Public Safety Committee on April 20th, 2010

[Steve Sullivan]

Yes, certainly the official crime rates indicate that. I've also reviewed the victimization surveys that we do every five years. I think the next one is actually coming out later this year. I know in 1999 to 2004 there was a 2% increase in crime, but it was focused on property areas, and violent crime remained pretty stable.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I've looked at those victimization rates as well from 1999 to 2004, and they went up in some and they went down in others. Overall, it seems statistically insignificant. Would you agree with me that unreported crime, at least in that period of time, wasn't marginally different?

[Steve Sullivan]

Yes, there's no indication that I've seen really that there's a huge increase in crime.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Would you agree with me that given that crime rates are going down, and there doesn't seem to be any real difference in unreported crimes, this would be another reason to suggest that we should be putting our focus more on things like helping victims and perhaps rehabilitating offenders and prevention, rather than locking people up for longer, if we want to help in that?

[Steve Sullivan]

I think you see the trends across western countries. In the U.S. the crime rates appear to be dropping. Someone suggested that's because they use prisons a lot more than we do. But you can look at other international countries that are comparable, and they haven't raised their prison populations and their numbers are also going.... It's a trend. As the population ages, that number of 15- to 24-year-olds who commit the most crime is going to get smaller. So there are going to be fewer people committing crime. I think that's point number one.

The other point is with respect to sentencing. We need to have the measures in place to make sure that those people we know—we talked about Mr. Acheson, and I'm somewhat familiar with the case—through our best estimates are a high risk to reoffend don't come out of prison and re-victimize someone. I believe we need measures—and this might be somewhat off topic—at the end of their sentence. Right now, despite how high of a risk they are, we let them go because we have to. I think that's an area. There are people who need to stay in prison for a very long time, sometimes the rest of their lives. I just don't think it's a solution, at least in the name of victims, as a general approach to this problem.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

My last question, so I can get it in here, is do you have any words of advice to your successor?

[Steve Sullivan]

I would tell him or her they have an incredible staff to work with, and I would just tell him or her to be true to your mandate. Your mandate is to advocate for victims of crime, and that may or may not put you in agreement with your minister of the day, whatever party he or she may be from, whatever government's in power. Just stay true to the mandate that you have to promote victims' issues and continue building on what the staff in that office has been able to achieve.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Norlock's comment or prophecy turned out to be absolutely true. Some of the national press are now asking, because there are no budget dollars going way out in the future, if the office is going to close.

I just want to make the statement very clearly that main estimates do not contain all government funding for the year, and that's why we have supplementary estimate processes. This government remains committed to ensuring that victims have a stronger voice in the criminal justice system. I'm quite certain that Mr. Sullivan has done such a great job that in fact the position has been advertised, as per standard procedure for such appointments.

So in the event that somebody in the press took one part of it and thought that was the end of the office, this is just the beginning of the office, and for that we truly thank you.

[Steve Sullivan]

I'll just say on that, we've been telling victims who have called, who have heard, that the office will remain. Certainly I hope I haven't given any indication, and there is no indication that the office is going to close. The office is bigger than me; it's going to continue to grow and be more effective and serve more victims. My advice to my successor is that I just encourage them to more success than we had.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

And we appreciate what you've done. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

There are two more people on my list here for brief questions.

Mr. Kania.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. MacKenzie.

My question is simple. Are you speaking for the minister and is the government committing to keeping the office running—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I don't know if that's in order, because we have a witness here and you have to direct your questions to the witness.

[A voice]

Ask tomorrow in the House.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. MacKenzie brought this up. I don't want the national press to be confused, so I'm just wondering if that was a commitment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That question is out of order.

Are there any other questions?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

A point of order here, Mr. Chairman. The thing is Mr. MacKenzie essentially gave evidence. That didn't come through the witness. Mr. MacKenzie just made a statement, so I think it's appropriate. I think it's appropriate to do that.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

So now we start asking each other questions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I don't want to start this.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That wasn't really a question for the witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

This is not going to go anywhere.

Mr. McColeman, wrap it up, please.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I too want to add my voice to our thanks to you for the work you've done, the great work that got started.

You can see the to and fro of adversarial politics. There's a lot of innuendo, a lot of “what if this had happened or that had happened”. I guess I'll just have to continue down along that line.

When you had mentioned earlier in your testimony that you had advocated for years and years and years for an office of the ombudsman, how many years actually did you advocate to the previous government?

[Steve Sullivan]

First, let me say this has been the most fun I've had in the three years I've been here.

Second, really, I sat with Marjean Fichtenberg in Prince George, British Columbia, almost exactly 15 years ago today, and there was a coroner's inquest because her son was murdered by a federal parolee. That jury recommended, because of the treatment she received, an office of this kind—I don't know if they called it an ombudsman—and I worked with Minister McKay. Other members of Parliament came before the justice committee when they did their CCRA report and talked about the need, and they actually recommended that kind of thing.

So it was probably at least ten years, twelve years.