JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, June 3, 1998

• 1543

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Order.

It's Wednesday, June 3, and we are finally hearing from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime on this project.

It seems long overdue, Steve, but I want to welcome you.

Just by way of introduction for some of our colleagues who weren't here the last time, these national hearings—and the national forum, in particular—are in large part as a result of some work Steve did outside in the hall with me and with Priscilla de Villiers when we embarked on this in the last parliament.

It's especially nice to have you here.

I also welcome Theresa McCuaig, who is representing herself and her family, and her grandson.

Go ahead.

Mr. Steve Sullivan (Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime): Thank you, Madam Chair.

As always, it's a pleasure to be before the committee. It's of particular importance, I think, with these hearings, because we often come and talk about legislation to do with the protection of future victims, police powers, Supreme Court decisions, and those types of things. It's not often we get an opportunity to have a forum where we can talk about victims and what they need and the services they require.

Just by way of introduction, some of you may have heard Mrs. McCuaig testify at the last session. Her grandson, Sylvain Leduc, was murdered in 1995. There were trials involving both young offenders and adults, and they've all recently been wrapped up. Mrs. McCuaig would like to talk to you a little bit later about her experiences and the services she required and sometimes didn't receive.

Before I begin, I guess I'd like to mention—and I'm sure the committee is aware of this—that the whole notion of victims' rights really is not an accurate one, because when you get right down to it, victims don't have any rights, not in the same way accused persons have rights, for example. When accused persons' rights, for example, to remain silent and to be provided with a lawyer are not provided to them upon arrest, things happen. Trials are postponed, trials are dropped, charges are withdrawn. There's always a cause and effect if an accused person's rights are not provided to them.

• 1545

When a victim's rights—for example, to provide a victim impact statement, or to have information—are not respected, nothing happens. The trials don't stop, the charges aren't withdrawn, and nothing significant happens.

I think that's an important area to start the whole debate with, that victims are in a completely different domain when it comes to the justice system. The question then becomes, what is it victims want? I think they want basically four things, and none of them, I think, take away from an accused person's rights. One of them is to feel empowered by the system. When someone breaks into your home and vandalizes it, or kidnaps your son or daughter out of your home—and in Mrs. McCuaig's case, murders them—you don't have a role in that decision. It's made for you. It's made by the offender. He comes into our home. He vandalizes it. He takes your grandson. You have no power in those cases.

Then you go to the justice system. You may think, okay, this is where it's going to happen, this is where I play a part, this is where I can have a role. The crown quickly informs you, rightly so, that he or she is not your lawyer; they represent the state. The crime wasn't committed against you, in the eyes of the law, it was committed against the state. That's why it's Regina v. the accused and not McCuaig or Leduc v. Richardson. The crown represents the state. So the victim once again feels they don't have any power within the system.

It's important that we give that sense of empowerment to families and to victims so that they recognize that they do have a role in the system, because their lives have been affected by the crime. How can we do that? Well, one of the most consistent things I hear from families and victims is that they simply want information—information about the trial, information about when the preliminary hearing is going to start, what they can expect from the system, when parole dates are set. They want simple information about how the process works, what they can expect from it, and when the important dates are. Nothing in there takes away from an offender's or an accused person's right to a fair trial.

Another thing I think victims want is a voice, or some input into the process. When a crown attorney is considering a plea bargain with the defence lawyer, victims simply want an opportunity to express their opinion on that plea bargain or those discussions. They don't expect, and are not asking, to direct the crown in any way. They don't want to control the system. They simply want to know that when the crown makes those decisions, he or she has considered their input.

Their input is important. The crime was committed against them. They want a voice, for example, at sentencing hearings. As you know, victims have a right to do victim impact statements. Currently it's limited to written impact statements—and we'll talk a little bit about that later—but that's an important thing for victims at sentencing hearings, 745 hearings, and parole hearings, to know that they have some input to those decisions being made.

Again, they don't expect to be the judge and hand down the sentence. They don't expect to be the parole board and decide whether someone gets released. But they do expect that their opinions and their input are considered seriously.

The fourth thing victims want are options and choices. That's I think an important part of empowering families. Victims want the choice of doing oral or written impact statements at sentencing hearings, at 745 hearings, at parole hearings. Victims want the choice of being involved in the process, the choice of even doing a victim impact statement at all. As we all know, there are victims who don't want to be involved in the system. We need to give them that choice. We need to make sure they're aware that they can be involved if they want to.

That's where I think a lot of the provincial legislation about victims' rights to information and those other types of things fall down, because if a victim is not told what their options are, their rights are really meaningless. So I think choices would be an important thing.

The Minister of Justice has talked a lot about her priorities, and I think from day one, victims have been on her list. Public confidence has also been on her list, and it's on the list of the Solicitor General of Canada. I think victims and public confidence go hand in hand. If you can have people like Mrs. McCuaig come out of the process feeling empowered and feeling good about being involved in it, I think it will go a long way toward putting some confidence of the public back in the system. If families like Mrs. McCuaig's—and she will explain this to you a little bit later on—come out about the lack of services, it's no wonder the public doesn't have faith in the system.

We've provided to all members of Parliament, and to the committee in particular, a copy of a report entitled Balancing the Scales. I apologize to the French members of the committee that it's not yet available in French. As you can imagine, it's a lengthy document. We only recently got it translated, and are in the process of getting it printed now. When the final copy is done, we'll make sure that all members get a copy of it.

• 1550

We called the report Balancing the Scales for a reason. When I was in Mr. MacKay's riding earlier this week at his forum on victims, there was a lot of talk about balancing—balancing the rights of the accused and the offender with the rights of the victims.

We called the report Balancing the Scales because, as you know, there are two ways to balance scales when the offender's rights, for example, are a little higher than the victim's. You can take away from the offender's rights or the accused person's rights and balance the scales that way; I don't think we want to do that. There's a reason we give accused people the rights we do. We don't ever want to see the wrong people convicted, and we've seen a couple of very high-profile cases recently.

The other way to balance the scales is to add to the rights we give victims. Again, in doing so, that doesn't mean we take away from the rights of offenders. What it does mean is we recognize the concerns and the interest that victims have and we do what we have to do to recognize them.

We began the paper with a common theme, and it's important in this debate to recognize that a lot of progress has been made when it comes to victims in the justice system. Mr. and Mrs. McCuaig and I were talking just a few minutes ago about the fact that 15 or 16 years ago, the thought of a victim sitting before a parliamentary committee simply didn't exist.

In large part that is due to a family that testified before this committee before as well, Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldt. I mention their names because I actually got to see really how far the issue of victims' rights had come last summer when I attended the 745 hearing of Clifford Olson, the man who murdered their son.

When we went into the process—and I got to meet a lot of the other families as well—there was a considerable amount of mistrust of the police, of the crown, of the victims' services workers, and of the judges, because 16 or 17 years ago, the crown wouldn't return their phone calls and the police wouldn't talk to them. No one recognized that these people had an interest in the system and in the murders of their children. So going into the process last summer was quite fascinating, because I've never seen such a level of anger and mistrust between victims, crowns, and police before.

But as the process began and went on, the crowns took the time to sit and talk with the families and explain things, and the police were there to answer questions. You can imagine. One of the fathers of one of the children only learned maybe six years ago how his son died; he read it in a book. One of the families only learned at the hearing that their daughter had been kept alive for an extended period of time. So seeing that relationship grow between the police, the crown, the victims' services workers, and the families was incredible.

Talking with Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldt, who've been very active in the area since the murder of their son, listening to their experiences then and their experiences now, I think I have a sense of how far victims have come. That's not to say to any extent that we can't go farther, but it's important to note that we have made progress in the area of victims in the justice system.

Much of the report deals with provincial issues, and I won't go into those in detail. As you know, a lot of the rights and services that victims expect directly come from the provinces. It's important to note those chapters, but we won't go into them in detail. What I would like to do is just highlight a few of the main recommendations from the report.

Chapter 3 deals with criminal injuries compensation programs. Some of you may know that before 1993, the federal government did provide funding to provinces to assist with their compensation programs. In 1993 that was stopped, and since then I think two territories and a province have done away completely with their compensation plans. What that means is victims in Newfoundland, for example, have no compensation for the crimes committed against them, whereas victims in Ontario and British Columbia do.

It's an important statement about where we want to go with victims in making sure that wherever the crime is committed, we'll take care of you and your financial needs as best we can. So one of the recommendations of the report is that the federal government begin again making those contributions to the compensation plans.

Chapter 4 deals mainly with the Criminal Code. Some of the recommendations we made in there deal a lot with victim impact statements. As I mentioned earlier, we would like to see their use expanded to give victims the opportunity and the choice to do either oral or written impact statements.

Currently the Criminal Code allows for victims to do written impact statements, and it's up to the judge as to whether he or she will allow the victim to do an oral impact statement. It varies, and certainly impact statements done orally are becoming more accepted, but it's important that victims have that choice and know their voice can be heard in the courtroom. Some families don't want to do victim impact statements at all. Some will just want to do written. Others think it's important to do oral.

