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]

Tuesday, June 9, 1998

• 1007

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): We have a quorum for hearing evidence.

Today we have with us, from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Susan MacAskill, national president, Joanne Jarvis, national victims services coordinator, and Susan McNab, Ottawa chapter co-founder.

It's very nice to have you here. I know you have a presentation to make, so we would like to hear from you. I'm sure everyone will have questions.

Ms. Susan MacAskill (National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving): Good morning. My name is Susan MacAskill, and I'm the national president of MADD Canada. I've held this position since last October.

I'm from Windsor, Nova Scotia, where I have been a member of the Annapolis Valley chapter of MADD since 1995. Susan McNab, Joanne Jarvis, and I will all make brief opening comments, and we look forward to the question and answer exchange with the committee.

As many of you know, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a volunteer-driven and volunteer-directed grassroots organization dedicated to stop impaired driving and to support the many victims of this violent crime. Our national organization is unique in many ways. For our parliamentarians, who are the watchdogs of public money, I would like to point out that MADD Canada raises all of its money through donations from Canadians. There is no government money given to this organization. We have provided the clerk with copies of last year's annual report so that you can see that almost 98% of our money is received from donors.

MADD Canada has more than two million supporters across this country. Unfortunately, many of our active members are victims of drunk driving. Our members spend endless hours supporting fellow victims and promoting sober driving practices. They spend endless hours assisting victims, families, and friends through the judicial process or in their grieving, or by making presentations to school groups and facilitating public awareness programs.

Our volunteers work closely with local police and community leaders to make their respective community streets safer. MADD Canada volunteers are vocal in pursuing solutions to the problems caused by drinking and driving, and we are all anxious for the government to become proactive across Canada in responding to this terrible criminal activity.

• 1010

With 1,600 Canadians killed by drunk driving each and every year, there needs to be some action. On average, each and every day, four and a half Canadians are killed by drunk driving. When compared to our national homicide rate, drunk driving kills three times the number of those who are murdered every year in Canada. This crime is totally preventable, and we must stop it.

On May 29, 30, and 31, MADD Canada held its annual leadership conference. We came away from this weekend refreshed and revigorated. A very important development took place during that weekend. Our organization set its sights on significant strategic goals for ourselves and Canadians over the next five years. I'll share two of these goals with you today.

First, in striving to stop impaired driving, MADD Canada is looking to reduce the number of people killed per day as a result of drunk driving to three by December 2000 and to two by December 2003. We are committed to cutting the number of Canadians killed by drunk driving in half in the next five years.

Second, our organization is committed to providing more victims with more service. We are focused on reaching out to more victims of this crime. We are putting programs in place to train more of our volunteers and to ensure that professionals are trained in the sensitive and important area of dealing with victims.

We share these goals with you today because the federal government has an important role to play in helping us and all Canadians to reach these goals of saving lives and supporting victims of all crimes.

MADD Canada is here today to once again call on the federal Minister of Justice and Parliament to enact a national victims' bill of rights to set national standards for the treatment of victims within our country's courts. The core principle of such a standard would be to ensure that all victims of crime are treated fairly and that they are given rights parallel to those of the accused within the judicial process.

We call on the federal government to enact a national victims' bill of rights that will provide the provinces with a code to ensure uniform rights for victims in any court in our country.

We will speak a great deal more on this. We look forward to answering questions on the matter.

I'm going to ask Susan McNab now to speak to you. She's the co-founder of the Ottawa chapter of MADD.

Ms. Susan McNab (Ottawa Chapter Co-founder, Mothers Against Drunk Driving): Good morning.

Everybody thinks that victims have rights, yet in Canada today, that is not the case, victims do not have rights. If victims are fortunate, they have courtesies extended to them. What might be common practice in dealing with victims in some jurisdictions is not afforded to victims in cases tried in other jurisdictions. What happens in Ottawa does not happen in Vancouver. It might not even happen elsewhere in this province, like in Windsor. That's because victims are given courtesies in some courts today, but they have no rights. When it comes right down to it, our criminal justice system does not consider victims and their rights.

In your study of victims' rights, you're hearing people tell you about being revictimized by the system. The sense of victimization is very real when a human being comes face to face with our insensitive courts and legal process, and I can personally attest to this statement.

You're welcome to look through this after. These are basically clippings from the media on the case of my son's death. These are media clippings from many boxes of documentation, which of course I didn't bring with me today.

On August 22, 1994, Shayne, my 16-year-old son, had spent the day with his good friend and buddy, Sean. They cycled, played Nintendo, had supper at Sean's home, and watched a movie. Shayne left Sean's home at about 9.50 p.m.

In the same area as Sean's home, Detective Constable Serge Loranger had joined some fellow officers and a close friend at a bar known as City Slickers to have some beer and wings. Detective Constable Loranger left the bar at approximately 10 p.m. My son Shayne and Detective Constable Loranger drove the same road, and at 10.10 p.m. my son was dead.

• 1015

On the morning of August 23, 1994, the nightmare began. Shayne no longer belonged to me; he belonged to the authorities. I was not allowed to see him, and probably because of this, I could not believe he was gone—that his heart, which had once been a part of my own body, was no longer beating. I thought maybe they were all wrong, and if only I could hold him to me, I could make his heart beat again.

Finally, five days later, I saw my Shayne, laid out in his coffin. Again I was told not to touch him, other than his hands—his beautiful, long fingers with no nails.

I still did not know whether he had lain on the side of that roadway alive, waiting for someone to help him—if he had suffered. Nobody would tell me. I couldn't eat or sleep, and the prescription drugs at least kept me from screaming out my agony.

All through this pain, I was in torment over his nails. Did he know? What went through his mind in that last moment? Had he known with his last breath that something terrible was happening and gripped the handles of his bicycle so hard that he broke all his nails? I wanted to know how the police had handled Shayne's dear body, hoping they had been loving and tender. Still no one would answer my questions.

We pleaded with the police and the investigators from the SIU, and finally, after two weeks, the SIU told me the coroner's report indicated that my son's heart had stopped instantly upon impact and that my son had not suffered. They would not allow me to read the coroner's report. They would not give me any further details.

We asked the police and the SIU for answers to many questions, and we asked to speak with the attending officers, all to no avail. On September 22, 1994, one month from the day Shayne was killed, Constable Serge Loranger was charged. We persisted with questions, now to the police, the SIU, and the Crown. We received what answers they felt it was okay to give, often quite patronizing, attesting that the information they had was critical to the trial. We demanded to be informed of all proceedings, and slowly they realized we were not vindictive people, just suffering parents who needed some answers.

We submitted written complaints to the Police Complaints Commission in regard to some of our findings and frustrations and against specific officers. Through this action, we had officers visit and report to us. One of these visits, five months after Shayne's death, was from an officer who had been designated by his superiors to talk to us about the first officer who had attended at the crash scene. His job was to tell us what a wonderful police officer this man was, that he had done his job well on that fateful night, and that we should not be hard on him and would hopefully withdraw our complaints.

Then he decided to allow us to read the constable's report, or a part of it. This report was to walk us through the crash scene and to answer some of our questions. I see the smashed windshield with the tufts of light brown hair implanted in the moulding. I find Shayne's running shoe. Another few steps, I find another running shoe. Another few steps and his favourite ball cap. Another few steps, a part of his skull. And on and on up that roadway, an arm, a leg, and further down that road, I find the face of my Shayne, staring towards the heavens above.

I know how they handled my son's body. They picked it up, piece by piece, their stomachs wrenching at this heinous tragedy that lay all around them.

And still, this designated officer continued to show us a picture of this nice officer and his dog, who had first witnessed the crash scene. We were in shock. After reading this—in fact, we kept reading this over and over—I heard blood-curdling screams and realized they were coming from my own mouth, as the darkness enfolded me.

Through the criminal trial, I saw for the first time the bicycle, the back wheel just a handful of jingling metal. The frame was bent and twisted. I listened to testimony of Shayne's final moment of life, how the vehicle hit the bike, the sound of the bicycle scraping against the car, the thud of Shayne's body hitting car metal, how his feet and then his legs were broken.

• 1020

I witnessed a demonstration of how Shayne's body flipped onto the hood, his hip and then his elbow smashing the windshield, his head thrown back, decapitated by the roof railing. I learned how his broken and mutilated body picked up the force and energy of the accelerating vehicle as he flew through the air to land half a football field length away, on the grassy shoulder of that road.

This is the vision I am left with of my son's last moment of life. This is something a mother should not know. This is something no one should know.

Every time I hear the screeching of tires or the sound of a siren, every time I hear of another senseless, preventable death, I am overwhelmed with emotion and the flashback consumes me.

I'd just note that Detective Constable Loranger was brought into the courthouse through an underground garage, given a private room, and waited on hand and foot with lunches, coffee breaks, etc. We were not.

The crown must disclose to the defence all information; therefore the accused has access to all of the information and is allowed to work with his defence lawyer. This info is kept from victims. The victims do not work with the crown. The crown, defence, and judge decide, in a private pre-trial information session, what charges will be allowed. Victims have no say in this.

In our case, the blood alcohol concentration was thrown out of the criminal trial during this private session, due to blood having been taken rather than breath, the time the blood was taken—all the technicalities and all the loopholes. Constable Loranger only was charged with failure to remain. And yet through the whole criminal trial the impairment was a major issue, and therefore the judge decided that because she could not determine what Detective Constable Loranger could or could not have seen that night, after consuming ten or more beers, the case was dismissed.

Victims can only appeal on fact. The accused can appeal on anything—just because he doesn't like the verdict, the consequences.

