Public Safety Committee on April 20th, 2010

[Steve Sullivan]

It is, absolutely. The challenge--this is the next point I was going to make--is that there are some families who would like to have attention on their loved ones, but those victims may not be the ones who make the news very well.

For instance, a family might want to talk about their case--maybe they feel there's an injustice, or their loved one is missing--but if their case is just not very “sexy”, they're not going to get a lot of media attention the way a lot of the serial killer cases might.

That can be damaging to families as well, because we're actually choosing which victims are more important.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Before we go over to the Bloc Québécois, I have taken somewhat of an interest in the long-gun registry myself.

I met today with the police association representatives, and I asked them a question. You may find it interesting, and you may want to comment. I asked them, “What does the registration of firearms accomplish that the licensing doesn't?” They told me, “Nothing.” In fact, using your very example is what they said to me: if they went to a home, saw that there were two guns registered there, and stopped looking after two guns were found, that would be absolutely absurd.

I mean, that's a bit of a concern. They just had their meetings, and their sole source of information yesterday, at their presentations, was the Canada Firearms Centre, which has a vested interest in maintaining their jobs.

I don't know if you have a response to that, but it is a concern to me that they're not talking to maybe university professors who have investigated this.

[Steve Sullivan]

All I will say, Mr. Chair, is that I probably know some of the individuals you met with today. They're good people. This is an issue they've debated almost every single year--at least when I was connected to them--at their annual general meeting or executive board meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes.

[Steve Sullivan]

I know they brought in advocates on both sides. It's obviously an issue they continue to discuss. There's isn't unanimity. I mean, that's the reality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Desnoyers.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to correct something that Mr. Rathgeber said about maintaining the firearms registry. A few weeks ago, Minister Toews appeared before the committee. In response to a question about the cost of the firearms registry, he gave the same answer as Mr. Rathgeber, in others words, that it cost billions of dollars. He knows full well that the cost of the registry today is no more than a few million dollars. Now that everything is in place, it no longer costs what it once did to save the lives that can be saved. So when that government argument is trotted out, it does not do the registry justice in the end.

You mentioned a number of tools that the government does not take into account, tools that could be used to help victims. You mentioned centres that victims could go to on a regular basis. These centres are seriously lacking. You said there were several hundred in the U.S. That is part of your tool kit, just like the firearms registry, of course. Punishment is another one of those tools, as you said, as well as police access to IP addresses.

You also said that, according to what you had been told by victims, offender rehabilitation and prevention were important in terms of helping victims. Could you elaborate a little more on that?

[Steve Sullivan]

Sure. On the question about the registry, my understanding was that we were talking about costs from a long time ago. Whether you agree with it or not, there was some mismanagement of how it was set up. But you're right that the costs today are certainly much lower.

One of the things we hear consistently from victims is they don't want anybody else to go through what they've gone through. Rehabilitation for offenders who can be rehabilitated and want to be rehabilitated is extremely important. I think that matters to victims.

We can prevent people from being victims of crime in the first place; that's prima productive. I've met some families and victims who've gone through restorative justice programs. The Correctional Service of Canada has an amazing program where victims can ask to meet with their offenders. For some crimes that none of us would ever expect victims would want to meet their offenders, they've done that. It can be very cathartic for both the victim and the offender, because the victim gets a chance to hear information they didn't have before, and they get a chance to express to the offender how the crime impacted them. I think that's an important part of rehabilitation.

For offenders who really want to change, knowing what they did and how it impacted somebody is really important. That's why impact statements are important. In the States they have victim impact panels—different methods. But victims have incredible interest in making sure that when offenders leave prisons they're different people.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

You made 13 recommendations to help victims, each more worthwhile than the next, in my view. If you could make one recommendation with respect to offender rehabilitation and the Correctional Service of Canada, what would it be?

We heard from many people in correctional services who said that basically we may no longer have the same type of rehabilitation as we did before. They want to cut programs such as using farms for correctional centres, which are worthwhile rehabilitation programs. They want to do away with them. So what would you recommend to corrections officials on this issue, if you could?

[Steve Sullivan]

I'll be honest, I don't know a lot about what's currently being done in prisons for offender programs. I guess in an overall recommendation I would encourage Corrections Canada to build effective, evidence-based programs that will change the behaviour of offenders in prison.

I say that as a victim advocate. I know people come to support offenders, and I support that kind of work. But for me it's not about the individual offender; it's about the public. I don't really care so much about whether he's a nicer guy; I care that he's not going to hurt somebody else. So effective, evidence-based programs that can actually help change someone's behaviour are incredibly important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll go over to Mr. Norlock, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for all you've done over the past few years, going from zero to some very positive things, which have been mentioned throughout today.

You do realize that when you answer some of the questions the headline is not going to be about all the positive things you've done; it's about what you've said. The newspaper headline won't mention all the good things, it will just mention the things that are negative. I think I'd like to concentrate on some positive things.

Since I've been here, no one who represents a government agency or even private agencies who get federal funding ever came and said, “We get enough, you don't need to give us any more, thank you.” It's never enough, no matter what is done. It doesn't matter whose government it is, it's never enough. But it's their job to poke at the holes. But at poking at holes, we have to be careful not to, you know the old saying, throw out the baby with the bath water. So we don't want any....