• 1555

We would also make an amendment to the Young Offenders Act as it's currently drafted, to the provisions dealing with the review of dispositions. As you may know—and Mrs. McCuaig certainly knows this—the provisions that allow for review of dispositions of young offenders who are in custody.... I think it's once a year they can be reviewed, with the possibility of putting the young person in a lower-security facility or into the community. Right now victim impact statements are not part of that process. We would like to see them be.

We would also give victims the opportunity of a choice to do oral impact statements at 745 hearings. That was one of the main concerns at the Olson hearing. That was a unique hearing in many ways, but the judge ruled that the families could not do oral impact statements. Of course the concern there was that Olson himself would cross-examine them. I don't think that's an issue in most hearings, but it is an important choice to give victims, if they do want to have the opportunity to do oral impact statements at those processes as well.

The other recommendations deal with expanding the current provisions in the Criminal Code, protecting young witnesses, and the use of screens and closed-circuit TVs, which I won't go into detail on.

The final amendment to the Criminal Code we would make is with regard to sexual assault victims. Mr. Lee knows the issue quite well. We would recommend that if they so choose, sexual assault victims be able to apply to a court to have an accused sex offender tested for sexually transmitted diseases. I refer to Mr. Lee because he at one time had a private member's bill dealing with that very issue, which arose from a case in Quebec of a grandmother who was sexually assaulted in a church by an offender who was on a work release program.

Chapter 5 deals with another federal area, one that you'll be hearing a lot about in the fall, and that is the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Again, we would expand the use of impact statements to allow victims to make oral presentations at parole hearings. Currently they're limited to written statements.

We would also recommend expanding the type of information that families and victims can receive about the offender while he's in incarceration. That's an important thing when we talk about public confidence. The way it works now is families can receive information about the parole dates, the conditional release dates, where the offender is serving his or her sentence, and what the security level of the prison is. They can't receive information about any steps the offender has taken to rehabilitate himself or herself or any education or employment training programs they've taken.

For some victims, that kind of information about an offender who is making a concerted effort to improve himself or herself would make them certainly a lot more comfortable with the parole process. The way it is now, victims don't have that information, and they have no idea what the offender is doing. Certainly in cases where there's a relationship between the offender and the victim—a family relationship—that type of information could go a long way in relieving the concerns victims have about parole.

We've made other recommendations on the CCRA, which I won't go into in detail, but all are based on protecting the interests and the rights of victims.

Chapter 7 is probably the issue we've heard the most about when it comes to victims' rights. It's an issue we talked about last year with the Reform Party motion to draft a national victims' bill of rights. The concern has been whether or not a national bill would be enforceable or whether we should call it something different.

The people I have spoken with and the victims' groups we work with basically are saying they want a national standard for treatment of victims across the country, so that victims in the Yukon will be treated the same as victims in Ontario or British Columbia. Whether or not a national victims' bill of rights would accomplish that or another form of bill or statement I don't think is the issue. We've never believed, I don't think, that a national victims' bill of rights would be an enforceable piece of legislation, in that most of those areas are in provincial jurisdiction.

What it would do, though—again, whether it's a bill of rights or a statement of some kind—is create that national standard to say that we, as the people of Canada, believe victims have a right to this, this, this, and this, and work with the provinces at that point to develop those programs and those rights. I think the federal government, while it may not have a hands-on jurisdiction with these types of services, certainly has a leadership role in Canada with regard to the treatment of victims.

• 1600

The eighth chapter deals with services that victims get across the provinces and the services that they require. I think Theresa will be able to tell you in her own terms about the services that she and her family needed over the last two or three years, and the services she and her family did or did not get.

The chapter on enforcibility is an important one. As I mentioned earlier, victims don't really have any rights. Until you create a mechanism of enforcement for those rights, they will be based on the goodwill of people like crowns, police, and judges.

It's a difficult and controversial area. But look for example at some of the things we recommended. Say a victim is not told that they can do a victim impact statement. Judges will be required at the sentencing stage to ask the crown whether the victim been given an option to do an impact statement. If the crown says no and obviously the victim didn't want to.... But if the crown hasn't asked the victim if they wanted to do one, then the sentencing hearing will be delayed until that choice is given to them.

If there is going to be a plea bargain, again, the judge will ask the crown, has the victim been given input into this process? If the victim hasn't been given the choice of presenting his or her options to the crown, then the plea bargain should not be accepted until that time.

Again, that's not to say that victims should have the power to set the plea bargain or sentence, but they should simply be given the opportunity to have that input. Giving them those kinds of enforceable rights goes a long way in doing that.

The final issue I want to talk about is one you've heard a lot about over the last couple of months when you looked at the Raymond Russell case and the Michael Hector case. The Solicitor General, Commissioner of Corrections, and Chairman of the National Parole Board testified about cases where offenders on conditional release have committed serious offences in the community.

Again, that is an area that Mrs. McCuaig knows all too well, because one of the men involved in the murder of her grandson was on statutory release. I think questions have actually been asked this committee about that. Last week, the Solicitor General's department, or Corrections Canada, released the report into that case.

As you've probably gained from our interest in those cases, one of the main concerns is that there's no one involved in these investigations who's independent from the government. Corrections and Parole are investigating themselves. The response to that from the Commissioner of Corrections and the Chairman of the National Parole Board was that they always appointed a community member to the boards to ensure that objectivity and independence.

Well in this case, as for the people who did the investigation, one worked for Corrections Canada at headquarters, and the other at the time was the chair of the National Crime Prevention Council, Mr. Ross Hastings.

I don't know Mr. Hastings all that well. I know his reputation, and I don't question his credentials. What I would question, though, is appointing a member of a council that was formed in part by the Solicitor General to review one of the Solicitor General's departments. I don't call that objective. I don't call that independent. Certainly Mrs. McCuaig and I have had discussions about it, and she has those concerns as well.

The point of these investigations, I think, is just to look at what happened, find the truth, and learn from that. The front page of the report always says “accountability, integrity, and openness”, which are the same three words that appeared on the investigation into the incidents at the Prison for Women a number of years ago.

As you may or may not know, that report was basically labelled a whitewash. It was done so because the inmates involved in that incident had someone they could go to to plead their case. It was a correctional investigator. He did his own investigation into the matter. He found that the review that corrections did and the report they released was not indicative of what happened.

That led to a big commission headed by Madam Justice Arbour. She said in her findings that the report corrections released was very much different from the original report done. It was actually the eighth or ninth draft of the report. As it went through the draft stages, it became less and less controversial. The basic conclusion was that everything was okay and nothing was wrong.

The commission showed that this wasn't the case. It was out of that process that the notion of the community member began. I don't think at the time when the commission envisioned the idea of a community member they felt that it was appropriate to have someone who was involved with an agency funded by the federal government. That's not independent or objective.

• 1605

What we're recommending—one of the chapters specifically deals with the issue—is the creation of an office for an ombudsman for victims. The minister has talked about an office for victims. We've been supportive of the idea. We actually met with her, Ms. Cohen, and Ms. Bakopanos to give our ideas and input into what that office could do and should do.

One of the things recommended is that it should have the power to be involved in these investigations, like the correctional investigator. We've actually, in the chapter, taken the powers of the correctional investigator and copied it for the office of the ombudsman for victims.

It's important because people like Mrs. McCuaig need to know that they have all the answers before they can find any sense of closure to those things. She can talk about that.

The people of Canada talk about having confidence in the system. How can they be confident that they know what happened with John Richardson when the people doing the investigation are from corrections, when the people who decide how the investigation is going to be done are from corrections, when the people who release the information and decide what's going to be released are from corrections, and the people responding to the recommendations are from corrections? The point of having independence is that you have someone else outside the system, outside the process, watching over it and deciding whether or not the whole truth has come out.

I think if we can leave you with one of our main recommendations, it would be the creation of that office, which can do other things. The minister has talked about that in her letter to the committee. But that should be one of the roles of that office.

I think at this point, I will turn it over to Theresa, who can talk about her experiences.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. McCuaig. Go ahead. Welcome.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig (Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime): Thank you for having me today.

[Translation]

I can also speak French, and whoever wants to ask questions in French is welcome to do so.

[English]

Where do I start? I will start with the evening my daughter was called to the children's hospital to be told that her niece had been badly burned. When she arrived there was an officer at the door of the hospital room, and that officer had been told to tell my daughter absolutely nothing about what was going on.

She was in a fit of panic. She did not know whether Sylvain had been with this little niece. All she knew was that when she arrived at her home, there were three youths missing in the house. The telephone rang and off she went to the hospital. So she was sitting there worried and wondering whether they were all together. Has Sylvain gone to his friend's home, etc.?

Anyway, she wasn't told until 6 a.m. that Sylvain had been murdered. Why? We were never told. There was such a gap in space. She screamed and yelled. She actually hit the officer because she wanted answers. She was given none until 6 a.m.

When the officers did arrive, no one had given any thought to calling me, her mom, to be there for her for moral support when you're telling someone such terrible, terrible news. There was not a special officer with them who dealt in grief. That would have been very, very helpful. She finally was able to locate a good friend who lived closer than I did. He came down to be with her.

She was taken to the morgue. Excuse me, that's wrong. She was taken to the police station to be questioned for something like two and a half hours before being taken to the morgue to identify her son. In that two and a half hours no one gave any thought to calling her mom to be with her. I'm very angry at that. I find that very hard to forgive. I will never forget that.