We were victimized first through Shayne's death, and re-victimized every day throughout the process. In 1994 Shayne was killed. In 1995 there was the criminal trial. In 1996 there were the OPP disciplinary hearings—42 days. In 1997 there were two mediation processes and an appeal to the board of inquiry by Serge Loranger. In 1998 there was the decision of the board of inquiry and an appeal to the divisional court by Serge Loranger, which now has been abandoned.

Through all of this time, we took time off work: time for meetings with family, police, SIU, crown, PCC, OPP, and on and on; time for phone calls and conference calls. Every person involved in the process, including Detective Constable Loranger, was paid for their services, but not the victims.

I look forward to speaking on these points further in the time allotted for questions and answers.

As Susan has mentioned, in our attempt to support victims of crime, MADD Canada is calling for a national victims' bill of rights. The core principle of this bill will be to ensure all victims of crime are treated fairly and given rights parallel to the accused's within the judicial process.

There are many faults with our current judicial system that need to be reviewed and changed for the sake of victims of crime. For example, in our current system, victims' rights are not guaranteed, victims' rights are not enforceable, the language and terms used in victims' legislation are non-committal, and there is no recourse for complaints or concerns on the judicial process.

As a victim, I would like to add my voice to the chorus now speaking to the federal government. Victims of crime deserve rights in our courts—rights that are guaranteed and enforceable. And I'll add that victims' rights must be uniform across the country so that Canadians share the same rights in the courts, whether they are in Vancouver or here in Ottawa, whether they are in Windsor, Ontario, or in Windsor, Nova Scotia.

• 1025

All my life I was brought up to believe in the law, in our justice system—that if I ever needed it, it would be there for me, to protect me. How naive I was, how misinformed.

And yet I still have hope. My hope lies in you. Legislation is created to reflect the opinion of society. Our society, our country, wants and needs a national victims' bill of rights.

From 1983 to 1991, impaired drivers alone killed 17,630 people and injured 1.1 million people—the population of eastern Ontario; the population of Alberta. Add on 1992 to the present, add on the homicides, the Theresa McCuaigs, the Leslie Mahaffys, the Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldts—years of devastation and loss, lives changed forever.

Ask yourselves why our society, our country, is crying out, lifting their hands to you, all of you—you who can make a difference, who have the authority to rewrite the Criminal Code if you so desire, if you so wish.

I call on you, MADD calls on you, to give us a standard, forceful, and guaranteed victims' bill of rights.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Susan McNab: I'd like to pass it to Joanne Jarvis.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis (National Victims Services Coordinator, Mothers Against Drunk Driving): Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Joanne Jarvis and I'm the national victims services coordinator for MADD Canada. I work at the organization's headquarters in Mississauga, Ontario, and speak daily with victims of drunk drivers from across Canada.

A large part of our mission is to support victims of impaired driving, and primarily this is accomplished in two ways. We help victims through the grieving and bereavement process and we also support them through the difficult court process. Allow me to briefly relate the ways in which we do support victims.

MADD Canada has a 1-800 toll-free line for support and referral services. We provide free literature on bereavement and victims' services. We provide victims' support resource material. We conduct court support and court accompaniment. Our volunteers attend court with victims, assist in the preparation of victim impact statements, explain the judicial process and proceedings, and liaise with police and the crown attorney.

Our victims serve on victim impact panels in their community. We conduct victim advocacy training workshops for our volunteers. Most of our chapters hold victims' support group meetings. And every year we hold a national candlelight vigil of hope and remembrance and a victims' weekend.

MADD Canada delivers many services to victims. There is a tremendous need for these services as people attempt to cope with the loss of a loved one or with serious injury and with the traumatic experiences of our country's judicial process.

Recently MADD Canada reviewed the country's criminal justice system and the role victims have within it. From that review we developed a model for victims' rights in Canada. This model serves as the basis of a report that is before you now. By providing the government with this model and by ensuring this important issue gets out into the public for debate, we hope victims' rights will not continue to be short-changed.

MADD Canada is calling on the federal government to take a leadership role when it comes to establishing victims' rights in our country's judicial process. On behalf of the victims we serve and all the victims of crime, we want to see the federal government enact a national bill of rights that would set a minimum standard for victims' rights and serve as the standard of practice and guide to the provinces.

As our report details, this standard would provide a judicial code for victims based on the work accomplished by the United Nations. The model looks at every level of government. Provincial governments must make it a priority to develop and administer new victims' rights legislation that would bring all provincial judicial systems up to a minimum standard in providing services to victims of crime. The principle of provincial legislation would be that all victims be treated with courtesy, compassion, and with respect for their dignity and privacy.

• 1030

Victims must be afforded their rights in parallel to those of the accused. Victims must have the right to information throughout the judicial process and the right to civil recourse during and after the court case. One suggestion for recourse is the establishment of a federal and provincial ombudsman office that would allow for a degree of recourse should victims have complaints or concerns within and about the judicial process.

Our bottom line is that victims of crime need rights that are guaranteed, rights that are enforceable.

I will close my remarks by commenting on the proposal for a national information office for victims of crime. We know that although the victims' need for information is great, the federal government can do much more for victims of crime than open a national information and referral centre.

The Americans' Office for Victims of Crime, which our government is replicating, should not be held up as the model. Canada's victim information office needs to be more than a clearingh ouse for information and a referral centre.

We have not heard whether the victims office is going to be a granting agency, but if it offers similar grants to that of the U.S. office, then it must offer more for victims and not provide grants to organizations that have ongoing programs in victims research programs. These grants are feeding people involved with the criminal justice system and helping programs already being delivered; they're doing nothing for victims. Before accepting the practices of the American office, we urge the Department of Justice officials to do further research and work in order to develop a better model to better serve victims in our country.

In conclusion, MADD Canada believes we need more than another office; we need guaranteed and enforceable rights.

A Canadian victims' bill of rights can be more than rhetoric if its language is precise about the rights afforded to victims. We must make a serious attempt at ensuring the language we use for the bill is emphatic and precise; that it is definitive and employs words like “must” and not veiled with vague words like “should” or “could”. I'm certain we will get into this further.

Thank you.

Ms. Susan MacAskill: In conclusion, we would like to call on the federal government to act.

Last fall we were in Ottawa to release a survey that found nine in ten Canadians believe impaired driving is a problem, and that three in four believe that our governments are not doing enough to combat the crime of impaired driving. During the last federal election and since that time, we have been consistently calling on the federal government to enact a national victims' bill of rights.

The sad truth is that today many victims of crime are being revictimized by our country's criminal justice system. At MADD Canada we strongly believe that enacting a national victims' bill of rights would establish a code for victims within the judicial process. In this way, the federal government can ensure victims have parallel rights to those of the accused. And for members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, this would mean their grief and hardship are not compounded by painful and insensitive criminal justice proceedings.

MADD Canada hopes that by providing the government with this report, with our model, the justice minister will act in the life of this government's mandate to enact a national victims' bill of rights. We want the federal government to set national standards for victims' rights and provide the legislation that will serve as a standard of practice and a guide to the provinces.

In conclusion, I wish to make a few points clear about the right we are asking to be set down in legislation.

The core principle of a national victims' bill of rights would be to ensure all victims of crime are treated fairly. MADD Canada wants victims to be given rights parallel to the accused within the judicial process. MADD Canada wants victims of crime to be given rights that are guaranteed and enforceable.

MADD Canada wants rights to be uniform across the country, which means simply that the leadership must be at the federal level. MADD Canada wants these rights to be entrenched in the national victims' bill of rights and provide a code for victims of crime throughout our country.

I will repeat for all the forgotten voices of victims across Canada to this committee, to the minister, please take a leadership role when it comes to establishing victims' rights in our country's judicial process.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks.

Chuck, are you ready?

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

The Chair: You can take about ten minutes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I won't take that long.

The Chair: I know you never do; that's why I like to say take ten minutes.

• 1035

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'd really like to express our thanks to the three of you for coming today. I have a general question, and all three of you might have different answers to it. Do you perceive any difference in the way the victims of impaired driving are treated, as opposed to the victims of what you would consider more of the traditional violent crimes, such as homicide and sexual assault? Is there any perception that you're treated different from...?

Ms. Susan MacAskill: No.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I've heard some people say that the crime of impaired driving tends to be treated not quite as severely, or there's a difference in attitude toward the severity of that crime.

Ms. Susan McNab: Impaired driving is also a violent crime.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying in your perception can you put into your own words to me what you perceive as the difference in the way it's treated.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: If I could respond to that, I talk to victims daily from west coast to east coast, northern Canada, all over, and there's still very much an attitude that drunk driving is an accident, that it's not a real crime, that there was never intent there. We've worked very hard to educate the public about the devastation. Victims know at first hand, both Susans know at first hand, and we've worked very hard to change the public perception as well as within the judicial process. I've spoken to victims before who've told me that they've been told by police not to worry about it after they've lost someone to impaired driving. So I think it's very true that a lot of people don't hold it up as being a violent crime. We certainly know it is, our supporters know it is, and the victims know it is.

Ms. Susan McNab: I'll add to that by basically saying that here in the Ottawa-Carleton area I also work with many victims of impaired driving. I also speak to many other victims of homicide as well, including Theresa McCuaig and Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldt, who I've been honoured to call acquaintances and then friends in the fight to save lives. Basically I do not see that the treatment in the court process, or the four different types of process actually, receive any different treatment in the courts. We are all treated the same. And that is why we are all calling for a victims' bill of rights.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: What do you see as the biggest failing within the criminal justice system with respect to victims? What do you feel is lacking more than anything else, if you can put your finger on it?

