his or her discretion. We're not dealing with mandatory minimums here, but this bill could have revisited the issue.
Increasing the penalties is wonderful, but nothing was done to totality. I could go through with other comments and the nitty-gritty of this, but as a victim, I cannot tell you how important a positive step forward is to us, how much it means to us, and how much we appreciate the effort, as small as it may be.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Gilhooly.
Our next presenter is Mr. Sullivan. The floor is yours for five minutes.
February 4th, 2015 / 4:55 p.m.
Steve Sullivan Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've worked in victim services, victim advocacy, for 20 years, but I'm here as an individual today representing my own views. I have only five minutes, so I'm just going to touch really quickly on a couple of elements of the bill, and then I hope we can have a few rounds of questions.
With respect to sentencing, I certainly respect Greg's journey and everything he's been through, his experiences, and his own opinion on the matter, but I would say not all victims feel the same about the notion of tougher sentencing. Most of those who abuse children are people known to the victim. It might be dad; it might be stepdad; it might be a whole range of people they know and, quite frankly, they love. So there's not always that perception that victims want to see offenders locked up for longer periods of time. It is the perception or feeling of many, and understandably so, but I wouldn't say that's universal.
Even adult victims whom we talk to, not all of them are concerned about what happens to the offender. They're more concerned, frankly, about what services exist for them. Most of the child sexual abuse victims and adult sexual assault victims don't report to police; the overwhelming majority don't. So the justice system has a response for a very small number of individuals, and there are various reasons for that.
There is some emerging research in the U.S. that stronger mandatory minimum penalties, stronger and tougher penalties, may actually discourage victims from reporting because they don't want to see that option happen in their case.
With respect to raising maximum sentences—I think other witnesses might have touched on this—I'm not sure that accomplishes a whole lot. It certainly sounds good, and it feels good, but if judges aren't giving the maximums now, then I'm not sure there's going to be much of a change in that.
Regarding mandatory minimum penalties, there's not a lot of evidence to suggest they have any kind of deterrent effect. In some cases you're going from six months to a year. I'm not sure that someone who's on the verge of abusing a child is going to really be deterred by any of that. Most of them don't expect to get caught, because frankly, most of them won't get caught. So I don't think there's much of a deterrence role.
With respect to the website, I think people have a perception out there that this is going to be something revolutionary; however, as Mr. Butt pointed out, this is really information that individual police services have released about individual particularly high-risk offenders. I would hope that the government, before creating a whole new website and the bureaucracy around that, has looked at the experience of Alberta and Manitoba. Has it reduced anything? Has it had any impact on registration rates for the sex offender registry? Those are questions that I would hope the federal government would have asked before embarking on this.
I'll just say quickly, I was going to talk a little bit about CoSA, but people who know a lot more about it than I do are here. As a victim advocate, as someone who's worked with victims for many years—child victims of sexual abuse, adult victims of sexual abuse—we support CoSA's mandate. We support the incredible work they do, and we would ask the government to reconsider its funding for CoSA.
I'll quit there.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you, sir.
Our next presenter is from the Circles of Support and Accountability. Mr. Foord, do you want to start?
4:55 p.m.
James Foord Board Member, Circles of Support and Accountability
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
First off, I'm a board member with CoSA, Circles of Support and Accountability. I'm also a lawyer. I want to talk just a little bit about what my friend has spoken about, the significance of longer sentences, minimum sentences.
In our system of justice we try to protect the public in a free and democratic society. Those things aren't mutually exclusive. We try to do both. They work together. If we change sentences for mandatory minimums, longer maximums, presumably we do so because there's a need; it's necessary. That necessity is evidentially based. For example, an increase in crime would justify perhaps looking at things differently. We do it because we can achieve the result we want to achieve, which is the reduction of crime and the protection of the public.
We don't do things that don't work, because it costs money, and if it doesn't achieve the result, it's not effective. Otherwise, we risk the potential for restricting an individual's liberty for nothing, and potentially, if they're incarcerated longer and we don't do anything else, we risk the possibility of increasing their risk to the public, if they don't get counselling and rehabilitation and other measures to protect the public.
I put those out there as concerns to think about. I know they're perhaps on the other side of the agenda.
Mr. Sullivan mentioned CoSA, our organization. I sit on the board. In addition to punitive measures and whatever controls that parole, when it's applicable, has, individuals are often.... As you might know, they're gated. They complete their entire sentence, especially those who commit very serious sexual offences. There's a gap there in the community. There's a gap in seeing them connected to the community in a positive way, connected with services they need, counselling they need, to the stability that they need. An unstable former sex offender is not a safe thing for the community.
Rather than invest money in longer sentences, for the very reason that Mr. Sullivan said, to increase the sentence by six months or a year, and think that you're really going to achieve greater protection for the public, the money could be better spent—my money—or real consideration should be given to, supporting programs like CoSA.
