Public Safety Committee on May 1st, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

In our second hour today we're going to continue with our consideration of Bill C-350, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accountability of offenders).

Our committee welcomes this afternoon Ms. Susan O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Welcome here. It's good to have you.

[Susan O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Thank you for the invitation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We look forward to your comments. I noted that you sat in on the last presentation. If you would also field a few of the questions afterward, we would certainly be appreciative.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I will do my best.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

And you always do well.

Ms. O'Sullivan.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, good afternoon.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today about Bill C-350, which concerns offender accountability.

As you may know, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created to provide a voice for victims at the federal level.

We do this through our mandate, which includes: receiving and reviewing complaints from victims; promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime, by providing information and referrals; promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime; raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy-makers about the needs and concerns of victims; and identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact victims of crime.

The office helps victims in two main ways: individually and collectively. We help victims individually by speaking with victims every day, answering their questions, and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, or programs, to better support victims of crime.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here today to speak to the payment of court-ordered debts owed by offenders, and its impacts on victims of crime.

Bill C-350, if adopted, would help to ensure that offenders are held accountable for the monetary debts they owe, including spousal and child support, restitution, the federal victims surcharge, and civil judgments. This bill will ensure that offenders who are successful in obtaining monetary awards from government are mandated to pay their court-ordered debts.

With respect to restitution and the federal victims surcharge, this bill provides a mechanism to further hold offenders responsible for providing reparation to victims for the harm they have caused, and to promote a stronger sense of responsibility and accountability. Similar to the garnishment of spousal and child support already occurring at the federal level, this bill will go further to ensure that offenders are responsible and accountable for their debts.

Our office supports measures that seek to better address the needs of victims of crime. Given that Bill C-350 seeks to hold offenders more accountable and ensure that victims of crime receive the money they are owed and have access to services following a crime, our office supports its passage into law.

To provide some context related to the financial impacts of victimization, a recent study by the Department of Justice estimates that the total tangible and intangible costs of Criminal Code offences in Canada in 2008 were approximately $99.6 billion. When looking at the combined costs measured in the study, the financial burden on victims, which can include lost wages, medical attention, and stolen or damaged property, is estimated at 83% of the total cost of crime. This, frankly, is unacceptable.

Given this burden, tangible supports, including restitution and the federal victim surcharge, become extremely important to victims. They are a means through which to recover loss and to promote access to much needed services. They also serve to acknowledge and provide reparation of harm to victims on behalf of offenders.

Further, when one considers that victimization often occurs within the family context, the payment of spousal or child support may also be extremely important for victims. A statistic that illustrates the familial ties between federal offenders and victims is the number of homicides solved in 2009, where 33.6% of victims were killed by a family member. As victims of crime are estimated to bear 83% of the cost of crime and federal offenders are often family members of victims, measures to ensure that victims receive the debts owed to them, including spousal and child support, and restitution, are necessary to address the needs of crime.

To elaborate, restitution is a payment made by an offender to the victim to cover expenses resulting from the crime, such as property loss or damage, or personal injury. Where a restitution order is made, the offender must pay the amount ordered directly to the victim named in the order. If the offender does not pay the amount ordered, the victim can file the order in civil court and use civil enforcement methods to collect the money.

Legal advice and representation is often needed to pursue these methods of collection, which are cost-prohibitive for many. For victims of crime who have already experienced loss and trauma, the additional legal and financial burden of having to track down moneys owed to them as a result of a crime committed against them can simply be overwhelming. This cannot and should not be the reality. Victims do not deserve to be revictimized. It is for this reason that measures that encourage the enforcement of the payment of restitution by offenders to victims are a necessary and welcome step forward.

In addition to restitution, the federal victim surcharge is also an important payment made by offenders to provide financial support to provincial and territorial victim services and to promote a link between an offender's crime and his or her accountability to the victim. The government recently made an announcement to introduce legislation to double and automatically apply the federal victim surcharge. This is indeed a very positive step forward in response to recommendations made by our office.

While the doubling and automatic application of the surcharge will serve to better meet the needs of victims, mechanisms to ensure that offenders pay the surcharge, such as Bill C-350, are necessary to help ensure that provincial and territorial victim services are given the funding they need and deserve. This bill is one small measure that will contribute to offender accountability.

However, measures to ensure that offenders pay their court orders, regardless of whether they have received a monetary award from government, need to be implemented to ensure that offenders are held accountable for their debts and for providing reparation of harm to victims. To this end, my office has made several recommendations to government to promote the reparation of harm to victims and to mandate that offenders be held accountable to victims for their court orders.

