Evidence of meeting #42 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pardons.
A recording is available from Parliament.
November 24th, 2010 / 5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
To Mr. Bérard, you asked a rhetorical question in your opening statement: where's the problem? What do you say to victims such as Mr. Kennedy or to Ms. Rosenfeldt? As you know, victims have spoken loudly and they have spoken clearly that there is a problem with the system. What do you say to them when you ask that rhetorical question?
Policy Committee Representative, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec
I'm saying two things. For our association, an effort has to be made to support victims. Victims have a lot of needs. These people need to be treated with care and to be informed about an offender's progress. They need to be supported psychologically. There are major deficits in this regard.
Currently in Canadian society, few support activities or programs are offered to victims. There is a shortage of funding.
With regard to granting pardon, we have success rates that show that pardon is not revoked in 97% of cases. This in itself means something to us.
We wonder why this issue of rehabilitation is being put back on the table. Perhaps it's in order to rekindle a feeling of vengeance in people rather than to try to direct matters differently. It could be directed toward arrangements involving rehabilitation or a process of intervention with offenders. That would enable victims to reconcile themselves with a certain amount of supervision.
The current debate focuses more on the opposition between victim and offender. We think that's a very wrong path.
Conservative
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to continue along the same lines as you, Mr. Bérard.
You say there isn't enough funding or programs for victims. What do you think about the bills that target only criminals and about the budgets cut by this government, such as that of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime? The same is true of the Victim Compensation Fund, which was partially paid in 2009-2010 because there's no one to allocate cases. What do you think about the fact that the government is voting against Bill C-343, which provides for compensation for victims for one year and maintenance of their employment relationship for two years?
What do you think about all that?
Policy Committee Representative, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec
In our brief, we emphasize a certain contradiction between an alleged pro-victim stance and certain budget choices. We refer to the statement by Mr. Sullivan, the previous Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, when he left his position. He emphasized that victim support budgets had been cut. Those cuts amounted to 41% in the case of subsidies and 34% for contributions to programs for victims.
On the one hand, the government says it's pro-victim. There's currently a lot of publicity on TV, on posters and so on stating that the government is in favour of victims. In actual fact, however, the government is cutting funding to victim support programs, whereas that's where the problem lies in our criminal justice system. The government is making cuts to programs for victims and preparing to spend billions of dollars to build correctional facilities in a situation where crime is falling in Canada, which the government refuses to recognize. They're preparing to invest billions of dollars; that's a dead loss.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much.
Unfortunately, we're right out of time, the bells are sounding, the lights are blinking, and the clock says 5:30.
We want to thank all of you for coming today--those who are victims and those who were offenders. We thank you for your stories. They will all help us as we deliberate on this bill.
We are adjourned.