Public Safety Committee on April 20th, 2010

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

And based on your understanding, they're speaking specifically of protecting victims in saying that the long-gun registry is something that should be maintained. Is that accurate?

[Steve Sullivan]

Yes, to protect their officers, and I think they see the value in protecting the community at large as well.

The example an officer gave me once was that they get an order from the court that says Joe Blow, who just beat up his wife, can't have any guns. When they go to his house, if they don't know how many guns Joe Blow has and which guns they are, how do they know they got them all?

So I think that's an example of how law enforcement would see that as a community protection program.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

In theory, then, you would agree with me that if the long-gun registry were eliminated, victims would suffer and would be less protected in Canada.

[Steve Sullivan]

Yes. I believe it provides protection to the public and victims.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

The second example in terms of how you've criticized the government is that you say they have too much of a disproportionate focus on prison, as opposed to victims.

You were on radio today, I understand, in relation to the Prime Minister's speech. You already gave your own example about how he was focused on criminals as opposed to victims during that speech. You already commented and criticized upon that today. Can you tell us what the Prime Minister should have said today instead, rather than what he did say?

[Steve Sullivan]

Well, just as a follow-up, I was at an event today in Ottawa on how to get victim services in Ottawa working better together. Somebody said they looked at a newspaper today and saw Karla Homolka's picture, on national victims of crime awareness week. That's the focus of what's being talked about, and that's a concern.

I would have liked to have heard the Prime Minister absolutely talk about the positive things that he and his government have done. To give them credit, I think this office is an important part of that, and funding for Canadians victimized abroad, a number of different areas. However, I would have also liked him to have set forward a vision or at least some ideas about how he's going to do more to serve those victims and meet the needs that the people in that room actually know exist and that they talked about throughout the day: victims of hate crime, male sexual abuse survivors, other victims of crime who aren't being served, many who don't even report the crimes in the first place.

So if I were writing the Prime Minister's speech, which is probably presumptuous of me, I would have talked about victims and probably wouldn't even have mentioned offenders at all.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Okay.

As you may know, there are other persons in your situation who did not have their positions renewed, such as Paul Kennedy, who had critiqued the government on issues. Were you given any reason whatsoever as to why your term was not renewed?

[Steve Sullivan]

No. I don't know why the government made the decision it did.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

Finally, on page five of your report you talk about, on June 17, 2009, the introduction of Bill C-43, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Based on your comments here, you believe it would have helped victims in some measure. Is that correct?

[Steve Sullivan]

Yes. There were many positive initiatives. I think we pointed out where they could even go a little further, but certainly the steps taken in that bill would have been very positive.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Right. So based on your comment here, you'll agree with me that the Conservatives' decision to prorogue Parliament and thus kill this legislation actually hurt victims.

[Steve Sullivan]

Yes, I would agree. The bill would have enhanced services for victims, which is only a good thing, and that has been delayed by however long. I guess we'll have to wait to see.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for your attendance here this afternoon and for the good work you've done in your time as ombudsman for victims of crime.

Following up on my friend Mr. Kania's questions about the long-gun registry, I know there's significant debate around this table about the effectiveness of the long-gun registry, but I think there's less debate about the efficiency and the costliness of the registry.

So my specific question is, as an advocate for victims of crime, would you agree with my suggestion that the billions of dollars that have been spent on the gun registry might otherwise have been spent more beneficially on victims of crime?

[Steve Sullivan]

What I can agree to is that I wish the program had been better managed so we wouldn't have spent all that money. We did waste some. It was mismanaged and there were mistakes made. So would I have liked to have seen that money go to victims of crime? Absolutely.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Specifically on money to fund victims' programs, you're probably aware that the government, in the throne speech, announced its intention that the victim fine surcharge would become mandatory.

A long time ago, when I was practising criminal law, I frequently saw judges not impose the victim fine surcharge for a plethora of reasons, some as simple as the ability of the accused, or at that point the convicted person, to pay it. So I was hoping you might be able to comment on the government's intention to make the victim fine surcharge mandatory.

[Steve Sullivan]

I think that's a good move. We had actually recommended to the minister to move in that direction.

There was some research that the department released—I'm going to say it was in the summer of 2008—that looked at how the surcharge was being implemented. I don't want to go into a lot of detail, but basically it is mandatory now unless the defence makes an application and can show the judge why the accused can't pay. What's happening, though, is that judges are routinely waiving the victim fine surcharge without any application from the defence, without any information about whether the offender can pay. So they were just not applying the law correctly, and our proposal was that the minister should consider making that mandatory by just taking away the option.

I'm going to guess that he was getting different opinions from the department, but I was pleased to see in the throne speech that the government accepted our proposal as well.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

As am I.

One of your other recommendations is that the Correctional Service be allowed to deduct amounts from an offender's earnings to satisfy restitution or victim fine surcharge orders.

I am well aware, and I'm sure you are, that federal prisoners make pretty meagre earnings. I think $6 a day working in the kitchen is not an uncommon amount. But we recently learned that some prisoners also receive significant amounts through CPP and GIC.

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on what a victim's entitlement might be with respect to some of those stipends.

[Steve Sullivan]

From our perspective, restitutions are court orders. They're part of an offender's sentence that a judge has given them. From our perspective, they're obligated to pay that money, whether they're in prison or not.

That doesn't mean you're going to take every cent that the offender makes while in prison, but for someone who's in there for a long period of time, $6 a day adds up. Restitution orders, depending on the type of crime--certainly financial crime can be quite high--in many cases involve a relatively modest amount of money.

So we think the government should do that. They took some steps, I think, in Bill C-43 to make it part of the correctional plan. For those offenders who have other sources of money and have restitution orders, then that money should be used to satisfy those restitution orders.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I'm not sure if you're aware, but today legislation was tabled to put an end to the faint hope clause, the ending early parole act. I'm assuming you'll agree that it's a positive piece of legislation that will be welcomed by both victims and victim advocates?

[Steve Sullivan]

Yes. I've been to judicial review hearings with many families. It's a difficult and painful process. I know there were steps taken a number of years ago to limit the number, but it's a really painful process for families to go through. I would definitely applaud the government for taking those steps.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

My last question--this is for you in your role as the advocate, not so much the ombudsman--is with regard to something I'm curious about. The media gets involved in scrums with victims' families outside the courtroom, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on whether that is a cathartic or, if you agree with me, a very damaging thing to put the families through.

My specific question is this: do victims services organizations in the communities provide, or ought they provide, media support or training to victims' families in high-profile criminal cases?

[Steve Sullivan]

Probably not; certainly no court-based service or police-based service that I know of would provide media assistance. Certainly non-government groups would probably help families.

I mean, it can be cathartic for some individuals. Some people have the need to speak out, if it's a loved one who was murdered, to represent their loved one in the press; maybe they weren't portrayed very well in the court. For other families, they just feel overwhelmed. When you shove a camera in front of them, they feel obligated to answer, even though they may not want to.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I find it very exploitive.