Please correct me if I've misinterpreted this. When you were referring to legislation, that it doesn't help victims, would you not agree there needs to be a balanced approach from the government's perspective? You're dealing specifically with victims, but when you're dealing with the whole justice and public safety envelope, would you not agree that we need a balanced approach through programs and services for victims--in which, I think you said, we've invested quite substantially since the creation of your office--and legislation that will put the offenders behind bars? The reason this government looks at sentencing has to do very much with what you've just said: it has to do with victimization. What we leave out of the whole spectrum, and I think you could address this best, is the continued victimization from the time the offence occurs. And most of the time, with thirty years in policing, I can tell you....

Let me give you one example, and I want you to comment on this: something as simple as mailbox baseball. You know what that is. A bunch of young yahoos, either with or without alcohol, think it's a lot of fun to go down a rural road and bash mailboxes. I investigated one where someone's aunt who had just died had done some tole painting on the mailbox and that was the only thing they had from their aunt. The yahoos came and bashed the mailbox. When it gets reported to the police, it's not a big deal. When it gets reported in the newspaper, it's not a big deal. But that person had something that meant so much to them and now it's nothing. They desecrated the memory.

I wonder if you could comment on some of the things that you've experienced.

[Steve Sullivan]

Just to pick up on your example, we tend to look at property crimes as less serious. There are people out there whose homes are broken into, who are tremendously impacted by that crime. If somebody broke into my house, maybe I wouldn't be as upset, but if you're a single mother with a couple of kids, the fact that someone came into your home, where you and your children sleep at night, and took stuff, or did whatever, that could have a tremendous impact on people. We tend to minimize that. And unfortunately, we don't have enough victim services to give them services, but you're right.

Let me just say, you're absolutely right that the media loves the bad-news stuff. I learned that in my career prior to being ombudsman. It's been an incredible honour for me to lead this office. I got an e-mail today from an individual whose daughter was murdered, who just said this office was a light of hope for him. That's just tremendous that we could have that impact on people's lives. This opportunity has allowed me to do that, and the office will continue to do that far beyond my days here. My job is to give the government advice on victims. And like you said, we're all going to come and say it's not enough, because it never is when you're advocating for someone. I would never take away from the positive things this government or any government has done. We might disagree on how you continue down that road to improve on those things.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to talk about the financial aspect, because that's been mentioned several times.

Under the main estimates for 2009-10, your office, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, was allocated $1.295 million; and in 2010-11, $1.309 million. So you have just about a 2% increase. But from 2001 to 2006, under the heading “Grants for the Victims of Crime Initiative”, there was a five-year program by the previous government of $2 million per year.

Would you not agree there was a change in some of the nomenclature of where we put the money? The “Grants for Victims of Crime Initiative”, the way it's expressed in the estimates in 2006-07, went from $2 million to $2.6 million—which is included in the envelope of victims funds—and in 2007-08 to $2.75 million, and in 2008-09 to $8.6 million. So there were some significant increases in that budgetary envelope—granted, this year the estimates are $5.25 million, still far in excess of the $2 million in 2005-06.

The problem with numbers and different budgets in different places is that we can swing them all around. I want you to comment quickly on whether the above is accurate or not.

Of course I come from the provincial side, and I can tell you that in 30 years, up to 2000, the Province of Ontario provided tremendous funding for victims' organizations. I think of one that covers at least half my riding; it used to be called VCARS. Policemen now actually call people to the scene who are volunteers funded by the province.

We can't just take what the federal government does separately. Have there not been increases in funding for victims? Could you comment on that?

[Steve Sullivan]

My focus is on the federal government, because that's our mandate. But regarding the programs you talk about, there's a similar program here in Ottawa. Those services are actually funded through victim fine surcharges. So we hope to see more resources go to those services.

I don't have the numbers you're referring to here. I just have the 2010-11 main estimates with me. My understanding is that $52 million was committed to the victims initiative in 2007. That's a significant amount of money. But as the ombudsman, when I see an indication that money is going to be taken out going forward, then I'm going to have to raise that concern. That's not to take away from the positive things that have been done, but if we want to build on those and if it looks like money is being taken out, it makes it more difficult, I think, for us to do those things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Holland, please.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this sometimes lies at the heart of the problem with the government, which is that there seems to be a sense that independent officers of Parliament, whether the public complaints commissioner for the RCMP or, in your case, the ombudsman for victims, should be cheerleaders-in-chief and not dare criticize the government. I think it's entirely appropriate that an ombudsman both lauds what he agrees with and criticizes what he disagrees with. It strikes me as bizarre that this would be criticized.

As we're delving a little bit into the debate on Bill C-391, the long-gun registry bill, I can't resist asking the question, because the question was initially about setting up the cost of that registry. The Auditor General told us in 2006 that the cost of the long-gun registry would be $3 million a year, and that the RCMP said they would save $2.9 million by cutting it. We also know that we had the deputy commissioner of the RCMP in front of this committee saying that it was essential to doing his job.