There is a need here for a special officer to be there to do that for her and ensure that someone is coming to be with her. That officer should come to our home after to explain to us what happens now.

She was in shock. She came back home to inform us that Sylvain had died, but she didn't know the court, whatever, whatever. We are not criminals. We are not familiar with the justice system whatsoever.

• 1610

She called me. I went to her home. She told me this terrible thing. My husband and I jumped in the car and ran down to the police station. This is our child. We raised him for 17 years. We want to know what happened to him. Who did this to him and why? We were not told.

You see, when he died at 2.30 in the morning he became the property of the crown, the police and the coroner. He was not ours any more. We had no say over his body or his defence, not a word, and we were hardly told what was going on and why this happened. We were lucky, because my husband and I refused to stay home and say oh, dear, oh, dear. No. We wanted to know. So we went to the police station and we were told very briefly, “Sylvain was beaten to death and he died at 2.30 in the morning. That's all we can tell you for now.”

We said, “My gosh, who did this?” A gang, they answered. We asked why, and they answered, “We don't know; we can't tell you.”

Everything was kept from us. I understand they must keep evidence for the case. I understand that. But my God, he could have told us Sylvain was there 20 minutes. They didn't tell us that. They wouldn't tell us anything.

And when we were asking questions, they were answering us like we were a real pain in the ass and it wasn't our business and, Jesus, when are we getting out of there? That's how were were made to feel, that we had no right to ask about our child. That's not right. We were told it was a bail hearing. What the hell is a bail hearing? What do I know about it?

Okay. The next day we go to this thing called the bail hearing and we were totally in shock to find out that, yes, these people might be released in the community. My God!

All these things had to be explained to us as to how it worked—why police were allowed to hold him, and on and on. If you don't have a record they can't keep you, and the case is brought forward now for another two weeks and if you want to know when it is you make sure you attend or call yourself because no one's going to call me at home to say okay, it's court day on Monday or whatever.

We had to go to court almost every day to find out what was happening, what evidence was coming out. Then we found out the driver of the car, an 18-year-old girl, had gone on three trips to kidnap people in the car. She had Sylvain, Natalie, Melanie in the car. They were beating on them during a half-hour drive and terrorizing them and telling them they were going to kill them. And she's driving the car, and she's hearing all this and she's seeing all this, and we're told all of a sudden she's not charged. Do you think that we were not jumping, screaming, and being enraged and calling the police and bothering them and yelling at them, why, why, why is she not being charged? And of course they were upset with us because we dared to ask questions.

If someone would have taken us aside and said they were going to have to make a plea bargain, and explained to us what that meant, explained to us that the girl is telling all the names, she's identifying them in a line-up at the police station.... Yes, she's guilty, but she's the only one who will talk, so we have to make a deal. We're not stupid. We would have understood that, but it was never explained to us. We weren't made part of that arrangement or plea bargain or whatever you want to call it—I call it “let's make a deal”.

And this went on three times. They made three deals with three different people, and we would only be told after the fact and again we'd panic and scream and yell, why aren't they being charged?

We went to court so much that the crown started to see us and consider us as family almost. Then they started sharing a little bit of information with us, explained what was happening. But wouldn't it have been nice if there would've been, I don't know, a person who deals at the courtroom to explain it to us? Not the crown; she's too busy. Not the detectives; they have their work to do, and we understand that. There was no one. We had to find out everything on our own.

• 1615

You live in rage all the time. Not only are you grieving for your child, but you're living in rage because it's not right to be treated like that. I'm sitting there thinking we provided the body and that's it. If there was no body, these defence lawyers wouldn't be at work, the judge wouldn't be here, the crown wouldn't have a job, and we're treated like dirt. We have no say. This is our child. If it was your child, think about that.

I just met a little girl last week. Someone murdered her baby. I went to court to offer her some support, to tell her a little bit about what's going on and where to go, because we don't have a service like that in Ottawa. She didn't even have the bus fare to get to court. It was the same as for us: we went to court with our own money. We redid our entire budget at home to be able to afford to go to court, gas-wise, parking-wise, and food-wise.

There's a lady who came to testify in our case. She was very brave and testified against her own daughter. For seven days she was deathly afraid of the Ace Crew gang, and it took courage to do that. That lady didn't have any bus fare to come to court. She could not join us for a coffee in the morning, she didn't have any money. That's not right. She's working for Canada to put these guys behind bars and we treat her like that. This is not right. The prisoner is escorted, and he doesn't have to worry about parking. His dinner is there for him when he gets to the police station.

These are things, like Steve said, that concern information. We didn't want to tell the crown or the police what to do, how to do their case, just get information.

When Sylvain died we had to rely on the press to tell us what happened to him. They were saying he was in that apartment for hours, he had been tortured and beaten for hours, he had been sodomized, he had been burned with a curling iron. These are the pictures we would go to bed with every night. We would beg the police. I called two or three times and asked: can you confirm this, can you tell me how long he was there, did he know he had been found, how did he die exactly, what did they do to him?

I know it's horrible to hear it, but it's your child, you need to know no matter how terrible it is. It took them a long time to call back. And I know it's hard for a police officer to tell you these things; that's not his job. There should be a special officer who deals in grief who comes to your house and tells you your child died at this time and this is how he died, and not to listen to all these terrible rumours.

It took nine months for us to find out that Sylvain died in that apartment. He was there only 20 minutes. The only way we learned it was by being at court and the officer who found Sylvain testified how he found him, what time he found him and what had been done to him. It doesn't take away the pain, but certainly when someone tells you your child was tortured for four hours, burned and sodomized, and you hear that it's not true, he was there 20 minutes, it helps a little bit. It soothed us a little bit.

I'll tell you what really angered us, especially at the young offenders' trial. Every day we'd go in there and the defence for the youths would get up and make a big thing, saying “Your Honour, their father and mother are in the courtroom”. Big deal. At no time did anybody ever say “Sylvain Leduc's family is in the courtroom; the victim's mother and father are in the courtroom.” We don't count. Make it look good for this kid and tell the judge his mom and dad are here, but to hell with Sylvain Leduc, it doesn't matter. That really upset me.

• 1620

The only time we were acknowledged, once we were acknowledged—gee it made us feel good—was when we went to the Court of Appeal in Toronto. I don't know how come, but those judges wrote our names down, that Sylvain Leduc's parents were here. It made us feel really good, that we were part of it, and yes, we were important, and that, yes, Sylvain was someone.

When the pre-sentence report on the youths came in the courtroom, they were allowed the social workers from the day care jail they were in, they were allowed a priest, their moms, their probation officer. They all got up to tell us how well they were doing since they killed our son. They had been in jail a year by that time, and they all came up there to give them a glowing report of how well they were doing in jail since they were there. Fine.

We never had the opportunity to tell the judge who Sylvain was, what his life was going to be, what plans and hopes and dreams he had. We weren't allowed that. Sylvain was not allowed a spokesperson to tell the judge that he had been on probation once, that he was doing really well. He had gone back to school. He was in hockey. He had got a job to coach. He was really happy. He was a good kid who never hurt anyone. It would have been nice to be able to tell that to the judge. We were never granted that right. The accused have that right.

This impact statement says.... I laughed, because it says on there.... There's a little form about this size. It says “Please use this form to tell the judge how this crime has affected you”. It allowed you about 20 lines or less. You know, I thought this is ridiculous. I wrote a separate letter and I stapled it to the form, hoping they'd accept it. Then I saw it said “The judge may or may not consider this”. Well, why the hell am I writing it if he may or may not consider it? I guess it depends on his mood that day, if he wants to hear about my pain and suffering.

There's not a right that says the judge must consider it—must. We were flabbergasted to find that once we finally did write these letters out, a copy was given to the accused. It's their right to have a copy of that. I couldn't believe it. I don't get a copy of their sob story to the judge as to why they committed the crime. I'd love to, but I don't get a copy of that.

When Sylvain died, my daughter was on mother's allowance and working part-time a little bit. There was nowhere for Carole to go and say “I need help to bury my son properly, with dignity”. There was no such place. They sent us to the welfare office. Two days after her son was dead and she's in shock and crying and upset, she has to sit there for three hours explaining to the welfare department, filling out forms.

We were sent to the funeral parlour. The director tells us, “You're allowed the cheapest, cheapest coffin that is sold.” No, my husband cannot add $ 1,000 to it to make it look a little nicer for Sylvain. You're allowed one day in the parlour, only one day. It doesn't cover the coffee or the mass. But because the funeral director was a very, very wonderful person, he let us have three days. He made the coffee for us.

My daughter had to borrow, on someone's charge card, to buy flowers for the top of the coffin. She didn't have any money. She used her rent money that month to dress Sylvain to lay him in his coffin, so he would have something special for the last time in his life. She got behind in her rent two months in a row. Her welfare was immediately cut and her baby bonus was immediately cut.

• 1625

I would like you to know that the youths who killed Sylvain were allowed to have their baby bonus in the jail, all the time they were there. They didn't go to trial for one year. They only lost that baby bonus after they'd been found guilty. So they were allowed to collect their baby bonus while at the Hay Centre, plus their weekly allowance over there. Where's the justice in that?

