Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2012

[Michael Anderson]

The other important part, though, is this. I mentioned our emphasis on restorative and community-based justice systems. We place a great deal of significance on those initiatives, because within our communities we want to bring victims and offenders face to face to resolve the issues between them. We believe that reconciliation—as distinct from enforcement and incarceration approaches—is absolutely critical to public safety in our communities and, we would say, also to all Canadians.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

You've actually just covered my second question, so I have one last question I would ask today.

Have you seen examples of settlements through the Indian residential school agreements that have been part of the reconciliation process and have been shared out to others in the community?

[Michael Anderson]

Well, as a matter of restitution with a person who they may have offended in some manner in their life...?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Yes.

[Michael Anderson]

I do know that the settlement payments can be distributed within the communities to do good things in terms of the purchase of needed hunting and harvesting equipment to improve the lives of individual families.

In some cases, that may indirectly improve the lives of persons they may have adversely affected. I don't have an example of direct correlation that I can speak to at this point.

Generally, the concept in our first nations is community. When someone begins to take steps within the community to share the benefit of their healing process and also the physical outcome of that in terms of equipment that might be needed by the community to harvest, to make repairs to homes, and things like that, those steps are benefiting a large number of individuals and in general more widely benefiting the community as a whole.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

So you would say that the pattern you have seen is the sharing out in the community of those awards.

[Michael Anderson]

Yes, absolutely.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to ask a question now of Mr. Sullivan.

You said in your opening remarks that you thought this bill would have a small impact. Are there ways in which you think this bill could be improved to have a larger impact? Or are there other things that you think should be a priority instead?

[Steve Sullivan]

We could spend all afternoon talking about the number of different things. I think this bill has a very specific focus. It's very targeted.

With respect to the discussion about the residential school settlements, I think that on a practical level that would be a very small problem. You would need to have a first nations person in federal prison who has a restitution order or victim fine surcharge and who also is getting a residential school settlement.

Victim fine surcharges are really small. For the most part, you're looking at $50 to $100. So if someone were to get an award and then someone would be required to pay that, it's a relatively small amount. Unless it's a white-collar crime, restitution orders are relatively small. They're focused on property.

These are not large amounts of money, so I'm not sure that would be a particularly big problem. I think we're looking at the back end of the system.

One thing I would agree with is around restorative justice. There's a program within the Correctional Service of Canada that does seek to bring victims who want to meet their offenders or have a discussion with their offenders about the offence.... I know families who have done that in homicide cases and sexual assault cases. That's an incredibly well-run program that is respected around the world. That's a very positive thing. The victims you speak to who choose to go through it—it's not for everybody, and I would hesitate to encourage people to do this, because it is very personal—report incredibly high levels of satisfaction with that process.

So I think those kinds of mechanisms, both within Corrections and beyond, and having our sentencing principles be more reflective of restorative principles.... It's actually talked about in the Criminal Code, but we don't actually see very much in practice.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Would you say that victims are aware of the possibility of that reconciliation program? Or do most know about that?

[Steve Sullivan]

It's not well advertised, in part because it's a fairly small program. It's a fairly lengthy program, and in any one case, there's no structure to it.... It's really victim-driven. There are cases that go on for years because victims decide they want to step back, and then maybe they want to meet, or they don't want to meet but have letters exchanged. There are those kinds of things.

I think the benefit of the program is that it is so flexible, but it's a fairly small program, not well advertised, and not well promoted. I think that just because it's so small they're hesitant to promote it too much, because if more victims demanded it, they couldn't meet that demand. So I would say that most victims are probably not aware of it.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Would that be a funding or an expertise question in terms of meeting more demand?

[Steve Sullivan]

It would probably be a funding issue.