Ms. Susan MacAskill: I believe that a main area that needs to be addressed, and needs to be addressed firmly, is the area of consistency. Under provincial legislation there are specific regards that are given to victims of crime, depending on which province that crime occurs in. But the same consideration may not be given to someone who's victimized by a crime in the province of Alberta as to a person who's victimized by the same crime in the province of Nova Scotia. We're all citizens of this country. If I'm visiting in another province, it's important to me that I know the criminal justice system will protect me wherever I am in this country.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Is there anything else? What I'm looking for is I've heard arguments vis-à-vis notification issues as to when things are held as opposed to involvement in the process. Do you see those two as equal problems, or is one more of a concern than the other? I'm referring to notification issues versus involvement, participation.

Ms. Susan MacAskill: I believe the answer is there's a common thread running through. In most of the cases we have been involved with it is a major area of concern that notification is not given of the criminal justice proceedings, parole hearings, being able to submit your victim impact statement—the whole process of the investigation, where the victim is entitled to know everything they need to know about the process but the victim is often not notified. The legislative agenda says that victims should know or that they can know but not that victims must know, and the wording of that needs to be changed to “must know”.

• 1040

Mr. Chuck Cadman: There's one more thing, and Joanne mentioned it briefly: the proposed office. Can you expand on that a little bit more? The three of you may want input there as to what you really feel the role of this office should be.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I guess I'm sort of in a position, too, where I don't really know what the function of that office would be. I don't think it has been revealed.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, neither do we. That's what I'm asking. What do you feel it should be?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I know a little about the Office for Victims of Crime in the U.S. If that's something to be modelled after, they're primarily a granting organization. They provide a lot of moneys to different organizations—MADD U.S. being one of them—to help train victim advocates and to provide moneys to conduct victim impact panels. They have a victims-of-crime fund, federal fines that offenders pay; it's not tax dollars.

They're largely a granting agency. They actually don't directly help victims. While there's some merit in that, I think a national victims' bill of rights.... And why we're pressing so firmly for that is, to reiterate what Susan said, I can be here and treated differently; if I go to B.C., something different will happen; and if I go to the Yukon, there's no victims' rights legislation in that territory.

That's where an information and referral line, a 1-800 number to get the crown attorney's name, isn't going to be helpful. It's not what victims want and it's not what they need. They need rights guaranteed in every province.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Chuck.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Good morning and thank you for coming today. As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, this is the first time that I have the opportunity to meet you.

I must start by saying how extremely important I think the awareness work you are doing is. I think you are doing a very good job. By way of a preliminary remark, I would also like to say, Ms. McNab, that I understand the pain you feel in light of the tragic story that you have told us. I fully agree with you that no one should outlive his own children. As a new father myself, I understand that feeling very well.

Having said that, something in your presentation concerned me a little bit, and it was something you repeated several times. You said that victims had no rights. You said it several times, and it is the very premise on which your presentation is based.

I do not quite agree with you on that. I have in front of me, and I am convinced that you have seen it too, the Quebec Crime Victims Compensation Act, including the full chapter on the rights and responsibilities of victims of crime. Mention is even made of creating a bureau to help victims. There is a section on the victim's right to be informed, to obtain reasonable compensation for costs incurred, to receive compensation for damages, to be informed of his role in the criminal process, to be informed of all rights and remedies available and to be informed of the existence of specialized services.

• 1045

So it seems to me that saying that victims do not have any rights is going a bit far. I think that instead, you should say that victims' rights vary from one province to another.

In the document that you submitted, which by the way is very interesting, you say on page 3:

While it is agreed that the provinces have the responsibility of administering victims' rights legislation and providing services to victims of crime, one cannot ignore the role the federal government has in relation to victims.

We might find it unfortunate that the Constitution attributes criminal law to the federal government and the administration of justice or other areas of a local nature to the provinces. That is unfortunately the case. I am the first to say that it should not be that way. However, perhaps we do not share the same view with respect to the level of government that should be in charge of these relations.

I'd like you to explain something to me. If you say that it is up to the provinces to look after victims' rights, on what basis are you saying that the federal government should do so if this is not in its area of jurisdiction?

[English]

Ms. Susan MacAskill: We recognize that there are different legislative standards that come at the provincial levels, but what we're asking the federal government to do is establish a common level. If the provinces agree to provide greater than that common level, so be it, but we feel the federal government needs to take an active role in establishing a minimum standard whereby citizens of this country will be given the same consideration the accused or offenders are given in the judicial system.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Even if it is not under the federal government's jurisdiction, in your opinion, that is not important. The federal government should act and it would be up to the provinces to follow.

[English]

Ms. Susan MacAskill: MADD Canada believes the federal government should take a leadership role in the area of responsibility in establishing the minimum base.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Personally, I have a problem with this duplication that can exist in various areas. I think that the last thing victims need is to feel a bit like a ping-pong ball and to say: "We knock on the province's door and the province tells us that the federal government is looking after it, and the federal government tells us that it is the provinces' responsibility." When it is unclear, people do not know where to turn. As an MP, I see these types of things. It is less frequent in the case of employment or labour market programs, but people still don't know where to turn.

If the federal government gets involved in that area when several provinces, at least Quebec, already have assistance programs, don't you think that the victim will feel a bit lost in this administrative maze? We all know full well that once a bureaucracy takes root, there is no end to it.

[English]

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Perhaps I could answer that. I think it's important to recognize that not all provinces and territories have victims' rights legislation. Some have abolished their compensation programs. In setting a national standard, the federal government would be the only government able to do that. That's why we've taken the position in wanting to see them take a leadership role.

A judicial code for victims, for example, would work the same way as the Criminal Code, which the federal government sets and the provinces administer. It would be the same with a code for victims.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: That is where our points of view differ, but I would like to ask you another question on something more specific.

Section 486 of the Criminal Code allows young victims of sexual assault to testify behind a screen or outside the hearing room, using a close circuit television system. Do you think that the protection set out in this section for young people should be granted not only to victims who are under age 14, but to all victims of sexual assault?

[English]

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Sexual assault isn't the area we specialize in. As a social worker, I work with victims of sexual assault. I know one thing we would like to see is all witnesses and the victim's family protected from intimidation by the accused. I've spoken to a number of people who have had to sit in the same waiting room as the accused's family and are subjected to if not verbal outbursts, then dirty looks and things like that.

• 1050

So we're looking for victims' rights that would protect them from intimidation and make it easier for them to be part of the process. If victims are involved, then I think they understand their bereavement and grief will be less complicated and they won't feel revictimized by a system that's really designed to help them.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Won't we be able to protect victims' rights better with concrete measures, like allowing a victim not to be in the presence of an assailant, rather than with a simple document entitled "Victims' Bill of Rights"? Won't we be more successful by tackling more specific issues, instead of preparing a statement of principles? At any rate, the provinces are responsible for legislation for victims of drunk driving and other victims.

Is it not through simple steps like those that we will succeed in assisting people who need help?

[English]

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Again, to repeat this, the federal government needs to set a minimum standard that all provinces would adhere to. It's not the case now. If something happened to me in the Yukon, I have no rights as a victim there. If it happened to me in Ontario, in St. Catharines or Toronto, different things would happen to me there.

I think that largely is the complaint and the source of frustration and outright anger and bitterness for victims, that they are not treated with respect. They don't have access to information. They're not told about proceedings. They find out about plea bargains after the case has been settled.

To reiterate the point, then, the federal government needs to create a national standard, a minimum base from which provinces can add on, if they want. Right now there is no national standard, and victims are frustrated by it. Their grieving process is complicated by it, and it's a huge social cost.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I have several people on this side who want to speak. Mr. Bryden is joining us today, but I think his interests are a little bit off topic. I'm going to let regular members of the committee go first, because this is a project we're working pretty hard on. Then I'll get to Mr. Bryden. I'm just concerned that the full-time members of the committee get to deal with their specific issues.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): I thank you very much, Madam Chair, and you, Mr. Bryden, for your indulgence.

Mrs. McNab, you really shared with us what is a parent's worst nightmare, losing a child through a criminal act. I really congratulate you on your efforts. We have, unfortunately, too many people like you in this country. I know you know Jim and Sherilee Wideman in our community, who also have suffered a terrible tragedy.

It never ceases to amaze me how you have taken your pain and turned it around to do something very positive. I think every parent owes you a debt of gratitude for that. There's no question that the whole attitude on drinking and driving has changed, and is changing, and I think you and people like you can take a lot of the credit.

With regard to the national victims' bill of rights, I understand you want a minimal standard right across this country. One of the situations we have in these areas is that Quebec is very much a leader. Mr. Marceau would probably be really pleased to know that. It's one of the things the rest of Canada can learn from.

• 1055

I checked over the victims' services programs in my community. One of the things I found was that most of the programs on victims' services are provincial in nature. They're funded for the most part by the province, with the exception of some pilot programs put together by the federal government.

So there's no question that we need a national standard right across this country, but I put that forward because a lot of those services fall within the provincial bailiwick.

I ask that you be sensitive to that and work with the provinces as well and hold out Quebec as the example to which other provinces should be looking for guidance. I would just like to pass that on to you.

Ms. Susan McNab: We are definitely looking at the provinces as well. I think Joanne would be better to answer that, actually. She has been working more on that from the national level.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: We're going to a national forum in Toronto on Thursday at Queen's Park specifically around victims and the treatment they receive. So we're certainly very much looking to provinces as well.

MADD Canada will also be establishing a “rate the provinces”, so to speak. We'll be looking at each province, what they're doing currently about impaired driving, and what they're doing currently to support and assist victims.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

I'm sorry the Bloc Québécois member just left, because I think it would have been of interest to him to learn—

The Chair: He's coming back.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I thought it might be a good idea.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Only for you.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you.