My daughter almost had to move to a shelter. She had to move from that apartment. She could no longer afford it, of course. The little niece she had taken in to help pay for this nice place is the one who brought death to her home. Now she was left with her and Daniel, her son. When they took the niece that night, she had Daniel's brand-new winter jacket on, $ 150 Carole had scrimped and saved to buy. The house keys were in the pocket. The killers have that jacket. My daughter had to find money to buy another jacket, have all the locks removed from her door, at her own expense, all in the same month. She had to buy a machine to put on the telephone because threats were coming in from the Ace Crew gang. They were calling her up, shooting bullets on the telephone to make the sound. We used those in the court. It helped to put away this bunch of....

My point is it's all money my daughter needed at that time to protect herself and her family and there was no one to give her any. The victim's compensation paper said “For emergency use, call us”. It was for emergency use. Well, that was bullshit. There's no such thing. There was a three-year wait before anybody compensated my daughter for those little expenses that amounted to $ 2,500. It took three years for them to pay her back, and we had to fight it all the way. This is not right. This is not right. Wouldn't it have been nice, when she was told that her son had died, if there had been an office in Ottawa somewhere where you could go and where they'd say “Here's what you're allowed. Bury your son. Don't worry about it today.” That would have helped.

What was needed was someone to say “Here's the law. Here's what's going to happen tomorrow: a preliminary hearing, a show cause hearing, a bail hearing.” We needed someone to explain all that to us. That would have been nice. It would have been nice to have someone tell Carole, “We know you have to move at once because you can no longer afford your apartment. Go over here; you are allowed a subsidy; we'll help you.” There was none of that. We ran and did all this. We pounded the sidewalk, we went to the mayor's office, we went to the welfare office, we went to the Victims of Violence office. Everybody helped a little bit.

I'll tell you who helped us: it was Max Keeping on CJOH. He made an appeal for my daughter on television; $ 3,000 came in. With that they were able to pay back her two rents and buy food for an extra month and allow her a little bit of court money every month to come to court. CJOH paid Carole's court fees to come to court—not Canada, not the people who killed her child.

I wrote on the back of my thing for the judge in the court.... It said at the back, “Are you asking for money for retribution?” I put down “Yes, we want the kid's jacket back, we want the machine paid, we want the phone paid.” I don't think he ever read it. So why bother having it on the back of that form?

This is what victims are faced with. The trial's over. It has been almost three years. They say “Why don't you just go home? It's all finished now. Go away.” It is because I don't want another little mother to go through this. It's not right. My life means nothing to me any more anyway. I have a choice. I am so enraged inside and so hurt that I have a choice: I can go after these people, because they're being released this week, and I can waste a lot of time going after them—and I know how to do it—or I can use this energy, this anger, to try to make something good come out of this, because my regular life is not there any more.

• 1630

I have a choice. I choose to go this route. I choose to help victims, to keep my mind busy and to lobby for desperately needed changes. It's not a luxury thing. I think Canada owes us.

If you are going to pay for a killer who is in jail to go to a family funeral.... Did you read that one? They paid a guy $ 10,000 to go to a family funeral. His dad died in some country somewhere and he was allowed to spend $ 10,000 to go to the funeral. But as for the person he killed—he's in jail for killing a child—that mother didn't have a nice funeral for her daughter. She couldn't afford it.

There's something wrong here. This is sick. It's not right. The balance has to change. They speak of balance. Let's start balancing. My God, we can't keep doing this to people. They're coming forward now. Victims are not going to take it any more. They're not going to sit home in a closet any more and cry. No.

It's not right. This investigation is a joke. Do I have a lawyer? Are you going to give me a legal aid lawyer to come with me tomorrow and say that this thing is a joke and that I'm suing? Can I have a free legal aid lawyer? Because if that's what it takes to change the system to protect another guy, yes, I would sue.

We're trying to do it the proper way, without hurting anyone. We just want answers; we just want the truth. Why was this guy let out to kill Sylvain? Who made the mistake? How can we fix the mistake so that another Sylvain doesn't die? That's all I want.

And what am I being given? Zero. And tomorrow I'm going to make a plea to some lawyer and ask him or her, “Do you want to take the case?” If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. But this isn't right. Why should I have to be put through that?

These kids that literally got away with murder because they wouldn't testify against each other are coming out of jail tomorrow, this week. I'm going to legal aid tomorrow. I'm going to ask legal aid if I could please have a lawyer to for a civil suit against these kids, because they're not going to laugh at me, they're not going to laugh in my face. They get to live in daycare for one year, two years, and walk away and continue their lives? No.

No. I want my daughter compensated for that damn jacket they have and for the house keys and whatever. I want to sue them all in civil court. Do you really think that when I get into that office they're going to say “Yes, Mrs. McCuaig, you're allowed a legal aid lawyer. Go for it.”? I doubt it very much.

An officer went to a lady's house the night Sylvain was killed. The lady told him something terrible was going to happen, that somebody was going to get really badly hurt, that he should do something. He did nothing. He didn't pick up this boy. Sylvain died two hours later at the hands of this boy. I wish I had a legal aid lawyer to sue that officer, but I'm not allowed that, am I? That's reserved for Richardson.

Richardson has been in the system for I don't know how many years. I don't know how many people he's hurt. He's had help from legal aid over and over again and he's still going to have legal aid—because they're going to appeal, I'm sure. It isn't right.

Unemployment insurance benefits? Wouldn't that be nice if there were unemployment insurance benefits for victims? If your child is murdered tonight and you want to go to court and see what happens and who did this to your child because you want justice, you can't just walk off your job and go to court for a year—because the process does take almost a year. But wouldn't it be nice if victims could get unemployment insurance benefits while they're at court? Not the whole family, but one member of the family. And that member can bring home the information. Because we're not getting any information at all. We're blocked everywhere.

• 1635

I tried to call the ambulance company that night to ask what time they picked up Sylvain, to at least give me an idea of when he died, of how long it took to kill him. They refused to answer me. It was a police matter. I called the hospital and asked how long he'd been there. They refused to talk to me. It was a police matter. There was no information.

Who is going to give me a 1-800 number to tell me where Richardson, Williams, and Edwards are going to be for the next 25 years? I'm told there's now going to be a number that I can key in so that I'll be told where that guy is at all times.

No one can assure me that if he runs away I won't be called at home. Because threats have been made. While we were attending court, threats were called in, and the SWAT team got us home. After two or three days, we said “Forget it. We don't want to live this way.” There have been threats made on our lives.

If these guys escape, will somebody phone us from the prison or whatever? Is that a right I have? Am I guaranteed that? I don't know. I'm not told anything.

I think I've told you enough. I think you're getting the picture. I hope so. Like I say, it's not that we want to interfere with the court. We just need to be told what's happening and when it's happening.

And for God's sake, let the mother have a decent funeral for that child. Being poor is not a sin. We're not second-class citizens. We're good people. We've always been. We've always worked hard in the community to make good things happen. We're still doing that. My daughter doesn't deserve this treatment. Nobody deserves this treatment.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I think we've given the members enough to think about. I think we'd both be happy to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: I'm just going to see who.... Chuck probably doesn't want to ask any.

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

The Chair: And you'll have some questions, Mr. MacKay.

I have Mr. Telegdi, and Derek, you have....

Go ahead, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: We have almost an hour left.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm not going to have a whole lot to say.

The Chair: I know you won't need the whole hour.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Steve, I want to thank you for coming here today.

And Theresa, what can I say? I know what it takes to do what you just did, believe me. And hopefully you've given a few people in this room a bit of a reality check.

Steve, I just wanted to question you about the proposed national office for victims. I know you dealt with the areas of problems within CSC and the National Parole Board, possibly with their investigations. But can you just maybe give us some ideas of what other areas you can see this office working in and some ideas about how to prevent it from becoming a bureaucracy?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: A lot of that, I think, depends on, first of all, who's running the office. If it is a bureaucrat who knows nothing about victims and their needs, then it will be a bureaucracy and it'll do nothing more than send out pamphlets and papers. With the right people, or certainly with the right input from victims if there's a board or that type of thing, I think the office certainly has potential.

I see the office as having a role in trying to coordinate provincial services for victims across the country. If there's something working very well in one province, I see the office communicating that to the other provinces. I would also certainly see the office having a role in providing information to victims' services workers and to victims and victims' groups who contact them about federal legislation that affects victims of crime.

• 1640

I see the office having an active role in providing input on the effects of any federal legislation coming down from the Department of Justice or Solicitor General with respect to what effects that legislation could have on victims and how victims could be involved in that legislation. The office could play a role in making sure that the views of the victims are brought to the attention of the people drafting the bills.

At this stage, the office certainly has the potential to be something very valuable. It goes beyond simply doing attractive pamphlets and those types of things. Many years ago, there actually was a national victims resource centre. It became nothing more than an office in a basement where one person worked and took messages about information people wanted. And that's not what this should be. This should be an active office that has the opportunity to represents the needs and interests of victims at the federal level. And again, we've talked about what we think the role should be for Corrections Canada and the National Parole Board.