So would you think that $2.9 million that would be saved would be an intelligent cut for the government to make?

[Steve Sullivan]

I didn't come to talk about the program, but I think the registry is an important public safety tool, an important law enforcement tool. So I would not agree with cutting that program.

You're right, we talked earlier about the amounts that were spent setting it up, but I think it's become a relatively cost-efficient program, if you're looking at government programs.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you for that digression. I realize it is a bit of a digression and we're jumping into a debate that we're going to have.

I want to talk about community capacity. One of the concerns I have is that when there's talk about victims, the discussion about victims really centres on the most sensational cases. Obviously, those are serious cases, but the majority of victims are people at the margins, people who themselves are at risk and often lack basic services and access to things that can break cycles of victimization.

I'm wondering if you can talk about who is a victim and how important that community capacity is in breaking cycles of victimization and whether or not there's been enough focus on that particular area.

[Steve Sullivan]

I think this gets down to the media and popular culture and what people think crime is. The statistics tell us that the people who are most likely to be fearful of being victims of violent crime are the elderly people. The truth is, they're the least likely people to actually be victims of violent crime. The least likely to be fearful are kids aged 15 to 24. They're actually the most likely to be victims of violent crime. Why is that? It's because they're out at night. And our parents or grandparents are at home and they're watching TV and watching the crime shows. So people have a misperception of what is actually happening in our communities.

Who's the most likely to be a victim? It's someone aged 15 to 24, unemployed or a student, who goes out in the evenings. That also tends to be who is most likely to be an offender as well, so there are some interesting discussions that can take place around that. It's a difficult discussion to have with people, to really talk honestly about what crime is and what it looks like. To do that, I think if we're going to talk about solutions and what does the public think, they actually have to have reasonable information about what crime is.

We can look at, for example, multiple victimization. A third of sexual assault victims are at risk of being sexually assaulted again in that same year. We have evidence that people who have had their homes broken into are more likely to have their homes broken into again within that first year. Some numbers from the States actually talk about people having their homes broken into within weeks. That's one specific area we could look at and say this person was a victim of this, so let's give them some information that might help prevent them from being a victim of this crime again.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Often I don't think we think of this, but victims and offenders are oftentimes coming out of these same cycles and into the same problems with addictions and being on the margins and being vulnerable. So we have to think of those issues as sometimes being interrelated. If we don't properly deal with the victims, they can well turn into offenders as an expression of dealing with all of the issues that they've had to deal with as victims.

We've talked about the cuts that have been made to front-line support for victims, but there have also been significant cuts to crime prevention. The amount of spending on crime prevention is way down, down more than half since 2005. When I talk to groups like Boys and Girls Clubs and the Salvation Army, and others who have stopped getting funding, what they're saying is they're losing the capacity to stop crimes before they begin. What we've heard from Dr. Irvin Waller and others is that a dollar spent in crime prevention is going to save eleven dollars in terms of both incarceration and also release and having to deal with the fallout of it. So I'm wondering if you see the role of the office of the ombudsman as also having a role in advocating for things like crime prevention to stop there being victimization in the first place.

[Steve Sullivan]

I know Dr. Waller quite well. He's not only a crime prevention advocate but a very strong victims' advocate as well. I had arranged for a meeting between our office and the National Crime Prevention Council some weeks ago. I had hoped that we could really examine what kinds of programs they have that might address some of the things we talked about today, multiple victimization, young people on the street. There's a shelter in Winnipeg run by women who actually have experience on the street, who try to get young aboriginal women off the street and give them a home and shelter, for those kids who are trying to find a way out. It's those kinds of prevention programs.

I hope that the office continues to build that relationship with the National Crime Prevention Council to see how we can actually help educate them about some areas where a real difference can be made. There's a connection. Obviously, preventing crime is the best victim protection you can have. There's a connection there. When we can look at the evidence and say “These people are particularly vulnerable of being victims of crime; let's target some programs towards them”, we could actually prevent them from suffering sometimes pretty tremendous things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We'll have to leave it there. We can come back if you wish.

Ms. Glover, please, for five minutes.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to express my congratulations to you for doing this wonderful work. I also want to thank you for the work that you've done, because I know it's not easy to be a victims' advocate. I too have been a victims' advocate for many years, and continue to be, in my role as a parliamentarian.

I want to correct a couple of things.

As my learned friend Mr. Norlock pointed out, the newspapers will publish the bad news. If it bleeds, it leads. I would hate it if anyone left here talking about Homolka. It was not a story that was put out by government, the opposition, or any of the parliamentarians here, sir. It's a story made by media. It is a picture taken by media. It's the impression they have left on the national victims of crime week.

I certainly agree with you that it's not the message we want to leave during this very important week. If I had the power to erase it, I certainly would, but I would not want anyone to think it came about as a result of anything that anyone here did. I think all of my friends would agree that isn't what we think of when we think about victims.

However, in response to Mr. Davies, you said something about victims not really having any sense that the sentence or the punishment helps them in any way. I want to offer you an opportunity to amend or correct that. When you answered Mr. Davies, did I hear correctly when you said victims really don't care about the sentences?