I think it would be edifying for him to know that we had a victims' rights panel, a town hall, last night in Montreal, which Eleni Bakopanos and I convened. The Minister of Justice was there for the entire evening. I think it would make us all feel better informed if we knew that the minister expressed her deep concern about victims' rights. Her sincerity came through in both official languages. There was no question that this issue needs to be dealt with.

I in particular look at your group and remember very well when the first drunk-driving bill was going through the House. I was on the justice committee at that time. Your intervention, and Susan's, I can remember, was outstanding. Your contribution led to both public information and public ads and sensitization of the population in terms of victims being victimized through the justice system.

There is no question that this became really the goal—to sensitize the justice system to the needs of those who are suffering as a result of these horrendous acts, this loss, the psychological impact, the need for services of support, the need for consideration of the victim in terms of financial need. I can't even remember when that bill went through—I think it was 1987 or 1988—but I do remember doing that with you.

I listened last night to witnesses who were victims, youth who were both victims and victimizers, now doing some work in the schools to sensitize youth, and those who are administering the system.

I can tell you, Madam Chair, what was loud and clear: (a) there's a problem with judges' sensitivity in the system; and (b) there is a lack of compassion, compensation, consideration, and services for victims.

• 1100

I thought the question we would want to put to our witnesses today is the framing of the issue of victims. What the system needs is one issue, but really what are the needs of the victims and then how do we fill the gap?

You have articulated in a substantive way in the past—and I'm sure will continue to do so—the proactive and reactive ways in which the system is dysfunctional. The system was set up too many years ago as a criminal system, and we really end up with a civil system in the end, which isn't compatible with each section.

In Quebec, on the things we heard last night—and having never been a victim, thank God—you have to hear what they had to say about the system, which in language sounds wonderful, but in fact is still not working. The fundamental call of the over 100 victims who were present and came to give witness and testimony was that we need a national standard. We need to apply a common law that will take the victims' concerns into account and give fair compensation to the victims.

They talked about the fact that they get $ 600 for the burial cost of their own beloved. The costs are way beyond that. If you have other kinds of accidents, the payment is entirely different. They talked about the fact that in a proactive sense in Quebec, where the issues are physical harm there is a small role for the justice system. Yet the medicare system takes care of that physical harm in the best way possible.

The financial gap is absolutely vital to be bridged. The insurance is important. To have to go the civil court route with an entirely different judge and a whole different system and plead the case over again is psychologically harmful and very costly. They talked about the emotional pain and suffering. They said we have some social services but there are no really fine trained experts who can accompany the victim, give solace and support to the victim, and give these services at a cost or on a no-cost basis that will enable them to function in society.

This may sound like a speech, and there may be a question at the end, I'm not sure myself. However, we heard from a very strong-looking woman who went to the microphone. She has a master's degree in social work and is one of the heads of the services in the CLSC system in Quebec. She told us about the murder of her sister and how she had to identify her body after it had been badly treated. She has become completely dysfunctional, through psychological and social shock, and is unable to function as a wife, a mother, and a professional staff person with a very responsible job. You recognize that the services are still not there in Quebec or anywhere else across Canada. There is a desperate need for a victims' information centre and guidelines for services in Quebec.

When you look at the law in Quebec, it says victims have a right, subject to resource availability, to medical and social care, as required, to protect against intimidation and retaliation. It says, however, that the victim has a duty to cooperate with the relevant law. It doesn't say we have a duty to support that victim in their role, to enable the state to come to some kind of a conclusion about who is guilty and who isn't guilty.

It says the victim has a right to information that should be available, generally. It doesn't say it must be available; it says that on request, victims have the right to information, including the police investigation, to the extent possible. That doesn't mean they must have that information.

On the cause of the action, there's no mention of anything. Legal counsel for the victims who need legal counselling as to how to proceed is not mentioned. Mediation services are not mentioned.

• 1105

On restitution, it says by law the victim has the right to reasonable compensation, so they outline how much they get per day, but it's not even enough to buy you a proper lunch. It says the victim has the right to prompt and fair restitution or compensation, but they don't get that, and return of property where its retention is no longer required, which could be six years, as in the case of the gentleman whose son was murdered. His case was before the courts for six years because of nefarious dealings and playing around by the courts. This man has been suffering for six years and has had to appear as the father of the victim. That case has dragged on and on. This gentleman was able to express himself in the interests of promoting a victims' rights bill and a centre for victims to have information, the right to accompaniment, and the obligation to have trained workers who are competent in the field.

Quebec has an excellent act, and we have no right to be in that field, because it's provincial jurisdiction. But I can tell you everyone in that room begged the minister to move with the federal-provincial-territorial group to found a national program, and then each of the provinces would have the obligation to apply it, based on a national standard to which they would all be in agreement. The money they get goes for research, education, and training programs, but there is no consistent funding of any group. There is no core funding. The whole situation causes emotional suffering and needs some serious revamping.

If you need it, an evaluation has been done for us of what is in place in each of the provinces. If that can be of service to you, because you have rendered a tremendous service to our society, I am sure the committee, through the clerk and the chair, would be very pleased to share it with you as you go about doing what I consider to be citizen action in the interests of all citizens across this land.

I don't know if you wish to respond, but I can tell you that last night was draining and moving, and indicated that no matter where you have victims' rights legislation, it is still not a system of justice that has adapted to today's society. It was conceived in its criminal sense a long time ago. It's had a lot of amendments, still not enough, but focuses on victims from the victims' perspectives, and it needs to be addressed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I gather if this were in support of what we heard.... Certainly there is a lack of transparency, respect, uniformity, and financial compensation. The right to express yourself is constrained as a victim, and on conditional release, even you don't know. They don't tell you and they don't tell you why. This is Quebec calling, so this is supposed to be the best in the country. But there are programs in small communities that are excellent but are underfunded. They spend a lot of their time trying to find appropriate funding. And best practices are not shared across this land. So don't tell me that because Quebec is a province with special rights they don't need information from everywhere around the world, as well as across Canada, because we are a special country.

The Chair: Thank you.

Chuck, do you have any more questions?

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I feel like I am being singled out by my colleague opposite in her remarks. I don't think that anything she said with respect to the emotional hardship victims may face...

The Hon. Sheila Finestone: [Editor's note: Inaudible], Sir.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I listened to her politely and I would like her to listen to me without interrupting.

I told the people from MADD, and I will repeat what I said, that it is not by rewriting the same rights and putting them in another document that would repeat what the provinces have already said that we are going to change anything. Instead of coming here to ask the federal government to interfere in areas that are not under its jurisdiction, let's take a look at each province. You said it yourself, if not it was my colleague Andrew Telegdi who said it, that we need to go and see the provinces and say: "Look, the program that you have on paper is great. Now you need to take action to comply with the guidelines that you have set for yourself."

• 1110

You said it yourself, Mrs. Finestone, and that is exactly what I am saying. The federal government has no business interfering in that.

The Hon. Sheila Finestone: I'm sorry, but that is not what I said. I said

[English]

“federal-provincial-territorial”. Mr. Marceau, do not put words in my mouth that were not said.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I'm tired of this. It won't happen again.

The Hon. Sheila Finestone: I'm tired of hearing you lie.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I am saying that work must be done with the provinces. I think however that you are knocking on the wrong door.

I think that the administration of justice and victims' rights must be tailored to each situation and each province, and I sincerely believe that the system is not perfect. Even if it looks good on paper, it may not be good in reality.

You are starting next Thursday at Queen's Park, and I think that the same must be done in each province. But it is not by asking the federal government to interfere in an area that is not under its jurisdiction that you are going to improve the situation for victims.

Concrete action should be taken and more specific requests should be made instead of rewriting a document that several provinces already have, or at least that Quebec already has. That is the point I wanted to highlight, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Did you have any comments?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: If I can say, I don't think I could ever in good conscience explain to a victim over the phone from Ontario that because their son was killed by a drunk driver, and someone else's son was killed by a drunk driver in Alberta, they should be treated any differently based on what the provinces have set out. Again, to go back to our point, the federal government is the only government that can set a national standard; the provinces can't. That's again why we're here and why we're asking for what we're asking for.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

While I'm not a member of the committee, it's sometimes helpful and sometimes in the public interest for committees to know better the organizations that appear before them and submit testimony. So I would like to ask a few questions about the organization itself.

I know you are a charity, and you are a charity that has adopted the name and some of the principles of an American organization. That's correct, is it not—MADD U.S.?

Ms. Susan MacAskill: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

Can I ask what you consider is your principal charitable activity?

Ms. Susan MacAskill: We have a mission statement, and that is comprised of stopping impaired driving and offering service to victims of this violent crime.

Mr. John Bryden: Can you distinguish for me between the priorities? Is it victims services, or is it advocacy against drunk driving?

Ms. Susan MacAskill: We place emphasis on the twofold part of the statement. We take a leadership role in the educational perspective, in raising the awareness, in being proactive in taking steps with our members of Parliament to bring about whatever it will take to reduce the problem of impaired driving.

I believe it was before you came in the room that we mentioned in our opening comments that we have had strategic planning and we have established specific strategies to reduce the number of deaths that occur in this country per day, by the year 2000, and to be reduced again by the year 2003. We are setting a goal of reducing the number of deaths to half of what it is: 4.5 people die every day.

Mr. John Bryden: I understand that. I would like to pursue the whole suggestion of what type of charitable activity you're engaged in. I notice from your own financial statement that only 10% of your revenues are devoted to victim services and chapter services. I presume chapter services involve victim services at the chapter level.