It comes back to who is in the job or who's part of the process in running the office. It's important that victims have some direct input into how this office works, whether it is as an advisory board or part of a board, whatever the process may be.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have just one more point. How would you see handling what I can see as some problems coming with—how should I say it—the government being an interloper in provincial jurisdiction? I've had some talks with some of the people in B.C. and they certainly show some concern about their jurisdiction and their turf.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I wouldn't see this office as dealing directly with victims as much as it would with those who provide services to victims and victims' advocacy groups. The actual services and the information provided to people like Mrs. McCuaig and other victims would be done at the provincial level. The office would not have any kind of mandate to direct how those services would be done or what rights a province should offer.

I think it can, though, provide an important leadership and information role for the people who do provide those services and the people within the provinces who make decisions. For example, the role could be to say that a model that works really well in B.C. could maybe can work in Nova Scotia. In a central office, you could have all the information about what a province does and doesn't do and what exists at the federal level. I don't see the office—and others' concerns have certainly been expressed to us as well—impeding provincial jurisdiction. Ontario, for example, has announced the creation of an office for victims.

I think the perfect scenario would be a national office that worked in conjunction with similar offices at the provincial level.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Theresa, hopefully everybody listened hard to what you had to say, but in a couple of sentences could you tell us about the things that are important to you as a victim and that feel you did not receive, like the kinds of information and services that you feel are primary, that you don't feel you were actually given?

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: For myself, I understand that the victims' criminal injuries compensation board right now has a $ 2,500 fee that it is giving to a victim of murder.

Had there been an office that my daughter could have gone to the next day, the day after he died, where someone would have told her not to worry, “here is what you're allowed, go get your flowers, go get whatever”.... And if there would have been someone to say that someone there would guide her and show her where to go so she could get a subsidized apartment.... And if there would have been someone to tell her about other people who deal in grief management, to tell her that she could go somewhere at night and talk with other victims and have coffee so that she wouldn't be crying alone at home.... And if there would have been someone to tell her that she could work there, clean the tables, make the coffee, keep coming back, talking to other victims.... It all helps.

When you have a murder in your family, everybody keeps away. Nobody calls. Nobody wants to talk to you. They're scared. It's horrifying. They don't want to hear. I think they think it's catching. You're left alone. It's not funny.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Been there, done that.

• 1645

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: You're left alone. We tried to find other victims who could relate to this who we could talk to. Thank God Sharon Rosenfeldt was there. She helped a bit, but of course these people work. You know yourself, Chuck, you're spaced out, you can't do anything. For at least three weeks you're like a zombie and just going through the motions. That would have been a nice place to go just to talk, have a coffee, I don't know, make yourself useful, get some guidance or information.

We ran all over town every day looking for a place for Carole to live. We wrote the welfare department asking if they could please allow her an extra little bit of money for two or three months so she could make it. Finding out how to do things was hard. You're grieving and you want to be in court. It would have been nice if there had been someone in that office who had said “I deal especially in this. Come here and I'm going to tell you how your child died. I'm going to tell you what court's about tomorrow, what a preliminary trial is.” Then we would have understood. It was all so much at once for us, you know.

You're sitting in a courtroom, and months later you hear that your child's brain is sitting in a hospital somewhere in a jar. You're not ready for that, and nobody had told us that. We heard that from the coroner. We jumped this high on the seat. My God! We thought we had buried our child whole. That's hard to take. Or somebody tells you “It's going to be rough today because they're going to show pictures of your child in the courtroom, and we want you to know the prisoners are allowed to see them”. We didn't know that. That was really a rough day. Little things like that, you know.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Chuck, you would know yourself that Theresa's basically saying that information is important. She made reference to the compensation plan, with the $ 2,500 now for families of homicide victims. That's in Ontario and is very recent. There's been some positive change with the Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board with the appointment of their new chair, Sharon Rosenfeldt.

I think British Columbia also compensates families, but there are provinces that don't provide any compensation for counselling. For example, for families of homicide victims, there are provinces that don't have any compensation plans at all. That's why we talk about the disparity between the provinces. Some have good programs and others don't.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: They make me laugh, Mr. Cadman. I guess it's not funny, but it did say victims crimes compensation will allow you so much for psychiatric care. Well, who the hell has time to go for psychiatric care when you're in court every day? You want to know what happened to your child and why. You have to choose whether to go to court or go to the psychiatrist. I don't have time to go to the psychiatrist and I don't particularly like psychiatrists. But if I had had a grieving group at that office that I could have sat with at night, had a coffee and shared pain with, I think that would have helped in our recovery very much.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Sullivan for his contributions to the town hall meeting I had on victims' rights in my riding.

Mrs. McCuaig, I want to commend you for the information you've just provided us. I think the method you've chosen to focus your anger and your pain is the best tribute you can give to honour the memory of your grandson.

What I'm hearing as well, and what all of us are hearing from you, is the information exchange has to improve. The education of people within the system, those who are charged with the task of dealing with crime, such as crown prosecutors, police, defence lawyers, and judges, needs to improve.

It occurs to me that many of the atrocities, for lack of a better word, that happened during the last year or more could have been avoided because there are provisions in the Criminal Code. There are ways in which these things could have been addressed differently, if basic human kindness and common sense had prevailed. The use of a victim impact statement is one example. The provision is there that it is mandatory—it shall be considered by a judge.

• 1650

The discretion exists throughout a trial for a judge to accept a victim impact statement in a different form. Discretion isn't always exercised, and many times, because of this imbalance you talk of that exists between the rights of a victim and the rights of the accused, the judge will often err on the side of caution in favour of the accused for fear of appeal, for fear of some objection that might lead to the exclusion of evidence.

But it occurred to me throughout your entire gripping testimony that there could be more effort made to ensure that those players in the system are using the existing provisions of either the Criminal Code or the provincial statutes that are in place, which are a starting point, at least, for victims. If they were fully apprised of that, the system would improve.

It also occurs to me, as an overall statement—and I'd be interested in your response as well as Mr. Sullivan's—that those who are currently working in the system, all of those players I mentioned, are carrying such huge caseloads. This is not in any way to explain away or make any apologies for what's happened to you, but the caseload of the crowns, defence lawyers, legal aid defence lawyers in particular and police, and the backlog in the court itself seem to be the biggest problems that lead to all of these other systemic problems you spoke of.

There should be more resources available to put into simply having more players, more front-line police officers, more specifically designated investigators to deal with trauma, as you've said. A specifically designated person within a prosecutor's office should ensure that information is given about each case, particularly cases involving violence. There is the human need to know what happened to a loved one. That doesn't happen. That falls upon the individual prosecutor who's handling the file.

The Nova Scotia prosecutors were walking a picket line yesterday, which is ridiculous. The average caseload is sometimes 80 cases per day. Again, it's not meant to belittle what happened, but when an individual prosecutor has one file and reads the terrible circumstances and there are 60 more on the pile, getting that information to the victim who needs to know it is sometimes simply impossible.

So do you see providing more resources, just a basic increase in personnel, as a way to address some of the inequities?

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Do you mean at the police station or at the court house?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes. I mean having more personnel.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: If a special police officer who dealt with grief could automatically come to your home and tell you, “I'm going to get the autopsy report. I'm going to find out how your child died. Here's what's going to happen in court tomorrow.”—yes, sure. Is he going to come all the way to my home? Wouldn't it be easier if you had an office where all these services were provided? To me it would make more sense, but maybe not here.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I think your point is well taken. Some of the stuff, in meeting the needs of victims, is simply more resources. It's going to cost money to have more people and crowns, those types of things, in the provincial jurisdiction.

Yesterday the federal government announced $ 32 million for crime prevention. Don't get me wrong, crime prevention is an incredibly important philosophy and thing we do. But why can't we do something similar with victims' services? We could create a national standard saying what victims should receive from the system. The federal government could work with the provinces and provide funding to make sure their services meet these requirements, so there is a place where Theresa could go in the Ottawa courthouse and say “My grandson was murdered; what can I expect?”, and they'd tell her about crimes compensation and give her information about victim impact statements.

• 1655

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Yes, yes.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: The federal government has a role, and a financial role, in helping the provinces provide those services.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I was really surprised to hear that a victims' services officer didn't exist. I know this is a fairly recent phenomenon, but in Nova Scotia there is a victims' services office and a person assigned directly to the file to interface between the victim and the crown office.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Actually there is an office in the Ottawa courthouse, a victim witness program.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Yes.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I have yet to speak to a victim who has gone there and received adequate service.

What's interesting is that we talk about disparity across the country. I could talk about disparity across Ontario, because there are services in Hamilton and in Toronto and in other places across the province—

The Chair: Windsor.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Windsor of course, the centre of the universe.

The Chair: We try to always mention Windsor, Steve, and that way we all get along.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: All of B.C.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: No doubt in part due to Staff Sergeant Jessop's influence in Windsor.

The Chair: Oh, yes, that's absolutely true.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: There are services across Ontario that provide excellent service, but there is no standard even in the province.

So there is an office in Ottawa. What it does I can't tell you.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I think we all around this table would envision a victims' ombudsman or a national office as a means to address some of these problems. Would you see that officer or particular office as a coordinator as well for regional offices? This would help ensure the national standard that you would like to encourage.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Yes, the office could help create that national standard and work directly with the provinces, for those provinces interested of course.

