Justice Committee on Feb. 16th, 2015

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Ms. O'Sullivan, does your office have a position with respect to the federal government's decision to dramatically reduce the funding to Circles of Support and Accountability?

[Sue O'Sullivan]

No. In terms of that specific agency, no. We have always been very public about the support for victims and the need to have resources available to support victims of crime. You've heard me say before that I think any victim you talk to says, “I don't want what happened to me to happen to anyone else.” They understand. They want prevention. They don't want an offender to reoffend, so we look holistically....

But my voice is here to speak to the need to ensure that victims have the appropriate supports in place, because that is not the only agency. There are other agencies that also provide that. You've heard this from previous witnesses as well. The other thing is that at an ombudsman's office, other than speaking for the need for resources for victims, we would be very hesitant to speak to a certain agency getting funding over another.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Even in the face of statistical evidence that shows this program reduces the rate of recidivism and there is very little evidence that any of the other measures that are sought to be included in this legislation do that?

[Sue O'Sullivan]

Well, I think there are a lot of different studies out there on what reduces recidivism and what does not. I think if you're going to make a question about that, about what is the best plan.... I think if we're going to look as a country about protecting victims—and you've heard me talk about that continuum, about the need—it's not an either-or here. We need to look at prevention. We need to look at the time of crime. We need to look at afterwards in terms of that.

Again, I'm here for the victims. As Alain was saying, we've heard victims here talk about the impact. We know that 83% of the cost of crime in this country is borne by victims. We know about the lifelong impact; we have two witnesses here who are telling you about that and their needs. You've heard from other witnesses. I know that. This committee hears from many victims who talk about the need to have this, and I'm going to go back to that. They need information. On your comment about identifying victims, that would obviously be a concern as well.

But my understanding is the need for the public registry.... These are decisions that are already being made across the country. I absolutely agree with you that it would be.... I've heard from previous witnesses, and we would hope the federal government continues to have those conversations with the provinces and territories. There can be some kind of consistency. I too have looked at the Alberta and the Manitoba websites. If you look at the conditions even to remove people from their websites, you see that they're different. We really do need to have a national conversation about that.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Mr. Calkins from the Conservative Party.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

As I listen to some of the testimony today, I'm reminded of conversations I've had with Sheldon Kennedy, and I'm reminded of the time that Theoren Fleury came here. I was quite sympathetic to Theoren and all of the things he's been through. I could sense the lifelong anger and frustration that Theoren has gone through. That still is very evident in the conversations that I've had with him, of course. Sheldon is doing great. I missed his earlier testimony, but with his advocacy centre now, he's doing great and is a great spokesman.

I want to thank our victim advocacy groups that are here today, because I look at it from the perspective—and we've heard from other victim advocates here—of the totality principle. I'm sure the lawyers in the room know what that is. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to pretend that I know it in its essence.

I come at it more from an enforcement perspective. I see—and I hear from these victims and their advocacy groups about it—the absolute lifelong damage that most of them suffer. As a matter of fact, I haven't heard any of them say that it hasn't been a lifelong journey so far. Greg Gilhooly, who was here, has talked about the fact that it has been a life-changing and lifelong issue that he's had to deal with. So I get quite upset when I hear words from those representing lawyers who say that there are non-serious assaults on children and I hear some examples of those kinds of things.

I think about the totality principle. I have some questions for some of the lawyers at the table. It comes down to the fact that for the totality principle, as set out in paragraph 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code, the global sentence should not exceed the offender's overall culpability. I'm wondering what you would say as individuals. Would you be saying the same thing if a member of your family or you yourself were the victim? Would you be saying the same thing? I heard Mr. Gilhooly several times say a couple of words, which I can't repeat, about the Manitoba justice system's handling of the totality principle when it came to what would seemingly be a long sentence, I think, in the mind of a lawyer—four to five years—for the cumulative crimes that were committed against him. It doesn't seem like a whole lot to me.

Would either of you—and Stacy, if you want to as well—like to talk about this totality principle from that perspective?

[Paul Calarco]

The first thing I'd say, sir, is that you used the term “non-serious assaults on children”. No, I certainly don't believe there would be a sexual assault on a child that is not serious. I don't think you'll find a defence lawyer anywhere who would think that a sexual assault on a child should not be taken seriously.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I didn't say that you said it. I think I heard Mr. Spratt say it. Maybe I'm taking it out of context, but I appreciate where you're coming from.

[Michael Spratt]

Of course you're taking it out of context—

[Paul Calarco]

The situation—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That's fine—

[Paul Calarco]

As defence lawyers, we see the harm that is caused by these acts. Having a constitutional duty to defend and make sure that our justice system works, and that people are only found guilty of what they are legally and factually guilty of, is a vital part of our process.