Ms. Susan MacAskill: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: That means, according to your own chart, 88.4% of your spending is on public awareness, fund-raising, and education. I take it public awareness, on which you spent $ 1.5 million, are those beautiful ads I see on TV. Public awareness is advertising, is it not?

Ms. Susan MacAskill: That's a part of it. Public awareness takes place in many forms. We do promotion at high school levels right across the country. We have a program that we take, where we present safe-driving proposals to our graduating students and our senior high students. And to fulfil our mandate, the local chapters promote highway safety with the police departments and with other organizations.

• 1115

Mr. John Bryden: Now, you're aware, aren't you, that Revenue Canada has some strict rules with respect to what constitutes charitable activity and what it doesn't consider obviously charitable activity?

And I notice that on your 1996 T-3010 form you claim that 96% of your total revenues was spent on charitable activity. As you're aware, Revenue Canada has an 80% rule: only 20% is to be spent on non-charitable activities of a charity. You claim almost, I think, 98%, actually, and yet when I look at your 1997 statement, clearly 30% of your revenue, at the very least, is being spent on fund-raising. And in regard to the $ 1.5 million on public awareness and education, I take it that “education” is the school awareness program. By my calculation, at the most charitable, perhaps 15% of your total revenue is actually spent on charitable activity.

The Chair: Order, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: The rest of it is—

The Chair: Order. Just a minute. I just want to refer you to the orders of the day.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes?

The Chair: They are that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the victims' role in the criminal justice system. While I know you're interested in this topic, these people didn't come here prepared to answer questions about their internal functioning. They've provided us with information that I was surprised to get today with respect to their revenue and expenditures.

But I have to say that as a member of this committee and as chair of this committee—and I'm getting looks from other members of the committee—we are quite focused on a very important project, and I don't think this committee is interested in this subject matter today. I'm not saying that your subject matter isn't a valid one or that it isn't something that should be pursued, but we really want to get on with business that we're here for.

Mr. John Bryden: Can I just conclude? Not with a remark, because I don't think that's fair.... I'm supposed to be asking questions, not making statements. I'd appreciate that.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: I just wanted to establish that the organization's primary purpose, regardless of any of the things I've just said, then, in your mind is reflected in the statement that you put before us here, which is part of the record here. Because they did put before us an expense and revenue statement, and I was basing my remarks on what was tabled here.

I take it that this truly does reflect the organization as you see it, which is primarily an education and advocacy organization, not a victims' services organization. Is that correct?

Ms. Susan MacAskill: No. Half of our mandate is fulfilled in service to victims and we are very clear about the fact that it's extremely important to the organization. Many people become members of MADD Canada because they've been victimized by impaired driving. It's extremely important to keep that as part of our focus.

Mr. John Bryden: So your spending does not reflect the mission, the purpose, of your organization. Is that correct?

Ms. Susan MacAskill: I'm not sure what question you're asking. If you're wanting me to say to you that we give financial support to our victims.... Is that the question that you're asking me this morning?

Mr. John Bryden: No. The mission statement.... Your expense sheet tells a story which is relevant to this committee because it was tabled before this committee and it shows that you spend most of your money on advocacy, public awareness, education and fund-raising.

And, Madam Chairman, I think it would be in the pubic interest to know how they do fund-raising.

The Chair: Mr. Bryden—

Mr. John Bryden: That's another thing.

The Chair: —I just think—

Mr. John Bryden: That's fine, Madam Chair.

The Chair: —that we shouldn't bring people here and then ambush them. I've given you some leeway—

Mr. John Bryden: It's not an ambush.

The Chair: —but I think we'll go back to the subject matter.

A voice: I consider it one.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Chair—

Mr. John Bryden: No. It's a public statement—

The Chair: Order, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Chair, on a point of order, it seems to me that my colleague calls into question the charitable nature of public awareness, or of education, for that matter, and I don't believe there's anything in the act that goes against that. Those ads on TV are public service ads. They raise people's awareness and hopefully will stop somebody from becoming a victim. I think that point has to be made. It's not a partisan kind of activity.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. John Bryden: You're absolutely right.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

• 1120

I was reviewing your summary of major points of discussion in your presentation. That's what I would like to speak about. Your comment was that there's no national, uniform definition of “victim”. Do you have a definition that we might consider?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I believe there is one in the proposed model.

Ms. Susan MacAskill: When we were visiting on the Hill in April, we provided you with a proposed model for victims' rights for you to consider introducing into the Criminal Code. On page 6 of that document, section 2.3, “Definition of a Victim”, (a) and (b), clearly defines who we, within our organization, feel would be victims.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

I'd like to also clarify whether you are in favour or opposed to a national victims' rights office. What was your position on that?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Again, as I stated earlier, we're not clear about the function of the office. If it is going to be modelled on the office for victims in the states.... That is primarily a granting agency. They have a victims' crime fund from money that they collect from federal offenders—-it's not tax dollars, it's paid fines—and they then disburse that money to groups for innovative victims' services.

For example, I know that MADD U.S. has used money from that office to fund training in death notification for police officers, which we also very strongly feel is needed. They provide money to support victim impact panels, for example. It's primarily in support of what other people are doing, rather than being an organization for victims per se.

Mr. John Maloney: Would you also favour a national ombudsman? This would dovetail with what you might advance from a national office.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: The purpose of an ombudsman would certainly.... Right now, the way the legislation reads in the provinces is that victims have no recourse. There's nowhere for them to go to complain and get their issues heard. They normally come to organizations like ours when they're at the end of their rope, totally frustrated and don't know where else to turn. The creation of the ombudsman, much like the correctional services officer for offenders, would mean that the ombudsman would have the ability to investigate, make recommendations and hear victims who feel that their rights have been violated or ignored.

Mr. John Maloney: The final point in your summary says that one province provides protection of victims in terms of employers not penalizing them. That's the B.C. situation. I'm familiar with B.C., but I'm not familiar with how that provision of the statute works. Could you enlighten me?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: To my understanding, B.C. is the only province in Canada which makes provision for employers not to penalize victims if the victims need to be in court and if they need to attend meetings with the crown. In fact, the province would impose a fine if employers penalized victims for taking time off work to attend.

We get some victims who call us, and because things are drawn out so long.... As Ms. Finestone said, things can go on for years. Some employers are very good about giving people time off work and some aren't. So when these victims need to be there at important meetings and have no right to be off work, employers can demand that they not take the time and report to work instead. B.C. was pointed out as the only province that provided protection for victims.

Mr. John Maloney: Does it require the victim to be compensated with his normal salary?

Mr. Joanne Jarvis: Pardon?

Mr. John Maloney: Does it provide for financial compensation as well, that is, would the employer would have to continue to pay the daily salary?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I believe so, but I'm not sure about that specific point.

Ms. Susan McNab: I would like to add something to that, John. Through the past three and a half years, in the processes that I have attended—I'm sorry that you weren't here earlier to hear about them—first, the criminal trial alone was a 20-day process. The disciplinary hearings were 42 days of hearings. When you add on the boards of inquiry and the other different aspects, I was off work for quite some time after my son's tragic death. I was not paid for that unless I worked and made up the hours on weekends, etc. And at that time, I could not take that loss of salary, so I did work the extra time.

• 1125

I felt it was fair. At least my employer gave me that opportunity. However, it also led me to suffer later on, not in a totally financial way, but in a totally physical and mental way because of the emotional grief I suffered in going through all of these processes. Finally, after a while things break down. I had to look for help outside, which of course I again had to pay for, in terms of psychiatric services and physical and health services as well.

It just multiplies. The work is not just the one area. It's the whole process.

Mr. John Maloney: I apologize for not being here—

Ms. Susan McNab: That's all right.

Mr. John Maloney: —at the beginning of your presentation. My colleagues and I had to be in the House.

Ms. Susan McNab: We heard that.

Mr. John Maloney: Victims' rights are not enforceable. The standard provincial court docket may have 50 to 80 cases on any given day. If perchance—and you give some really good points on how victims should be treated in the court process—a crown attorney or a police victims' services office neglected to advise a specific victim of a procedure along the way, are you suggesting that there should be penalties against the crown or the police for not complying with what we might codify?

Ms. Susan McNab: I'll answer briefly and then I'll hand this over to Joanne, because that is her area.

I'd like to just mention that throughout the provincial process that I went through—and maybe this doesn't quite answer your question—there were many processes available that we were never even informed about. One was something that we do not have in Ontario any more, which was the Police Complaints Commission. And there was the victims' office that is located in the courthouse. Until we actually ended up in the courthouse for the criminal trial, I was unaware that there was a victims' office.

It starts right at the beginning, when the police officer comes and tells you that you have just lost your child to an impaired driver or to homicide or to whatever. Those people should be educated to give us some information to start with and should be allowed to give us information.... And then it just continues all the way up. No one is there to give you that information. I never thought of taking recourse against the government, other than maybe writing a letter to say that I just wish you people would open up and listen and see the problems that victims have.

Maybe I should let Joanne take it from there.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I think this goes back to the discussion around the ombudsman's office and what the purpose and function of an office like that would be.

When it really comes down to it, I think, victims really don't want much. They want justice. They want to be informed and involved, and they want to have an understanding of what's going on and why. They don't want revenge and they don't want to take over, and I think that's often a perception out there.

I think if a complaint is made against a crown, for example, for not providing information that the victim has a right to have, there should be a process and procedures in place to deal with that complaint. Whether it's an action taken against the crown, I'm not sure.... But I think the way it's written now, victims' rights in the provinces have no remedies. Nothing happens if they're not listened to, the language is non-committal, and so on, as we've discussed.