Mr. Cadman mentioned provincial jurisdictions, and I understand the concerns about that, but what I would say to that is maybe this is an area where we can put aside those concerns and work together. It's not a question of the federal government saying this is what you have to do, but I can't see why a province wouldn't want to have the best victims' services programs they could have. So that federal office could work hand in hand with each province and develop that standard across the country.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I wrote down one other question at the beginning of your presentation, Steve. I'm playing the devil's advocate by asking you this, but I'm just interested in your response, because I've been asked the question myself many times.

Do you feel that the use of an oral victim impact statement, either at a parole hearing, a 745 hearing, or more commonly at a sentencing hearing at any court level, injects an element of emotion? And emotion is not always rational. We know that. Does that inject an element that perhaps does not belong at the time of sentencing? I ask that very seriously and not to belittle the emotion that naturally occurs when these atrocities take place.

I know court can be very sterile, but if a judge is to craft the appropriate response, do you feel that is jeopardized somewhat by the emotion that certainly would come from a victim impact statement given orally?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I don't think so. I've seen victims give oral impact statements at 745 and at sentencing hearings, and there is an element of emotion, but I'm not one of those people who believes there is no such thing as emotion in the courtroom. Whenever you hear a husband say he was provoked into murdering his wife because she was cheating on him and she made fun of him because he couldn't give her a child, that's emotion. When you hear an accused or a convicted person talk about how he's addressing his problems and he has a family that supports him and he loves them and he wants to do well, that's emotion. So the notion that there's no emotion in the courtroom is just simply wrong.

When a judge crafts that sentence, he or she should take into account the range of issues that have been addressed by that crime, and if a result of a husband murdering his wife or a gang murdering a young man or a young person breaking into a home is the fact that the victim wants to tell the court what happened and how that affected them, that's a result of the offence. And it's not even an issue of whether or not guilt has been.... It's not affecting the person's guilt or innocence, because guilt has been determined.

• 1700

So it's important that judges do, whether it's orally or written, have that input from families that want to provide it. I've seen victims give oral impact statements, and at times it is emotional, but maybe our system needs a little bit more emotion.

Did you want to add something, Theresa?

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Well, it boggles the mind that you ask me that. It enrages me, because in the courtroom, hell, they're allowed to tell the judge....

Last week a little baby was murdered at 21 months old. The accused had the opportunity to get up and speak; the judge asked him if he had anything to say. He's allowed to say whatever the hell he wants to. He'd been put in 29 foster homes since he was two years old, this boy—he's 20 years old—and now he's charged with murder. I felt sorry for him. I really, really did. He's the accused, and he did commit this murder, but I could feel for the guy. I'm sure the judge felt for him. The little mother didn't have the choice to get up and orally say how she felt.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mrs. McCuaig, just so you understand, I didn't ask the question to enrage you.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Oh, no!

Mr. Peter MacKay: I agree with everything Steven has said, and I've answered the question the same way. I simply wanted that information before the committee.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Yes, I'm sorry. The rage is coming back. I'm in courtroom flashback here.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Why is it that they're allowed and we're not allowed? Especially the young offenders—they have their mom talk on their behalf, social workers, psychiatrists, etc. We weren't allowed at all.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Were you given a copy of the pre-sentence reports?

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You didn't receive those?

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: That's another thing. We were never allowed to read the statements from the witnesses. I didn't even know we had the right to see those.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Again, just listening to the entire litany of things that went wrong in your case....

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Are you telling me we were allowed to have a copy of the pre-sentence report?

The Chair: Not in Ontario, I don't think.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Because they told us no.

The Chair: No, no, I don't think so.

Mr. Peter MacKay: In Nova Scotia you can.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Because it was a young offender, we were not allowed.

The Chair: Just to clarify, it's not even with adults in Ontario, I'm pretty sure. From my experience, we didn't release those. The accused's counsel was given a copy, but I think they were otherwise protected.

Do you know, Steve?

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Yes, you're right.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I'm not sure.

The Chair: That's certainly something we'll find out.

Mr. Peter MacKay: In Nova Scotia in fact there is a section in the pre-sentence report where the victim is consulted by the author of the report.

The Chair: Yes, that's different.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: We were asked if we wanted to say something at that time. Yes, we were asked to contribute something to the—

Mr. Peter MacKay: But you don't receive the reports in Ontario?

The Chair: Keep in mind that my recollection on this goes back to 1993 maybe, but—

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: No, you're right.

The Chair: —when I was crowning and when I was defending, the crown lawyer, the defence lawyer, and the judge all got copies of the pre-sentence report. The victims were usually spoken to by the probation department when they made the report. Well, if it was K Mart, they didn't check necessarily with K Mart to see about shoplifting, but they would check with a victim of a personal injury offence or a break-in or something like that, usually with a view to looking for some sort of restitution or community service or something like that, and then would go on from there. But I don't think a copy of the pre-sentence report was given directly to victims at all.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It happens on request.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: We were not allowed any piece of paperwork that went through that courtroom. The accused was.

The Chair: But that's the kind of thing we would be checking, in any event.

I'm going to pass on to the other people now.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Thank you, Mrs. McCuaig.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi and then Derek Lee.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Steve, to go to one of the comments you made about Regina versus the offender, I think it would go a long way if you talked about the community versus the offender. The whole sterile nature of what that implies, you know, leads to the reaction, should we have oral impact statements?

• 1705

It seems to me that if you at all, at any time, practice the restorative justice model—and it's very difficult seeing it in this case—it's important that you have the judgment day in court to serve as a catharsis for both the victims' families and the offenders.

I think it's critical that they realize the kind of impact they have had on people's lives. As we review the Young Offender's Act—we'll be dealing with it in the fall—I hope we keep that in mind. Because I think it's critical for those people who are going to be coming out again to realize the kind of devastation and destruction they've caused.

It could be very automatic at that point to put restitution forward. I mean, just make it automatic. There's a way of doing that.

This is the second time I've heard you testify before this committee. It's incredibly hurtful to us as a society, and I think what you're looking for, and I think what victims are looking for, is respect and sensitivity from the people in the system.

I know how the justice system works. I've worked with it, and I've watched it. I know that the crown attorneys are overworked, and I know the police officers are overworked, but what you need, and what people in crisis need, is some crisis intervention at that point in time.

I know back in the eighties, Mr. Chairman—and I hope we get some of that information out—in my community we had a victims' services office attached to the police department that could offer crisis intervention. It was funded federally, and it was an advocate for victims.

And you need that. You need somebody who can tell you what the system is, you need somebody who can tell you where to go, and you need somebody who can plug you into support groups.

In my community I checked out how many organizations we have related to victims' services. It's over 40. But at the point at which the rubber hits the pavement and you're in court, you're going through a crisis, and very heavy duty, and somebody has to be there to be able to respond on a real crisis intervention basis. That's the best way I can put it.

I think we have to look at what the federal government has piloted, because the federal government has piloted programs. We have to see how we can get those established. It's not too high a price to pay. I mean, we're paying a huge price.

There was one thing I wanted to discuss with you, Steve. Are you familiar with the victim and offender reconciliation program offered by Community Justice Initiatives in Waterloo region?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Not specifically in the Waterloo region. I'm familiar with the concept of offender reconciliation, but not in the Waterloo region.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Actually, it first started, for North America, in the Waterloo region back in the mid-1970s. It came out of the Mennonite Central Committee. It had an incredibly hard time getting established. One of the things they do is actually divert people away from the courts, as much as possible, where both victim and offender are involved.

It's not for cases like yours, Mrs. McCuaig, which was much too serious.

Some of the principles they do there certainly would be helpful in a national model. By having it between the victim and the offender and the mediator, there is a much bigger sense of justice being served, of justice being done.

• 1710

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Of course. Yes.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: There's a very high rate of repayment to the victim.

I did some of those cases myself—the victim-offender reconciliation, and when you bring a young person face to face with a victim of B and E, I mean, outside the victim being able to vent, they are reassured, because all of a sudden the person in front of them or across from them is not Clifford Olson, but it's a runny-nosed kid who has all sorts of problems.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Exactly.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I know in those cases it was important for the young person to realize the kind of hassle they caused without having even being aware of it. Then you can watch the victim becoming interested in the offender and in how can you turn your life around?

The whole restorative justice model is incredibly therapeutic. Not only is it a heck of a lot less expensive than going through the court process, it's also a lot more effective, if you use it in the right cases.

I will give you some stuff on that, Steve and Mrs. McCuaig. We'll talk to you after. I'm not sure as to how we can help you with legal aid and what have you, but we might be able to give you some assistance in that regard.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Really?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: If I could just add a couple of things you said about impact statements, I think in a sense it's based on or taken from that restorative justice model and the victim-offender reconciliation—you confront the offender. That would be part it. And again, with the victim-offender reconciliation programs, you're giving victims choices about how they want to go through the system and how they want to deal with it.

In our last chapter, we talked about restorative justice and victim-offender reconciliation programs and how the traditional victims movement—victims advocacy groups like ours and CAVEAT and Victims of Violence—I think have a responsibility to get more involved and inform ourselves a lot more about those types of programs. Because you're right, they can have an incredible impact on victims. It's another sense of empowering them, because they've had a chance to confront the person who broke into their home, or vandalized their car, or those types of things.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: And you know, you're saying not in our case, because it's too serious a crime. I would have given my right arm to be able to sit with these people and be able to talk to them and ask them why they did that. I'd have said “Here's how I feel; here's what you've taken from me. Justify it to me, why you did that. Maybe then I can grieve and put it away and go on to better things in my life, work towards better things for me and you, maybe.”