You asked if I would feel that a sentence would be long enough if a member of my family were victimized in this way—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That's an unfair question, but....

[Paul Calarco]

But that exact sort of thing is why we need a completely objective justice system, because one cannot expect a victim of a terrible crime to see this in the way that the justice system must operate. The justice system is the state against an accused individual; it's not the civil system.

We recognize the harm that acts of this nature cause, and it is essential that people be supported. Victims can be supported through various organizations. They need funding. They need long-term help.

But one cannot say that because a person has committed a crime that a victim has to live with for a long time, the person necessarily should be in prison for the rest of their life. The justice system has to deal with a number of issues, and we cannot allow our justice system to react emotionally. We have to be objective about everything. That's our history. That is why we have Her Majesty the Queen against the individual.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That's fair enough.

Mr. Spratt, would you like to clarify your comment? Perhaps I misheard. I thought I heard you say something to the effect that on a non-serious assault....

[Michael Spratt]

As you know, there are ranges to all offences. There are some that are very serious and some that are less serious. The problem with minimum sentences is that they treat less serious offences the same as a more serious offence, and in doing so they discard some very important principles of our justice system.

One of those principles is rehabilitation. When you over-incarcerate someone, there can actually be an increased rate of recidivism after their release, and of course you don't want that. You don't want someone released from jail who's more likely to offend. No one wants that. Your solution, though, begs that to happen in many cases. That's when you need to take a nuanced view. You need to be dispassionate about things, look at the evidence and see what actually works—to sort of leave rhetoric aside and see what works.

If you really do want to protect the public, if you really do want to rehabilitate, and if you really do want to deter, there are ways you can do that. But unfortunately, if you don't follow the evidence, you don't accomplish that, right?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Following your line of thinking, then, in the bill, the movement away from concurrent sentencing to consecutive sentencing would give those people more than adequate time in order to be addressed by some of the programs that are offered. Would that not be—

[Michael Spratt]

If you actually go back and look at the sentencing research, you see that to a large extent courts do impose consecutive sentences a large majority of the time.

One of the other witnesses was testifying and using a sort of banal example of multiple offences against mailboxes. If you add up each offence, you can risk throwing away or giving less weight or no weight to other aspects of sentencing that also need to be taken into account. That's the danger you come up with, and then we're left with this ridiculous sort of U.S. system where someone can get 400 years in jail, which is ridiculous, right?

You need to have a balanced approach that takes into account all aspects of sentencing, not just retribution or not just denunciation.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Some folks might call it ridiculous; some people people might call it certain....

To my friends over there, would you agree with the comments that were just made here? Is there such a thing as a minor or is there a range...? Is that how a victim views what has happened to them in a case where they've been sexually assaulted by an adult?

[Alain Fortier]

To react to what the other witnesses said, we are asking for somewhat the same thing, that is to say that sentences be proportional to the crime that was committed, which is not the case currently. When you condemn someone to 90 days in prison, I don't think that is proportional to the crime. That is the first thing we are asking for.

The second is the minimum sentence. What is the advantage of that? In Quebec, people are in favour of rehabilitation. I have nothing against those who are in favour of rehabilitation, but the courts tend to impose sentences that are much less severe, and to put offenders back into circulation more rapidly.

Many people are in favour of rehabilitation, but I don't know too many people who have taken in a recidivist pedophile. Personally, I would not be willing to do so. I say yes to rehabilitation. It is very important, but I think that by imposing minimum sentences we will send a signal to victims that we take the crime that was committed against them into account and that we don't simply want to ignore it, as is the case at the present time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Madame Péclet.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't really have much time, but this is a very interesting and important debate.

From what Ms. O'Sullivan, Mr. Fortier and Mr. Tremblay have said to us, I take that we need to listen to victims. When they make the decision to lay charges and to go through the laborious justice system—the trial, the parole and the sentencing—they need support, they need to be listened to, and they need the other actors in the legal system to be there for them. This may be the most important issue we hear about.

We saw each other previously when we were studying Bill C-32. And indeed, we consolidated what the victims tell us each time they come to testify here; they want information, and during the entire trial and even afterward, they want the actors in the justice system to be there for them and to listen to them; but we are talking about other kinds of help, other kinds of organizations.

The registry is going to disclose the name of someone who has already committed a crime. Will this really meet the demands of the victims and the people you deal with? I am sorry, it is the only term I could come up with. Does that meet the needs of victims who want to be listened to and to know whether there are negotiations? I really wonder what a registry adds to the equation.

If the victim is not listened to during all of the trial but is told that the name will be published on an Internet site, will this really be a response to what you hear in the field?

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Who do you want to answer that?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

My question is addressed to Ms. O'Sullivan, Mr. Fortier or Mr. Tremblay.