So having an ombudsman's office, for example, would be a good place to start in terms of victims feeling that they have somewhere to go and that what's happened to them matters.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, John.

Mr. McKay, and then Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

• 1130

I want to follow that line of issue, because clearly rights without remedies are pretty meaningless. I want to go to your definition here, which is a pretty expansionary definition of what constitutes a victim. This is your proposed set of guidelines, and you've included in here people who psychologically, emotionally, financially, or physically could suffer property loss or damage through a violation of their rights, and so on. I'm curious as to how you see the system working, because you say, in language and terms under paragraph 2.2, that victims must be informed of all proceedings, victims have the right to be present, and so on, and victims must be given copies of all documents.

So if I am a person who is one step removed from the direct physical victim—say I'm the spouse—and this has been a very emotionally traumatic thing for our family and the crown fails on one of these points in paragraph 2.2, is it your concept that I have a remedy in law against either the crown or the government?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Based on who we've defined, what our proposal is for the definition of a victim, yes, you would.

I think we know, for every homicide victim, there are at least ten people it touches, and to a great extent. So I think we've defined and extended the definition of a victim. To some, I know it seems very far-reaching, but we know the impact of the death of one person in the family ripples through that entire family. Everybody is involved in the process. Everybody is grieving, and the grieving can be further complicated.

Mr. John McKay: Let me take it a step further. If I'm a sibling, or I'm a child of, or I'm a neighbour who came in and found the person in the pool of blood, or whatever, and I have been affected, am I entitled to all of those notices that you enumerate in paragraph 2.2?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I think whoever is to deliver those notices.... If it's decided that it's the police role to deliver notification, then the police have a responsibility to seek out victims who would have an interest and who want to be contacted.

Mr. John McKay: What I'm concerned about is, at the point of the initiation of proceedings, we'll say, are the police or some entity, the crown or the police or whoever, going to be under some onus to define who the victims are for the purposes of this particular crime?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I think this goes back to our wish to have a national standard and have a definition of a victim in place. In some provinces, it's up to a victims' services committee to decide who is a victim for purposes of the legislation, so I think if a national standard were established and provided sort of a minimum level of who defines a victim, then if the provinces choose to further elaborate or expand on that, that's up to them.

Mr. John McKay: Would you include in the pool of victims an insurance company, for instance, that has “suffered property damage”, because there was damage at this particular crime? Would they fall within the pool of victims?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: That's a question I can't answer.

Mr. John McKay: What about your employer? Say an employer is very supportive, gives time off within “reason”, and tries to help the employee through this trauma. Are they within the pool of victims?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Again, that's a question I can't answer.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. The issue is, when you're creating legislation, when you're creating law, you have to be pretty precise about your definitions.

• 1135

On the face of it, I react positively, like a human being, to your definition of “victim”, but once you continue to expand the definition, you create such an enormous pool of potential victims that you could actually have “Murphy's Law of Inverse Realities” operating here such that you will actually defeat yourself. Does that resonate with you?

Ms. Susan McNab: Can I just say something to that basically? I think it's just sort of got a little carried away here. All right? Going back to a victim and who is to get the information from them and whatever, we can also say the police, the fire person, or yourself who found the body or bodies is a victim, but you're an outside victim type of thing. Basically, the victims we are speaking of are the immediate family or the people who were in charge of that person.

Mr. John McKay: I'm dealing with your definition here. You're saying it's anybody who's psychologically or emotionally affected.

Ms. Susan McNab: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: You know, I've heard about police officers having to take time off over—

Ms. Susan McNab: I guess that's an area on which we should have been a little bit more specific. It's a very good point. Definitely, we realize in asking you for this national victims' bill of rights, which society is basically asking for you to legislate, that you would straighten all that out for us.

Mr. John McKay: No, thanks.

I have one final question. It's also in the definition of a victim. I'm asking here, on a point of clarification, what it means:

The definition of a victim would not be dependent upon whether the offender has been identified, apprehended, prosecuted, or convicted.

To my mind, that means that the definition of victim can include a victim in the absence of crime or you can have the result of a crime but no one is identified as a perpetrator of a crime. Is that it? Is that—

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: If you consider a hit-and-run, drunk-driving crash, clearly, there has been a crime and a victim.

Mr. John McKay: But no one has been charged.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: No one has been charged or found. The person would still deserve to have the right to know if there's a suspect and still have a right to be informed of any proceedings that might take place. Clearly, that would be an incident where you would have a victim but no identified perpetrator.

Mr. John McKay: In effect, what you're asking by this is to expand the point of the rights involvement of victims into police investigations.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I think we're asking for victims' rights along the whole process. I know I talk to people daily who struggle with police, can't get information, are not treated with respect and dignity in any sense of the word, who then later on struggle with crowns and and with probation parole. From one step to the next, it's frustration compiled upon frustration.

Mr. John McKay: Do these rights include someone who is not happy with the amount of time or resources being devoted by the police to this particular accident, this hit and run as an example?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I think their frustration comes from not being involved or having access to reports they are entitled to have access to and not having phone calls returned. It can be as simple as that. I don't think they're just generally displeased, I think their views are not given consideration.

Mr. John McKay: Would you expose the victim to the police officer suspects list in an investigation? This is what you're asking for. I apologize for being a little bit pushy on this but I really want to know what's in your mind as far as what you consider to be the point at which the person becomes involved in the system.

Take the example of your hit and run. Say the police have done their preliminary investigation and they have developed a suspects list.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Right.

Mr. John McKay: Should the victim be involved at that point?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I believe the victim should know there's a suspect list. I think the victim should know where things stand in the investigation. Yes, they have a suspect. Yes, they have several suspects. No, they don't know who was driving the car. When they know, they will contact you in writing. If you don't hear from them by this date, the next shift they work will be at 3 p.m. on Thursday.

• 1140

This goes back to my point that victims don't really want a lot, but when they're kept in the dark and lack an understanding of the system.... They don't want to take over, by the way. They don't want to decide punishment.

Mr. John McKay: But we are creating legal rights here. We are creating rights that will have consequences in law.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Sure.

Mr. John McKay: Say there's a police officer who, after three months of doing an investigation, is in a situation of diminishing resources. He might say he told you a hundred times that they have a suspect list. They have it moved off and they're winding down their investigation or they're putting it on the back burner. Has he created a liability in his police force, the municipal government, or any level of government by reacting that way?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: If he—this goes back to the core principle—has treated victims with respect and told them all he's permitted to tell them about the investigation without infringing on any of the rights of the accused, then victims really don't have a problem with that. If they feel they've been treated well, that they've gotten information, and they know where things stand, I think generally they're satisfied with that and they don't feel re-victimized by a system they feel is supposed to be in place to protect them.

Mr. John McKay: The fundamental question though is: do they have a right to sue under this?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I think there needs to be some remedy if their rights are violated, just as there's some remedy if an accused's rights are violated. I'm not saying it would be to the same degree. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that to—

Mr. John McKay: But you are calling for the creation of rights.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: When you call for the creation of rights, that means remedies.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: We need to be very precise in this area as to just exactly what it is you're calling for.

Thank you.

The Chair: Go ahead, Susan.

Ms. Susan MacAskill: Mr. McKay, the main reason we are here today is to emphasize the importance of having a minimum standard federally. We recognize that in terms of crimes that occur in one part of the country, victims of those crimes may not be given the same consideration in another part of the country.

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Ms. Susan MacAskill: I'm from the province of Nova Scotia, the Annapolis Valley. Here's what my experience was there in 1993.

My father was hit by an impaired driver in the Wentworth Valley, which is in Cumberland County. He lived for ten days in an unconscious state before our family gave permission to the medical team to remove his life-support system. So we made the decision that his life would end.

I had just completed, six months before that, specific training that was legislated under the Province of Nova Scotia through the Department of Justice. This training was in victim support, victim services, through the RCMP. I had just finished that training when our family had this experience.

When it came to the questions that we had about the investigation and the proceedings, I asked the police if I could see the reports. I asked them to tell me what they could do, take me out to the site, reconstruct the scene, tell me what the charges were, and let me know what the criminal proceedings were going to be. Every one of my questions was answered.

When I was concerned about the charges and what was going to happen to the person who was responsible for my father's death, my response was that my father is dead but there's no impaired driving charge. My father is dead, but this person is.... There were violations of the Motor Vehicle Act and a number of things.

The RCMP investigating officer, in the kindest way she could, looked me straight in the eye and said that I had to understand that I was not wronged, my father was wronged. That's the problem.

Mr. John McKay: Sure it is.

Ms. Susan MacAskill: So when we come to you with a definition, a proposed model, we're asking that the rights of those who have been directly impacted be considered. The wording of the legislation in many of the provinces says that we have a right to know this. Yes, we have a right to be informed. Yes, we do. But if you don't ask, it isn't anyone's responsibility to communicate the proceedings to the victim. That's what we're asking you for.

Say you bring insurance companies and employers into it. An insurance company used to represent my best interests. That's why I paid my premium. If they're impacted by this, that's not why we're here today. If my employer is impacted by that, they pay compensation to the government and those sorts of things. That's not personal, this is personal. What we're asking for is that those whose rights have been violated be given the same personal consideration for their needs as the accused and offenders.

• 1145

Mr. John McKay: You and I today might have a pretty clear idea of who we think is a victim. We have to write it down. Having been in and around courts for way too many years, whatever definition we write will inevitably get expanded and expanded—

The Chair: Or narrowed.