These recommendations were made in our most recent report, Shifting the Conversation, and they include the following: requiring judges to consider restitution in all cases involving a victim and to state their reasons for not ordering restitution, similar to provisions for the federal victim surcharge; giving victims the right to make an application for restitution and the right to appeal if an application is refused; providing victims with detailed guidelines on how to document their losses for the purposes of restitution; removing the requirement that a restitution amount be readily ascertainable, or allowing a court to order a “to be determined” restitution order if the costs are not fully known at the time of sentencing; examining the ability of the federal government to deduct restitution awards from federal government payments, such as GST rebate cheques and employment insurance payments; and holding offenders accountable by including conditions to ensure that they fulfill their court orders for restitution and the federal victim surcharges by authorizing the Correctional Service of Canada to deduct reasonable amounts from an offender's earnings.

These recommendations to government are aimed at promoting reparation of harm to victims and mandating that offenders be held accountable to victims for their court orders.

In conclusion, if adopted, Bill C-350 would help to ensure that offenders are held accountable for the monetary debts they owe, including spousal and child support, restitution, the federal victim surcharge, and civil judgments. This bill will ensure that offenders who are successful in obtaining monetary awards from government are mandated to pay their court-ordered debts.

From a victim's perspective, ensuring that an offender pays his or her financial debts, including restitution and the federal victim surcharge, upon receipt of a monetary award would seem to be common sense. In fact, many victims, and even Canadians at large, would perhaps be surprised to know that this is not already the case.

For this reason, we support the passage of Bill C-350, but we encourage members to understand that increasing offender accountability in relation to court-ordered restitution and the federal victim surcharge will require more comprehensive solutions above and beyond the measures proposed in this bill.

Merci. Je serai heureuse de répondre à vos questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. O'Sullivan.

We'll move into the first round of questioning.

Mr. Norlock, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank our witness for appearing today. It's good to see you again at this committee.

Ms. O'Sullivan, you mentioned the possibility of re-victimizing people who have been the victims of crime. Many times, of course, these are appropriate statements to make, but do you have any particular circumstances that you've seen in your job as ombudsman that might help the committee better understand the implications of the bill?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I knew that Mr. Toller would be giving testimony ahead of me, and so I tried to look at how much money would be involved. I think I have been able to get the same data Mr. Toller presented, or data similar to it.

But I can tell you that on a daily basis we hear from victims of crime across this country, and when we talk about the cost of crime, and I talk about tangible and intangible costs of crime, these are very real people involved. I realize that I'm speaking as a federal ombudsman and that the responsibility for direct services to victims is largely that of the provinces and territories, but I can tell you that there isn't.... We have to be looking at better ways of meeting the financial burden on victims of crime.

Again, I realize why it was so important for the federal victim surcharge to come in. That goes to directly fund the provinces and territories that provide those services. When you hear from victims across this country who can't afford to get counselling—again, I know it's a provincial responsibility—or who can't afford to get some of the basic services they need, the more we can do to provide for that and take the burden of the costs off the victims of crime, the better.

I can tell you that it was only six years ago, I think, that we started to fund victims attending parole hearings, providing them with the basics of transportation and accommodation to attend a parole hearing. That funding only became available, as I say, about six years ago. So we're talking about some very basic support—tangible supports—for victims of crime, who carry the burden of the cost of crime in this country.

So this is a small measure. Also, I want to say that my final comments talked about the fact that this is one measure, but we need to be looking more widely at the whole issue of restitution.

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

Of course, an aspect of victims getting on with their lives is the importance of a healing process. A healing process often encompasses—and that would be my question to you—a realization, on the part of the person who did the victimizing, of their responsibility.

I wonder if you feel that's part of the healing process, and how you might explain to us how that healing process progresses, from your perspective.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

What I can tell you from speaking to victims of crime is that every victim is unique, and that what we need to provide victims is choice and options. For some victims, sentencing is a huge issue. For some victims, restorative justice or offender mediation is an important issue. For other victims, those aren't their priorities.

So the healing process means different things to different victims. What we need to provide within the criminal justice system is choice and options for victims. If a victim's choice is to enter into some kind of process that will involve the offender or involve restorative justice or offender mediation, then we need to make sure that victims have the information they need to make those appropriate choices.

As I say, each victim is unique, and I certainly want to acknowledge that there are many different choices and options that victims will see as priorities.

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

Now, we've heard from some expert witnesses that many of the awards or some of the awards that a victim, or the families of victims, such as.... We know that many offenders have families, and we know that some of the offenders have ended up having family court orders. We've been told that it is primarily a provincial responsibility, but is there a federal component to this?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I do believe there are lawyers who could answer this much better than I could, but what I was able to get through the Department of Justice—

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

Through your research, yes.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

—is that the federal government provides assistance and support to provinces and territories in their enforcement activities, and that the federal role in enforcement of child support orders is administered through the family law assistance services section. That section was established to fulfill the federal government's responsibilities under the Divorce Act and the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. I got that directly from the Department of Justice. It's their information.

As I say, there are people with much more expertise to speak to that. But there is a role to play there.

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

So there is a role for the federal government to play, and that basic role is to assist the provinces—

[Susan O'Sullivan]

That's from my understanding of the information that we were able to glean.