I certainly can't speak for those who run the program. I want to be clear about that. I think they would be hesitant about expanding it too largely, because there aren't all that many people who are experts at doing those kinds of meetings. So if it were to grow, it would have to grow fairly slowly, but largely it is a funding issue.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have half a minute.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

On the remarks you made on the residential school settlements, I guess you were focused on the amounts. I think the concerns we heard from the Manitoba first nations were not focused on amounts but rather on the concept and the principles. Would that be correct? That's the difference...?

[Steve Sullivan]

I won't speak for the other witness, but my sense would be that if someone.... I respect the apology and I listened to the apology, like many Canadians, and on the settlements that are being given, I understand why and how that's being done. But I think the principle, though, is that someone who is receiving compensation from the government for being victimized would then not compensate the person they victimized—court-ordered restitution or whatever the case may be. For the person they victimized, that would be doubly offensive to them, and I don't think.... Certainly, in regard to victimization, you can go through the federal correctional system, and probably there are very few people there who haven't been victimized in some way as young people. But that can never be an excuse for creating other victims.

Obviously, it's a factor considered in treatment, sentencing, rehabilitation, and programs, but it can never be.... In all the programs that are run in prison, it's never an excuse for creating more victims; I would not support an exclusion, because I think it does promote responsibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Garrison.

Mr. Rathgeber, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony and for your thoughts.

Mr. Anderson, let me start with you. No one is more sympathetic to the plight of victims of the residential school system than I am, but I'm troubled and confused by the suggestion that compensation paid pursuant to that settlement ought to be exempt. I guess I agree with Mr. Sullivan, for reasons that I'm going to explore with you in a second. I have not seen the NDP amendment, but I anticipate that it will create an exemption.

Let me suggest to you, by way of background, that I spent years as an insurance lawyer. Again, I don't mean to sound unsympathetic—because I am very sympathetic—but you indicated that compensation paid to the victims of the residential school system was an attempt to right a wrong. I agree with that, but I must say that all victims of all claims—whether it's a tort claim against a government or whether they're a victim of an automobile accident—believe the compensation they receive is an attempt to right a wrong. That is not to diminish the pain that the individuals you represent went through, but all victims legitimately feel that in their own way.

My question is this. In Manitoba.... I don't know anything about debtor-creditor law in Manitoba, but I know a fair bit about it in Alberta. Residential school settlements would not be exempt from normal provincial execution rights that creditors have, so that if an individual received a settlement pursuant to a residential school settlement, and I was representing a creditor of that individual, I would have full access of execution pursuant to writs and garnishee proceedings. Is there something different in Manitoba that I'm not aware of?

[Michael Anderson]

There's a large number of concepts there. I'll start with the last one.

I take it that your example is pursuant to the laws of the Province of Alberta.

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

It is, under normal debtor-creditor law.

[Michael Anderson]

All right. The distinction here, firstly, is that it's a piece of federal legislation that we're discussing. Her Majesty had a significant and central role in the Indian residential school system, unlike the Government of Alberta, which may have been involved in some way, but it was a policy of the government, of Her Majesty, so there is a major distinction in terms of the origin of what we're describing as the wrong.

The federal government itself has acknowledged its role through an apology delivered in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister of Canada. I would say respectfully that that significantly distinguishes the type of wrong we're describing that might be otherwise addressed through the ordinary court recourse under the laws of Alberta.

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

I understand all of that, but my question is.... Today, in May 2012, if an individual in my province of Alberta came into a settlement—today—without this piece of legislation, and if I represented a judgment creditor of that person, somebody who had successfully sued that individual in court, I would be able to attach the proceeds of that settlement.

So my specific question is this. I don't know if you're a lawyer; I suspect you're not. Do you know of anything in Manitoba law that differentiates what would be the normal rights of a creditor today to attach the proceeds of a residential school settlement?

[Michael Anderson]

I am not a lawyer, and the comments that I'm making are not a legal opinion, although I work closely with our lawyers.

No, I am not—subject to check—aware of something that may make moneys an individual has not subject to some form of allocation through an order of the court.

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

Sure.