I'm going to ask Susan to say a couple of brief words about what we do specifically.
5 p.m.
Susan Love Program Coordinator, Circles of Support and Accountability
Thank you, James, and thank you, committee members, for inviting us.
Research on Circles of Support and Accountability demonstrates that those involved in CoSA have a reduction of sexual recidivism of 70% to 80% compared to those who are not. CoSA is also very cost-effective. Our annual budget, at least here in Ottawa, CoSA Ottawa—and we work with about eight to twelve, as we call them, core members a year—is less than the cost to incarcerate one male in the federal system for a year.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the funding from Correctional Service of Canada to most CoSA programs in Canada—and I do have a list, if you're interested in that list, of all the sites across Canada, including ours in Ottawa, which has operated since 2002, with only one reconviction for a sexual offence—will come to an end at the end of March. This will mean that many CoSA sites in Canada will be forced to close down. This could have dire consequences to public safety.
CoSA provides support and accountability to released sex offenders. It's a unique program in that it works with this population. Our staff and volunteers really do hold our core members accountable for their behaviour, choices, and decisions. Imagine being in a room with four strangers when you first come out of prison—these people, who are volunteers, are strangers—and being expected to share your innermost thoughts and demons. I would suggest that this is tough on crime.
The accountability aspect of CoSA really does speak to the increasing emphasis on offenders to take responsibility. As Steve mentioned, people working with victim service providers and CoSA both have the same goal of no more victims. We have to deal with the fact that about 90% of people do come out of prison, so isn't it better to have support for these people than to just leave them adrift to potentially revert to their old ways?
Thank you.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much for that presentation.
We'll go to our rounds of questions now.
Our first questioner is Madam Boivin, from the New Democratic Party.
We have about half an hour, so we'll get two NDP rounds, two Conservatives, and one Liberal.
5 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, witnesses.
Things are a bit jumbled, but your participation is most appreciated.
One aspect of Bill C-26 is the creation of a high-risk sex offender database, but I didn't hear you talk about it. Under clause 11, the Governor-in-Council may make regulations establishing the criteria for determining whether a person who is found guilty of a sexual offence against a child poses a high risk of committing a crime of a sexual nature.
How would you define this exactly? Does this database reassure you? Does knowing that it will be created and will be different from the existing National Sex Offender Registry make you feel safer?
I suggest we go by order of your presentations. We can start with you, Mr. Gilhooly.
5:05 p.m.
As an Individual
My first question would be: is there a current problem out there? I'm not well versed in the day-to-day operation. I don't know if there's a gap that needs to be filled.
My knee-jerk reaction is to say that I'm leery of things that are to be made public. Having spoken to this committee on issues where we ask and expect and tolerate our police forces to deal with information, and we trust them to deal with information on an increased basis in a changed world, we now seem to be talking out of the other side of our mouth if we implement a system where we're saying no, the public should actually have the information, we're not going to simply leave it and trust our police services to disseminate that information to the public. That said, that's a bit of a logical issue that I have with it.
That said, if the police forces are coming forward and saying what they need is cooperation from the public, and this would help in their policing of the state with respect to these dangerous people, I think an argument like that should and would carry the day.
5:05 p.m.
Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, As an Individual
It's called a database in the legislation, but I call it a website, because frankly, I think that's what it will be. It will just be a compilation. Manitoba already has a website of high-risk offenders, and Alberta has a....
These are cases where the police have deemed someone to be of such high risk that they feel obligated to notify the public that so-and-so will be coming out of prison.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
How is it defined, though? It's a bit grey; when I read the legislation, I'm not so sure, because it's the Governor in Council who will determine the criteria. That's all very vague, in my mind.
5:05 p.m.
Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, As an Individual
As I read the legislation, it actually says that the database only contains information that a police service has already released. So if the Ottawa Police Service released information about so-and-so, then that person would be eligible to go on the federal database or website. If the local police didn't do that, then he or she would not be on the database.
It's really only information that a police service has already made public. There is nothing new or revolutionary about this. You're really just taking a couple of different websites or a couple of different situations and bringing them all together. Will that enhance anyone's public safety? I don't know how it would.
That's where I would think the government would look to Alberta and Manitoba and ask a few questions: “You guys have had your websites for a couple of years. What has the impact been? Has there been a reduction in these types of offenders reoffending? What's the impact on these types of people registering with the national sex offender registry?”
Those would be the questions I would want to ask before saying that it will be good or bad.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Program Coordinator, Circles of Support and Accountability
I didn't. I apologize.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
No, I know there was an issue with the....
Without taking any of your time, Madam Boivin, do you want to ask the question again?
5:05 p.m.
Board Member, Circles of Support and Accountability
I think I could answer that.