Mr. John McKay: —or narrowed, it can go either way, to actually ultimately, and potentially ultimately, defeat what we intend to do, which is to involve victims in the process. That's why I'm pushing you on where you want to go with this definition. I think it's extremely important that this committee hear what you think constitutes a victim, and push on both edges.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. DeVilliers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My concern is over the enforceability of the national standards you're recommending. We saw an example of it here today with the Bloc member. But the Bloc is not the only party that has difficulties with national standards. Other provinces have difficulty and are jealous in guarding their jurisdictions.

We're dealing here with the administration of criminal justice, which is done provincially. Many of the social services the victims are seeking are delivered provincially. I'm a strong believer in national standards in a lot of areas, but we need to know that we will be able to enforce them.

Has your organization done any work or given any thought to what means might be put in place to make sure these national standards are respected? Once this victims' bill of rights is created nationally, the federal government will have to look to the provinces to adhere to it. There are measures in the Canada Health Act that enable the federal government to ensure the standards are being complied with. Have you given any thought to that?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Just briefly, our idea of having a federal ombudsman, as well as each province having an ombudsman, would be a way to start a process whereby victims could contact that office about concerns and remedies.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But how will the federal ombudsman have any teeth? She will be calling the provinces and telling them they aren't rendering proper social services to their victims. They're going to tell them to butt out.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: But if the federal government establishes a national standard, then a federal ombudsman's responsibility would be to ensure that national standard is being met in each province.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But the jurisdictional problem will come when the provinces say “We administer those social services and not the federal government, so we don't want the federal ombudsman telling us how to manage our affairs”. We saw a demonstration of that attitude here today. I think there are many other provinces and political entities in the country that are not maybe on the same wavelength as the Bloc but share some of those same concerns.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I think it is similar to the Criminal Code. The provinces have the responsibility for administering that and providing the resources to carry that out. They have an obligation to the federal government to ensure that happens. A sort of a judicial code for victims would work in a similar fashion.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Your submission today was excellent. It's a good run-through with many perspectives on this. I want to pick the bone a little more, so forgive me for being too technical.

Do you accept the proposition that when we're talking about victims' rights here we're not really talking about legal absolute rights, we're talking about—to use your terms or the terms that were used earlier—a set of standards? Do you accept that if Parliament were to legislate a right, it would be an absolute, unalterable right? We're not trying to construct a whole series of new rights for Canadians here, but a set of standards. Do you accept the statement I just made as to what the objective is, or are you actually saying MADD want to see actual, legal, unalterable, inalienable, explicit rights accorded to victims? Have you thought about that?

• 1150

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: We are asking for rights. What we have now in the different provinces has been pointed out: victims should have access, or, subject to the limits of resources, victims should get this. What we know is that they don't, and they're frustrated by that. So we're asking the federal government to set a standard for victims' rights, to say victims need to have this set of rights as a standard, and then ask the provinces to administer those.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, victims need to have these rights. When you say that, you can't be iffy about it; one must either have a right or not. It's not a question of whether you should have a right; it's a question of either having it or not having it. So you truly are then recommending that explicit rights be accorded to peoples who fall under the class of victim?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Right.

Mr. Derek Lee: As I read your paper, I'm not picking that up fully; that's why I ask the question. You're urging standards and you've attempted to codify rights, but I don't believe you've gone all the way in thinking through the application or the enforcement of the rights. But I'll accept your answer then as urging this committee to focus on rights, absolute rights. Do I have that right?

Ms. Susan McNab: Yes.

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. If these are to be rights, then we have to be pretty focused on where they are, because once they go into place, they're bedrock. You can't pick and choose. We can't pick and choose, nor will anybody else in the system, because they will be rights. And they'll have to be explicit enough; otherwise they'll be very difficult to enforce.

Ms. Susan McNab: We would definitely hope that.

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes.

In our justice system now, the king's administration has become very complex. It used to be that the sheriff took care of things 500 years ago, but now you have a number of different players who are somewhat compartmentalized.

I know you have thought about the victim in each of the pieces of the framework, but in your paper you haven't organized it that way. That's quite all right, but have you developed an explicit listing of what we can call rights of victims in relation to what I've broken down into five classes, five categories?

In the first category you have the victim, however defined, during an investigation of a crime, and there the police are in charge. Then you have a victim during a prosecution of a crime, and there you have a crown attorney in charge. Then you have a victim during conviction and sentencing, where you have a judge. Then you have a victim during custodial sentence, where CSC is in charge. And lastly, in some cases you probably have a victim during conditional release phase, where the National Parole Board is in charge.

Do you feel that what you've recommended here so far addresses each of those players fairly, or are there some players in the list I've mentioned who perhaps we haven't looked at closely enough to ascertain whether the victim's position is properly understood and protected—in any of those five: the police, the crown, the judge, CSC, or NPB?

• 1155

Ms. Susan MacAskill: We've presented a model that will recognize the rights of victims in all of those proceedings. We're asking that their rights be enforced, that they be uniform across this country, and that there be a process you can go to if you feel you need a recourse in the action that's been taken. In every one of those categories you've mentioned, we feel our model will fit.

Mr. Derek Lee: One of the weaknesses in the current system—there are perhaps many from the point of view of the victim—is clearly information. The victim usually is confronted with very little knowledge of the processes and the law, and even of these players in the system. Where do you think is the best place to provide a victim with information—where in that sequencing? Or should each part play a role in providing information? Is there a piece on the front end or at the end or in the middle?

Ms. Susan MacAskill: The information has to be conveyed through the entire process.

When I became a victim, I didn't get a handbook on how to be a victim, so I had to ask questions based on my training background, which gave me an advantage over many people who had not had the experience of having gone through that training. When I asked the RCMP detachment in the jurisdiction where my father was killed if they had a victim assistance program, the answer was no. Therefore I began my own.

The only reason I found the information I did and the only reason my questions were answered is that I had been through a process of training. I had the fortune of knowing how to pursue that, but many people do not have that. That's where the victimization of the process comes in again, not only by the action of the offender who's accused, but by being involved in the system.

So it needs to be introduced in every one of those stages you've mentioned so that the people who are responsible for conducting that part of the process are also communicating to the victim the information that is required for them to have the greatest degree of protection.

Mr. Derek Lee: If each party is responsible for informing victims at each of those stages, you do have a kind of segmentation. You may even have some redundancy, where the police end up providing the same information as the judge in step three or the Crown as the CSC in step five.

I know people generally look to government to fill the gaps in society, but is there some agency or something that government could create that might fill the need? You could say maybe members of Parliament should do it or maybe crown attorneys' offices should do it or the Salvation Army or something. Is there an agency that might be created or that might already be in existence that could, on a seamless basis, provide the information—the broader, focused information—for each of the components?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: To a certain extent the victims' services, whether they be police-based or Crown-based, do some of that. Our experience has been that probably 90% of those cases are sexual assault or domestic violence, and that largely volunteer organizations can't be expected to.... They just don't have the resources to provide a seamless delivery of information.

Part of what we do with our volunteers is to provide that training so they can assist victims, but the concern is, again, victims don't have the right to have that information. Should they have it? Absolutely, and we try to get it to them. But they're also faced at every step with “You don't really need to know that” or “Let us look after it; that's not really your concern.” These comments happen on a daily basis.

They should have the information. The problem is they don't have the right to have the information, and it's not clear who is supposed to give that information and in what form.

The Chair: Thanks, Derek.

I just wanted to ask one question of Susan McNab. The Ottawa-Carleton Dispute Resolution Centre is going to appear before the committee this afternoon on this same subject matter. Did you have experience with them in relation to the OPP officers involved in your son's case?

• 1200

Ms. Susan McNab: No, I did not.

The Chair: Okay.

To Susan MacAskill, have you coordinated your activities with such other groups as CAVEAT or the Victims Resource Centre?

Ms. Susan MacAskill: On the issue of victims' rights?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Susan MacAskill: We have done some stakeholding with other members involved who are affected by the alcohol issue, and victims' rights has been one part of it. There have been many things.

Yes, we're open to conversing with other organizations that have a concern with this area. We'd like to play a leadership role in it, but certainly we want to work with other groups who have.

The Chair: In the introduction of your document on page 4—and this is not to be picky; I just want to be clear—you talk about changes to the Young Offenders Act and about offenders' parole hearings.

Are you aware that there is no parole system for young offenders. If so, what is that in there for?

Ms. Susan MacAskill: Are you in the proposed model?

The Chair: I'm looking at paragraph F, “Changes to Young Offenders Act”. It says, “Again, all victims need to have the right to attend the offender's parole hearings”. There aren't any for young people. Did you mean something else, or is that an error?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: I think that should have been included under paragraph E, dealing with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The Chair: Okay. That's what I wondered. Because there is a process for young people to have their sentence reviewed. Had you turned your minds to that? Is that maybe what you did?

Ms. Joanne Jarvis: Yes, that may have been it.

The Chair: Thanks. Those are all my questions.

Chuck, did you have a final comment?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I want to make a quick comment, to follow on what Mr. Lee was talking about, on my own experience in B.C. Right now there are three levels. We have the police victims' services where virtually every detachment has a victims' services worker. Then we have the courts with crown victims' services in the smaller areas, doubled up by the police. Now there's also a victims' service coordinator being set up, in my understanding, in the Pacific region where victims do have recourse and a way to get into Corrections Canada with their problems.

That's just to follow up on what you were saying.

The Chair: You're our resident witness.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Should I go to the other end?

The Chair: Could you, please?

Thanks a lot. We appreciate it.

We'll rise to regroup.

• 1203

• 1207

The Chair: Let's take our places. Jack has an argument to make.

Jack, you have three motions; you have two and Mr. Breitkreuz has one. All three are on the docket. Is that what you had intended?

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Yes. I'll deal with them.