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No—when I was saying that, it wasn't in your case. No; I could see that happening within the courtroom.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Yes.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Many of the cases of victim-offender are quite separate from the court, as an alternative to the court process, but in your case, because you're obviously going to have a custodial sentence involved, you have to go through the court. That doesn't stop the court from being that place, though.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: But it would be nice if there were something like that, where if the offender wanted to meet the victim, one on one, and talk to him.... Maybe it would help them to grow a conscience. I don't know. I'd be willing to try.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you.

I wanted to first assure Mrs. McCuaig and Mr. Sullivan that testimony here today has been essential in setting a proper context for our deliberations on this subject of victims. In some small way, coming out of the very sad loss that your family has experienced, at least I have some sense that we can, in a small way, make use of some of that to build something here, in our Parliament.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Thank you.

Mr. Derek Lee: In the story that you've...well, it's not a story. In the real-life history we've heard, you and your family—and forgive me for being too analytical, but as we go through this process we must be analytical, because we have to produce, hopefully, some kind of a product, so we have to think it through—you and your family have been victims of a crime under investigation for a short period of time, and then you were victims of a crime being prosecuted.

• 1715

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Three times, three trials.

Mr. Derek Lee: Multiple, yes. Then you were victims of a crime for which the convicted person or persons were sentenced, and then you would continue to be victims of a crime for which offenders are being detained in custody by Corrections Canada. So the process continues. Those are at least four phases.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: That's right.

Mr. Derek Lee: There may be more, where I haven't compartmentalized it nicely. But those are at least four of them.

In any one of those compartments—because you've been through, at least partially, all four—was there a victim service or a victim procedure that you took note of that you thought might have merit or that you would like to commend?

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Victims of Violence were good to us in the sense that, using their letterhead, they wrote the welfare department for us on their stationery asking the welfare office to help carry us over this awful period of time. That helped, I think, because they agreed to help us out a little bit for six months.

Victims of Violence typed up a letter for us recommending subsidized housing, because although she was not a battered woman, in a sense she was a desperate woman running for her life because she was afraid these people would come and take her other son. That sort of helped to get a subsidized apartment. It did help to get a subsidized unit for her. We were very grateful for that. That's about all.

The victim...it's called the witness office in the courtroom. I don't know why it's called the witness office when it should read victim office. They were very nice in typing for us the victim impact statement we presented to the judge. We don't have computers and stuff at home, so they typed what we were trying to say. They put it for us nicely in words and made copies for us. We were very grateful for that.

One day Mr. Harnick happened to be visiting there, and I sort of went up to him and asked him, “My God, why are there no resources for this little lady coming to court every day, at her own expense, trying to put killers away?” I don't know what happened, but all of a sudden my daughter was given $ 7 a day to come to court. We were very, very grateful to have that. Now, I don't know how that got done, but, my gosh, that helped.

Those are the two areas where we got a little bit of help. The rest was the general public that came forward with little donations here and little donations there. As I say, Max Keeping on CJOH had an appeal on TV and people came forward.

Mr. Derek Lee: So there were a few organizations, a few people in the community who responded, when asked or when confronted with your difficulty.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: But that's degrading, do you know what I mean? You know, you're on camera, you're talking to you don't know how many people across Canada, crying because you can't buy groceries this week. That's humiliating. You're grieving for your son, you know...you don't need this. We were grateful to get the help, don't get me wrong, but it was humiliating for the rest of our family to see this on TV.

Mr. Derek Lee: Would it have been helpful...? I'm leading you a little bit here, because you're probably going to answer yes, but you might not. Would it have been helpful if at some point in the initial phases of this—it probably would have been the police department who might have done this—if they had said “Here is a victim service, a victim referral office; they don't provide any services other than referral, but if you contact them they'll at least direct you to volunteer or governmental agencies who might be able to respond.”—would that have been helpful?

• 1720

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: They did that.

Mr. Derek Lee: This was the Ottawa police department.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: The Ottawa police gave me the phone number of another Ottawa police called Louise Logue. She's supposed to be, I guess, psychological care or whatever. I asked Louise if she could she please find out how Sylvain died, how long he was there. She said “I'll call the officers to ask them if I am allowed to tell you and I'll get back to you”. She never got back to us.

Mr. Derek Lee: This was someone who worked for the Ottawa police department.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: It was her job to help us out psychologically, and that's the only thing we asked of her, to get the autopsy report. You need to know, so you can sleep at night.

Mr. Derek Lee: You may not know this, but to your knowledge do you think she would she have been in a position to refer you to other agencies?

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: She said she would call the investigating officers who have all that information and she would get back to us immediately with that information. I said “Oh, good”, but she never called back. It left me with the impression that we were not allowed to know.

Mr. Derek Lee: So you never got a chance to ask her anything else because she didn't call you back.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: She didn't call me back and I was too angry by her lack of.... Come on, this is your job, and you don't call back. What is she there for?

Mr. Derek Lee: If the Ottawa police were to provide you with even one piece of paper—maybe it's two pages, I don't know what it is, and I'm sure as heck not going to refer you to the Internet—or if they gave you two or three pages with a description of what's happening with the charging process and the court process and gave you three or four agencies or offices that provide information about A, B, C and D, would that have been useful to you in the early stages?

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Well, the crown immediately gave us a little booklet called “Crime Compensation” or something. I thought, thank God there's help. Well, we called those people, and boy, that was a joke. It was pathetic. It has changed now, I must say. There are new people working there, but these people were just...it was unbelievably disgusting.

Mr. Derek Lee: Not responsive.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: My daughter had to tell her story three times on the phone to three different people. They kept putting her on hold. They actually asked her where the body was, asked her had she informed the police. She was asking for immediate financial help to bury her child.

Mr. Derek Lee: So you were trying to follow the directions contained in this booklet.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: Or she was trying to follow them.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Yes. It was called victims—

Mr. Steve Sullivan: It was generally about the criminal compensation program of Ontario.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: And it said there that we have help if you need emergency help. We needed emergency help, but when we called them, you wouldn't believe....

Mr. Derek Lee: Was that in Ottawa or in Toronto?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: The office is in Toronto. I think they have a 1-800 number. But there's only one office, and probably, like other provinces, they're working under an incredible backlog, which, is at least in Ontario, hopefully, being addressed. Part of it is lack of funding.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: They are the ones who just settled with Carole. As I was saying, they gave her $ 2,500 to make up for what she lost, and it took almost three years.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you. My time is up.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Are there any more questions from this side? Mr. MacKay, go ahead.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I just have one question that's basically a follow-up to the area Derek was talking about.

Would you favour the setting up of a pool—it would be in the area of criminal compensation and it would have to be administered through perhaps an office of an ombudsman for victims—that could be tapped into and there would be criteria, putting aside $ 1 million also subject to charitable donations, that victims,—

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —upon application, could access for emergency funding such as you've described?

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Absolutely. That would have helped so much.

• 1725

Mr. Steve Sullivan: You could almost do that through the existing provincial programs, the ones that have it. The issue, again, is that the federal government stopped making the payments in 1993. Because of that, I think some provinces did away with their program completely, and others have cut back.

Again, it's an area where it's a question of resources. But that kind of money.... Theresa talked about three years. That's not unusual. A woman with whom we've worked for the last two or three years was beaten quite badly, and I attended the hearing with her only about four or five weeks ago. It's incredible what she had to go through.

So it's not unusual to have a two- to three-year wait in Ontario at least, and I suspect in other provinces as well.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So in terms of the announcement that was made yesterday about $ 32 million, if a significant portion—$ 1 million, say—was used as a fund that was accessible with certain criteria, this is something you would favour very much, as a victim.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Very, very much.

You know, if there was such an office, I myself wouldn't mind working there as a volunteer, with no pay. I'd keep the office going—keep it clean, answer the phone, or whatever. A lot of victims would come forward and work in that office, I assure you. That's exactly what a victim needs at that particular time in their lives.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: A lot of those services are being provided by Victims of Violence. They sometimes have people who will go to court with families. They will sit down and help people go through their compensation forms and give their impact statements. I know there are other communities across the country who have similar groups—CAVEAT, CRY, FACT, and other groups like that. People who have full-time jobs will do this because they know what it's like to go through the system.

So in terms of the services victims need, there's nothing magical about it. It's not going to fall from the sky. We know what needs to be done. It's a question of funding it and getting it done.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mrs. McCuaig, I want to thank you very much. You're very brave, and we're honoured by your presence today.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Any comments, Mr. Cadman?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes, following on what Mr. MacKay was talking about.

First of all, we have to realize that the definition of a victim varies from province to province. I know in B.C., in legislation a couple of years ago, we included the family members of homicide victims as being eligible for compensation.