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

Very good, because I think it's important to see that there is a connection between the federal government and family court orders. While there may not be a direct ability for the federal government to be involved in it vis-à-vis ensuring that offenders do cover their family responsibilities, there is a federal component.

Thank you for bringing that to our attention, because I think we need to be reminded of that from time to time.

I think—as a matter of fact, I'm sure, and I know in your preliminary statement you indicated—that the bill puts the concerns of victims before criminals. Or at least that's the impression I got. We see, or at least I have seen in my past work, and I think you could allude to that also, that we have so many checks and balances that take into account the people who are brought before the criminal justice system. As a matter of fact, it concentrates on the accused, the charged person. Of course, of late we've seen both in our newspapers and through this government and through other agencies such as yours a realization that the victim should form as important a part of our criminal justice system.

I'm wondering if you believe that this bill once again begins to address the victim, the plight of the victim, vis-à-vis the circumstances through which a person's accused. In other words, to put it in the simplest terms, do you believe this bill puts the concern of the victim before the criminal?

And I just wonder if you could expand on, as you mentioned, the re-victimization—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you. I'm sorry, you're out of time, Mr. Norlock.

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

Oh. Sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll move back to Ms. Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Ms. O'Sullivan, for being here and telling us about how you see things. To be honest, it's nice to hear a point of view that's different from the one around this table. Given the work you do, in particular, you are fully aware of the needs of victims.

I agree with several aspects of Bill C-350. Usually, in society, a person must fulfill his or her obligations. In fact, all victims should have access to compensation of this kind. In your presentation, which calls for greater respect for victims, you made a number of very interesting recommendations that should be taken into consideration.

Like you, I think that Bill C-350 includes improvements, especially with respect to the previous one, Bill C-292. Among other things, compensation will from now on be shared more equally among the parties. And an order of priority has been set.

However, Bill C-350 seems to take on only a small part of this large problem of victim compensation. Would you like more improvements made to this bill? I'll go even a little further and ask this: if you could amend the bill or make it perfect, what changes would you suggest to us?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Thank you for that, because I'd like to add all the recommendations relating to restitution included in our report, Shifting the Conversation.

I think what we're talking about here is balance. This bill is dealing with, as I said.... I tried to find the data to look at what would be the actual moneys, and they are a smaller amount. We're talking about the huge of cost of crime here, and I think that the recommendations on restitution that we make in the report are very specific ones to get us as a country to make a fundamental shift to start putting the victim and the losses they've suffered to that.

Again, when I've been before committees, I do talk about balance because it's not an either/or here. When we look at our criminal justice system and healthy and safe communities, this include everything from prevention to intervention, to early intervention, and to where we end up at the other end of the criminal justice system. And for many victims, their needs go way beyond the point where the criminal justice system or court case has finished.

What we can do is to start with some of the very practical recommendations we have in this report. I think of the recent announcement for making mandatory the federal victim surcharge and doubling that, which will help raise funds for the provinces and territories. But I think we do need to be making some very concrete moves towards actual restitution and in how we're managing that on a national level in terms of providing some actual compensation.

One of the things that often comes up in these conversations—and I did have the opportunity to hear a few as well—is the offender's ability to pay given small amounts they earn. But when they come back out....

There is something in the United States I think we might want to look at. I need to do a little more digging into this. There's something called the inmate financial responsibility program in the United States. It basically works with offenders so that they can understand financial responsibility, including payment of debts once they are out of the institution and back in the community. I think it reflects some of the comments made that these debts are still owing. I go back to my position that difficult as it is for a lot of people to pay these, I'm going to put the victims forward.

When they aren't getting some of the basic services, the victims understand that the majority of offenders are coming back out into the community and don't want them to reoffend. There's not one victim I have talked to who does. They will tell you that they don't want what happened to them to happen to anyone else. They understand that the inmates need supports while they're in the institution and when they're back in the community. What they can't understand is why they don't have access to the supports that are in place and available to offenders.

So it is about a rebalancing and the practical things we can do to really take the costs off victims, Really, with 83% of the tangible and intangible costs of crime in our country borne by victims, we need to be looking at newer ways. And so there are some very positive recommendations in the report.

I thank you for that question .

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You spoke about a program in the United States that aims to make offenders accountable. In everyday life, they must pay the restitution, which seems fairly interesting. Do you think it is working well?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I don't have any data on the efficacy of this program. We've just started looking into it. What I like about it is its longer term view, that there's a balance and that it understands the accountability. When you talk about repayment of debt here, if it is restitution or the federal victim surcharge, what you're talking about is not just reparation of harm to victims. It is also about the accountability and responsibility of the offender. I would argue that rehabilitation and their correctional plan is what it's about. When the offender does go back into the community and either has a job or is getting moneys, they should be able to repay that debt. It can't continue to be the burden of the victims of crime in this country.