Public Safety Committee on April 20th, 2010

[Steve Sullivan]

With regard to the advocacy centres, that's true.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Finally, in your report, “Toward a Greater Respect for Victims in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act”, you talk about the importance of giving victims timely access to information about offenders' progress and their prospects for rehabilitation, and ensuring that victims' voices are heard. The inference, I think, is that the successful rehabilitation of an offender is a critical part of the healing process for victims, or can be an important part of that.

Can you talk to us about the importance of victims having robust, successful rehabilitation programs in our prisons, so that when offenders are reintroduced in the community, victims are not re-victimized by seeing them come out without rehabilitation or frustrated that these people might be there to prey on them or someone else?

[Steve Sullivan]

One of the things that I've consistently heard from victims is that they really don't want to see the offender do this to somebody else. Sometimes that means keeping that individual in prison for a long time. Realistically, that's what needs to happen, but victims have a real interest in seeing offenders come out of prison different from when they went in. We know most guys are going to come out.

I've been to parole hearings with families whose loved ones were killed, or with victims themselves, and they walk into a parole hearing absolutely terrified at the prospect of this individual getting paroled. After they sit and listen to, in some situations, how the offender has taken years of programming, they might not agree with whether or not he should be released, but you can almost see, in some cases, the weight off their shoulders. They're not scared any more about being reoffended against, because they see that this individual's taken steps. Maybe he hasn't taken enough, or maybe not as many as they would like, but he's begun the process. So I think it's really important for victims to understand that rehabilitation is actually happening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We're going to go over to the government's side. Mr. MacKenzie, go ahead, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for being here. And more importantly, thank you for all of your hard work in setting up this office. Certainly the government respects the work you've done and appreciates it very much.

I have a few questions.

First, in 2006, who would the victims have turned to?

[Steve Sullivan]

Sorry...?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

In 2006, who would the victims have turned to?

[Steve Sullivan]

I worked in a non-government world, so they probably would have turned to victims' advocacy groups and--

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

The government had no programs set up prior to 2006, so everything that's been accomplished has been accomplished through your good work, and the work of others with you, since 2007.

[Steve Sullivan]

The government's taken a lot of positive steps and built on some of the successes of other governments. They've enhanced the funding for parole hearings. The new funding for Canadians who are victimized abroad is an extremely important proposal. There's been a lot of really important progress in the victims' world since 2007.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

That's my point. We owe you a great deal of thanks for what you've accomplished in that timeframe. We have moved a long way. I suppose in hindsight we would say that these are the beginning steps or the baby steps, and there's always something to be done. I was looking at your list of recommendations. I find them worthy, and I don't see anything in there that I would think people with common sense would take exception to.

We've been hearing some of these things, and I think they might lay into what the Prime Minister was talking about. We've heard a great deal from the public, from victims who feel as though they've been re-victimized and re-victimized. Recommendation 11 deals with one of those small steps towards what we've been talking about, so that victims aren't re-victimized through hearings. We're hearing about some of these things happening right now, certainly in my area. A serial murderer gets to go back and go back and go back every year, and that re-victimizes the families. I'm not sure if the timeline is long enough here, but I think it's a good start.

In all of the things I went through here, I didn't see any particular money issues. I know we've heard the discussions about the main estimates, but there are always supplementaries, and who's to know? I think it would be premature to simply say that's it, no more, it's cut off. I don't know that, but there are always supplementary estimates that show up later.

In this big picture, as we move forward, there's been a great deal accomplished to look at how we best help victims. I think we have looked at this. With regard to your recommendation 13, some of the costs for some of this should come from the people who have created the problem. I'm just wondering if you could expand on anything there--what you've seen and what you're aware of--and how that would help victims in these circumstances.

[Steve Sullivan]

We identified early on from the calls we were getting and the research that exists that of the total costs of crime, corrections, police, all those things, it's really victims who bear almost 70% of the costs of crime in Canada. We know that's a real issue, and we heard from people about the challenges they have. Restitution has been around for decades. We actually see today fewer restitution orders in our courts than we saw a decade ago. That's a concerning trend. The numbers aren't that much down, but it's not going up, which concerns me. We actually asked the minister and recommended that he examine some models in the U.S. and others on restitution. He set up a working group that I understand is still looking at different models.