Now, that doesn't hold true right across the country, but before we had that changed.... I mean, I can tell you some horror stories. I know of one mother who was told that she wouldn't get compensated for grief counselling because she didn't actually witness the murder of her daughter. I know of another one who didn't get compensation for grief counselling because somebody decided she hadn't gone through enough trauma when she actually witnessed the body of her son being dug out of the ground. That wasn't traumatic enough.

A lot of the problem in B.C. at that time was because criminal injuries compensation was worked out under workman's compensation. It still is, but things have changed through the legislation. A lot depended on the people you were working with; having a bad back is not the same as witnessing your child's murder.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: It's only recently in Ontario that families of homicide victims have been given money for grief counselling and those other types of services. Before the change, you had to basically be put into a mental institute before you were recommended for compensation. “Nervous shock” was the definition. Other provinces don't recognize families of homicide victims at all.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

Mr. John McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Sullivan and Mrs. McCuaig.

Your evidence is so troubling, it's difficult to formulate questions that move us toward where we want to go here, which is the preparation of some legislation and some good advice to the minister.

I want to be a little bit more precise, shall we say, with respect to the consultation at the point of plea bargaining, which is a critical point in the trial. I can see it as being fraught with all kinds of difficulties, where a crown attorney would be looking at the evidence with some degree of objectivity, which may not be shared by the victim, and being mandated to consult the victim.

• 1730

I'm interested to know, when there is a disagreement between the way the crown wants to go, what the crown thinks they can obtain on the evidence the crown has available, and what the victim thinks is appropriate, how is that potential area going to be resolved?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: The reality is it's the crown's decision. Simply because we recommend giving the victim the choice of having some input doesn't mean that once that victim gives their input they're going to be happy with the result. There are a lot of things, I think, that victims—and Theresa has certainly talked about them—aren't going to be happy with at the end of the day, but the least we can do is assure them that their concerns were noted, that the crown thought about them and weighed them, and at the end of the day made a decision that may not please the victim but is best, in his or her opinion.

You are going to have victims who aren't going to be happy with that. That's a reality. The system, to be blunt, isn't there to make victims happy, but it should be there to make them feel like they have a role in it and that it empowers them to some extent.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: After two years, the crown, after seeing us in court for so long, decided to call us in one day to explain a plea bargain that had to take place. Just being invited was a big thing for us. To be acknowledged was a big thing for us. We sat there, and she put it to us very well why she was caught in a catch-22: If we go this way, here's what could happen, and if we go this way, here's what could happen, so I'm using this way, which I think is best for us all.

Yes, we could see it. Yes, we weren't stupid. We understood exactly what was happening. Yes, the crown had no choice. We told her she had no choice, and to go ahead.

I mean, we had no say anyway, but at least we felt part of it. We certainly understood her position. That's the way the law works, and we weren't happy about it, but we understood her position, respected it, and never gave her any trouble or back talk or whatever.

When we sat in the courtroom, we knew what was coming because we had been briefed. We knew everything. We weren't happy about it, but it was acceptable. It wasn't done behind our backs.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Again, it comes back to information, sitting and explaining, as Theresa said, why a plea bargain's necessary.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Because there's usually a really good reason.

Mr. John McKay: How would this work? Would you see the victim in effect signing off on the plea bargain?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I don't know if it would be that formal. I would expect that after a plea bargain agreement is made between the defence and the crown, at the time of sentencing the crown would either indicate to the judge that they've consulted with the victim or talked with the victim, or the judge would ask. I don't think you'd have to go so far as to say that you have to have a piece of paper that said it. You're in a court of law.

Mr. John McKay: Would you mandate the judge to ask the victim whether they had been consulted?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I would mandate the judge to ask the crown if he or she has consulted with the victim.

Mr. John McKay: Ask the crown, not necessarily the victim.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Because it might be a case where the victim isn't there. They didn't want to consult. They didn't want to know it. So that could create a problem. Asking the crown I think would be sufficient.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. How would you do this? Would you codify it into instructions to crown attorneys or would you actually legislate it?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I think you'd have to legislate it, perhaps put it in the Criminal Code. It would have to come up in the federal government. I think—and perhaps I'm mistaken—it would be an issue that would be under the federal jurisdiction to legislate. But I think it would be appropriate if legislated for judges.

Mr. John McKay: Let me go to another issue, which is one of considerable contention, the point of return or release of the accused—well, no longer “accused” but now “convicted”—back into the community. Again, I'd be interested in your comments as to how that's going to work. You have a panel of parole officers or whomever, who are making the decision that this individual is ready to come back into the community. At this point I think it's just “Here's our statement”. How would you move it beyond that point?

• 1735

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Victims right now can, if they wish, contact the parole board or corrections and be notified of an offender's parole dates. They can attend the hearing and hear the decision. They can obtain a copy of the parole board's decision sheet that says why they made their decision and what it is, or they can be contacted by the parole board that Joe Blow was granted parole on June 22 and he'll be released into this area on July 4. So victims have the right to obtain that kind of information right now.

Mr. John McKay: Would you move it beyond that?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I don't think so. I guess the only concern we have about the area is making sure victims know they can receive that information. Very often people will contact our office and say they saw the offender the other day walking down the street. When I ask them if they contacted the parole board and asked for information, they say they didn't know they could do that.

So it's not a question of the provisions not being there, but sometimes victims aren't told. Again, I'm not saying the parole board should contact every victim in Canada, but the crown or the police or something at the end of the day should say “Here's a number. Here's an address. If you want the information you can get it.”

Mr. John McKay: So at this point you're not really asking for a legislative change—

Mr. Steve Sullivan: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there's certain information victims should be entitled to that they're not now. If they attend the hearings they'll get that information.

Whether the offender has made efforts to change himself, better himself or take programs is the kind of information that could go a long way to alleviating the concerns victims have about parole, if they know that the person really is making the effort to change. Again, that's more important in situations where there are relationships there. That kind of information right now can't be released to victims, unless of course they attend the hearing and hear the remarks. That's the only area where we would just simply expand the kind of information victims can receive.

Mr. John McKay: Would you expect there to be a paper trail in the file of the parole board, or whatever the releasing entity is?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Once the victim writes to the parole board or calls the parole board, my understanding right now is that the file is flagged, and what is on the computer or in the file....

Mr. John McKay: But it's victim-initiated, rather than initiated by the parole board.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Yes. Again, it comes down to giving the victim the choice. Then if they want to contact the parole board it's up to them to do that. Some victims go through our office because they don't want to receive the information personally. But I would leave it in the hands of the victim. If they want the information, they will take the step to get it.

Mr. John McKay: A victim may want to just bury this incident and not really address their minds to it, and then suddenly bump into somebody in the mall.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Yes.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: If they make the choice that they don't want the information, you can't force them to take it. Some never want to hear about it again, and that's a choice they have to make.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Last question, Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Just on the point of definition of a victim, we have a little crib sheet here with respect to Ontario. It says a victim includes a child, a dependant, or a spouse of a deceased victim. Is it your understanding that in Ontario it's broader than that?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I think that's the Ontario definition.

Mr. John McKay: That's right. But in that definition Mrs. McCuaig would not be a victim.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I don't think Mrs. McCuaig received any compensation.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: Yes, I did.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Did you? I apologize. The compensation plan is much broader. But you're right—that's one of the areas we mentioned in our book—that the Ontario definition excludes grandparents. Other provinces are like that as well. British Columbia certainly has the broadest definition.

The other area we recommended to the provinces they expand is same-sex couples, because some provinces don't recognize homosexual relationships. Again, I think British Columbia recognizes those people.

Mr. John McKay: Presumably step-parents as well would be—

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Step-parents, step-siblings—the definition in the Criminal Code I think is much broader.

Mrs. Theresa McCuaig: It should include anyone who is responsible for a dependant. Whether they are blood-related or not, you're responsible for that dependant.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Ms. Cohen.

• 1740

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Just tell me quickly what money was cut off in 1993. I missed that. I was downstairs trying to make people be quiet.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: The federal government used to provide financial assistance to the provinces to run their criminal injuries compensation programs. That was cut off in 1993, I think, by the previous government. I'm not sure of the reasoning, but the result was that some provinces cut back. Other provinces did away with their compensation programs completely.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: But you're not blaming all deficiencies in provincial compensation programs on that.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: No. I'm just saying that was done. It's an area where we think the federal government has a role as well.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Are you encouraged by this process? Is that a fair question, Steve, in terms of how we've set it up, where we're going and that sort of thing?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I think so. I know there's going to be the national forum and the minister's made positive remarks. We've had an opportunity to speak with her. Any time there's a committee hearing or forum or something on victims' issues, I think it's a positive experience. So we're pleased to date. When we see the final product we may not be pleased, but certainly we're pleased with the process.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: At least you'll know about it as it's happening.

Finally, I know you spoke at Mr. McKay's forum in his riding. All members of Parliament have been asked to conduct forums, and I think many are. Without putting you on the spot, would you be available if reasonable requests were made to you to participate?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Yes.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Do you have funding to help you with that?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I have a travel budget.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: So if we all tell our caucuses you're available to assist and participate, regardless of the political party, would you do that?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: It would be my pleasure.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Thanks a lot.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Ms. Cohen.

Mr. Sullivan and Mrs. McCuaig, we very much appreciate your attendance here again. You certainly have contributed to the process and we thank you very much.

With that, our meeting is adjourned.