The Chair: Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: If I could address the first one, it is the request that, pursuant to section 18 of the Constitution Act, section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, and section 108(1)(a) of the Standing Orders, this committee send for the Minister of Justice and senior justice officials to discuss the discrepancies in costs associated with the firearms registry.

If I could deal with that one first, on Monday, April 20, 1998, at a meeting of the justice committee, a member of this committee asked the justice minister about the cost of the firearms registration. Mr. MacKay stated this:

I want to ask you specifically how much money has been spent thus far. What is the projected cost of a system that is anticipated to be up and running by the year 2000?

The Honourable Anne McLellan, who was present, referred the question to Mr. Thomson, the deputy minister, and he answered:

As stated on the broad level, there are really three areas of cost. One is the running of the existing program, the C-17 program. The second is the start-up costs relating to the new system, and that's the so-called $ 85 million figure that Mr. Rock has spoken about. Thirdly, there are the costs of running the system on an ongoing basis. The expenditures to date on getting ready or carrying on all three of those as of April 1 are approximately $ 66 million. That's the total amount spent to date.

• 1210

Now that was the information that this committee was given on April 20 of this year. However, approximately one month later, on May 21, in an article by Sean Durkan in the Ottawa Sun entitled “New gun registry cost shooting up”, we get a different set of figures. Mr. Durkan's article said:

Jean Valin, spokesman for the new firearms centre, said the estimated one-time cost of setting up the universal registry of all firearms and owners in Canada has climbed from $ 85 million to $ 120 million.

The $ 120-million figure does not include operational costs once the registry is up and running. The government is remaining coy about these, though.

The total cost of gun control this year will peak at $ 133.9 million....

There seems to be an inconsistency between the statement by the deputy minister with regard to the cost and the statement by Mr. Valin, who was apparently speaking for the new firearms centre. In order to clarify any question that this committee has been given information that is misleading with regard to the cost, we would ask that the minister return, perhaps with her deputy, in order to clarify these questions.

The confusion around this doesn't end there. It's of course in the public domain as well. If I can, I would take a moment to quote from some of the other editorials. In the Edmonton Journal on November 3, 1997, it said that:

In the context of the current fiscal climate of massive reductions to government spending, the cost of any new program needs to be carefully scrutinized before being implemented and the estimates then shared with Canadian taxpayers.

Of course they're referring to estimates that are $ 146 million spent so far, $ 150 million spent so far. So there is confusion not only left with the committee as a result of the statement by Mr. Valin to Mr. Durkan, but also in other areas of the public there is real confusion as to the cost to date of the registration program.

The first motion that I'm addressing is based upon what appears to be an inconsistency between the information received by this committee when the justice minister and her officials appeared and the information that was later given by Mr. Valin.

Madam Chair, I think it would be fair to give the justice minister an opportunity to clarify the concerns that have been raised as to whether or not the committee was given the accurate and proper information, as to whether Mr. Valin is in error or whether Mr. Durkan was in error in his reporting. There is no question that there is a doubt as to the validity of the information that was presented here by the deputy minister on April 20, 1998. That basically is my concern and the reason for the first motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Any other comments? Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): I certainly have a concern that in the testimony given at committee, evidence is given that the world is a certain way, and then when the delegation leaves the table questions are asked by a reporter on the way out the door and different evidence is given. That appears to be, on the face of it, what we're looking at. Certain impressions and evidence is given to the committee, yet a part of this delegation gives a reporter a totally different story as they're going out the door. That then calls into question just what was going on at committee, who's talking to whom. Have they got their record straight? I think it undermines the credibility of the committee.

• 1215

We have to be sure, especially when a minister comes and gives evidence, that.... In reading the transcript, I see there was quite a discussion of numbers that the minister didn't look very prepared to really answer. In looking at the transcripts, I see there were side comments back and forth to supporting staff about what numbers they were talking about.

So we're trying to get to the truth of the matter, that obviously there is a cost and that the government must have made a reasonable estimation as to what the cost is. They've got to have an accounting as to what has been spent so far. And there's the larger issue of a political justification, going to the people with what this overall scheme is going to cost.

We can argue in the political realm about whether it's wise or not, but certainly for the Canadian public to evaluate what they're going to think about it, they at least deserve to be told the truth about what this whole scheme actually costs. And it was very ambiguous when the minister came to committee about the kinds of numbers that were given, especially in view of very direct questions. It's not a complicated matter.

Simple, direct questions, which were well within the purview of the committee to ask, were asked, and I don't think we got a straight answer, based on what we've heard so far. So that's the basis of this motion.

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Just on that last point, I think the figures the minister and the deputy minister gave are clear. Obviously the article is referring to other information. But I don't think that every time there is a newspaper article quoting someone on some figures, this committee is going to have to revisit every issue every time.

The figures will be available at estimates. I know one of the motions talks about future years. They will always be available to the committee to review them at the estimates in the future years. I think we were given a clear answer. I know there's somebody saying different numbers, but there are other means available to confirm those numbers rather than to have to involve the committee, when the agenda this committee has is already very heavy.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: May I ask for clarification as to who this Mr. Valin is please?

The Chair: Who?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: They mentioned a Mr. Valin, and supposedly a member of the justice department who gave different figures and a different answer.

The Chair: He's the director of the gun registry.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: All right then, Madam Chair, I would like to know why there wouldn't be a move without a motion of this nature, which.... It strikes me as unnecessary.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mrs. Finestone, he's the spokesperson for the new firearms centre; he's not the head of it. He's the spokesperson for the firearms centre. So he's the communications person.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I misunderstood. I thought they said the justice department, because I was going to ask why we couldn't be writing the minister to ask if we could we have some clarification. If it comes from the firearms department, it all depends on what their goal was, and I would prefer to believe that the minister and her staff would have given us the pertinent figures for the date and that the new figures would be forthcoming.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I want to congratulate Mr. Valin, as a communicator, for getting his message out. I can only hope that he was quoted as accurately as many of us around this place are from time to time.

In any event, Mr. Ramsay, in my view, has not raised a matter I find pressing. It's no more pressing than the estimated cost of laying down the new sewer line out here just to the left of this building. It is a work in process. There's a contract in place. There are estimates and there are expenditures. And I don't think anybody in the justice department is going to be able to give anybody a precise dollar figure—they're certainly working with estimates—of what this particular sequence of initiatives is going to cost between now and the end of the fiscal year or into the next year. It's unfair to expect that kind of precision, just as it is to expect the same kind of precision with the laying of the sewer line. Sorry, it's a water line, not a sewer line. I wouldn't want to mislead my colleagues here.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's where I want all the guns to go.

• 1220

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Ramsay, the information you've indicated comes from a journalist. I can only assume you've checked your journalist source.

The $ 120-million figure is not way out of line with the information that Mr. Thomson gave us here. The question he answered was on how much they have spent to date. He said $ 60 million.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: He said $ 66 million.

Mr. Derek Lee: Sorry, he said $ 66 million.

So that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone around this table. By the way, that $ 66 million was spent.... I can't remember, was it for the delivery of all three programs?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Up to date.

Mr. Derek Lee: Up to date for all three. But you'll recall that there's the old regime, the start-up for the new one, which requires some capital and other expenditures, and then the running of the program.

You indicated the confusion doesn't end there. From my point of view, Jack, the confusion doesn't even start there, because I'm not confused. What we have is an initiative that has been approved by Parliament. We have estimates that have been approved, and if there are cost overruns, we'll get to them in due course. I don't think it's that pressing. If there's a cost overrun on the laying of the water line out here, I hope you'll be as assiduous in pursuing that.

I don't think it's pressing. I don't think anybody has been misled. It's your right, when you see different figures out there, to lay the blame at the foot of the government administrators or the minister, but I don't see that there has been any confusion or any misleading going on. Should you be able to show that, I would be most interested as a committee member here, but I just don't see it today.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mrs. Bakopanos, did I see your hand up?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't want to repeat what Mr. Lee has said, but I fully agree with his comments. I don't think right now is the appropriate time, considering the fact that the new system is being in put in place. I think there has been ample debate. I have debated a similar motion in the House by both the Reform and the Conservative Party.

I do believe, if and when we do have the system running, Jack, that would be the appropriate time, in my opinion, to come back. The minister and I took offence when it was said earlier that the minister was not open and was confused. Quite the contrary: she was quite honest in saying it is an ongoing, running system. As of October 1, we will know most of the cost.

There are negotiations also going on with the provinces at the present time, and we're not going to negotiate out in the public. Certainly you wouldn't want the government to do that. The figure will be made available as part of the estimates of the government.

The Chair: The bells are ringing. I have information that it's a 15-minute bell.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: So let's vote.

The Chair: I'll call the question.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I would like a recorded vote, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: May I suggest, Madam Chairman, that the other two motions you have in front of you are very similar.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: We're not done with the count.

(Motion negatived: yeas, 3; nays, 6)

The Chair: Did you have a point of order, Mrs. Finestone?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Because they're all relative to the same issue and I think we've had a very good explanation of what the matter is before us, I don't see the point to having—unless you want another voice count on the other two motions, which are all relative to section 18....

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'd like to speak to the motions, and if we don't have time, we should adjourn.

The Chair: We'll adjourn.

I don't know when I'm putting it back on the agenda, Jack.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: When it does come, we should put time to address it.

The Chair: You know something, I think it's Reform's fault that we don't have time to address it today.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I don't care whose fault it is; there's always time ahead.

The Chair: We'll see.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: If it doesn't come forward, we'll simply enter another motion.

The Chair: Have fun.

The Clerk of the Committee: You have 13 minutes, Madam.

The Chair: We have 13 minutes.

The meeting is adjourned.