I know the Minister of Public Safety, in Bill C-43, included in there, for the first time, in the CCRA, a reference to restitution, as making it part of an offender's work plan. That's really important, I think, because some judges look at restitution and say, “Well, this guy is going to jail. He doesn't have any money.” We know that offenders make some money when they're in prison. We also know that victims actually appreciate, even if the total restitution isn't paid, that efforts are made by the offender. I think it actually has a benefit for the offender as well. It makes the crime real. It makes it matter. As opposed to their being responsible to all of us, they're responsible to a mother who can no longer get in her car to take her kid to school. That means something. I think it would actually mean something to some offenders.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Are you aware of the amendments that were made to the Employment Insurance Act to allow victims of crime to utilize--

[Steve Sullivan]

I'm aware of the commitment in the budget. My understanding was that it will make it easier for families of homicide victims to access the first six weeks of those sickness benefits. It's a positive step. I'm the victims ombudsman, so I'm always going to push the envelope as far as we can, and I hope the next ombudsman does that as well. So we're going to push and say that's a great step, but it's not good enough. That's our job.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I would hope as a victims ombudsman and their advocate that no one would ever truly be totally satisfied that everything is being done that should be done or could be done. We do appreciate your comments. I think it's equally fair to say that here's an organization that got set up less than three years ago, has moved light-years from where we were, and has accomplished good things. Certainly the government appreciates it. I know my friends can always point to something that's wrong, but I think there are a lot of good things.

You've made mention about former police officers here. We're all aware of victim impact statements. Certainly some of the things in those victim impact statements would indicate a very strong desire to see a punitive penalty, either incarceration or whatever, for a lot of people. That's a bit of a catharsis for a victim. I'm just wondering if you haven't seen some of that. Being part of what a victim feels vindicated in is that somebody has now received a penalty appropriate for the crime.

[Steve Sullivan]

Absolutely. Victims have an interest in the ultimate sentence. In our current use of victim impact statements, we don't actually allow victims to speak to a sentence. Judges have decided that's not appropriate for victims to speak to a sentence. That's actually a frustrating aspect for many families.

I think one of the problems that we have in our system, though, is we don't engage victims very well throughout the process. We don't give them the information they need. We don't explain decisions, or plea bargains. Often there are really good reasons for a plea bargain. We don't take the time to do that very well. So victims will ultimately look at that sentence as this is the measurement that the system puts on the harm done. It's often not what they expect because the harm is so great. My concern is that by just focusing on that and not addressing the process issues, we're never going to meet their expectations. I see that in the U.S. all the time. We're just not going to meet that expectation. If we did a better job here, then they'd understand why. They still might not agree, and some will still ask for different sentences. And why shouldn't they? They've been harmed incredibly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll move over to the Liberal Party next. Mr. Kania, please.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sullivan, I've read your report. I think it's a good report.

[Steve Sullivan]

Thank you.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

From questions from Mr. MacKenzie, who just stepped out, I think he would agree with me that you've done a good job. So I wish to state personally that I'm disappointed that you've not been reappointed.

[Steve Sullivan]

Thank you.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Now, you've not always agreed with the Conservative government on issues. I'll give you two examples. First, I understand that in your role on behalf of victims you've been an advocate in favour of keeping the long-gun registry. Is that accurate?

[Steve Sullivan]

That's right.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Could you please explain in your formal role as federal ombudsman for victims of crime why you have that position that the long-gun registry should be kept?

[Steve Sullivan]

It hasn't been an issue that I've addressed since being appointed ombudsman, but I can tell you that in my previous victim advocacy work I would take a lot of direction on these issues from what the police say. I was funded by an organization, the police association, the resource centre. I was there for many debates that this organization had about the gun registry. They had many fiery debates. The nice thing about it was they all went for a beer after and were still friends, but the debates were pretty strong. Every time they had a vote, they came down on the side of maintaining the registry.

I look at the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. There are some incredibly dedicated, long-serving police officers, and they support the registry. When the overall law enforcement community is telling us this is an important tool for us--and they're certainly, I think, a vocal minority from my experience with those organizations--then I'm going to trust that they know what they're talking about.