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

• 1545

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): We're back and we're still working on the role of victims in the criminal justice system. We have today Carole Eldridge, executive director of the Dispute Resolution Centre for Ottawa-Carleton. I know you have a presentation you'd like to give and then we'll have questions.

Ms. Carole Eldridge (Executive Director, Dispute Resolution Centre for Ottawa-Carleton): Thank you very much.

What I've chosen to do is briefly summarize the material I had presented and the highlights. Then my hope was that there would be a number of questions posed.

The Chair: If you've not appeared before our committee before, you'll come to know that staff come and go, people come and go, and that's just the nature of the beast.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: It's the first time I've appeared before your committee. I have to tell you that in my former life I worked for the ombudsman's office in Toronto, and so I appeared before a provincial standing committee in that role, but that was a number of years ago and I'd forgotten. So I'm being reminded. Thank you.

In essence, the organization I work with has operated programs within the criminal justice context for the last nine years. We were the first program to initiate services throughout the continuum. So whether that would be before charges are laid, after charges are laid but before a matter goes to court, after someone has made a plea, or after conviction, we provide services throughout that continuum.

In the course of that we end up dealing with people who are labelled as victims or as complainants, because until such time as a conviction is registered in the criminal justice system, as you know, you're not technically a victim, though you may have been victimized. We have come to meet any number of people who say thank you because they feel they've been listened to, that they've been able to get answers to questions that they couldn't get in the traditional system, and they've been able to put closure to an incident that has occurred to them.

In 1987 we established the first peer mediation program in Canada in the schools. The impact of that has been that our numbers with youth cases, people voluntarily agreeing to a dispute resolution process, are higher than with adults. That probably relates back to the fact that the youth in the schools who are learning to deal with conflict among themselves are more comfortable when given options within the traditional system.

In 1989 we began the adult post-charge program. In 1993 we started to include the youth, and then in 1995 we had sufficient support from the Ottawa-Carleton regional police service. We began to take direct referrals from it on youth cases where it chose not to lay charges. Those numbers have increased and we now do regular training with the police to enhance that service.

One of the things I referred to in the written presentation was the statistics. Our statistics are defined by the number of accused. It's always a question of how you define it and how you use statistics. We chose to do it based on the number of accused, so if there is some question where you see a higher number of charges referred to, it is because in some cases the accused will have more than one charge. I know some of you may have picked that up if you looked at the statistics.

However, what's happened is that approximately three-quarters of all the criminal matters that we look at we feel are suitable for a dispute resolution option. Other than the matters that the police refer directly, we are not a diversion program. So if you hear about the diversion cases, that's not us.

All the matters we take remain within the traditional system and we deal with them and then they go back into the system. A victim agreeing to work with us isn't abrogating any right to their day in court, or their day before the judiciary, the crown or whatever it is they need.

Over the years the range of people who have voluntarily agreed to an option is between 30% and 40%. I think it depends in part on who does the contact with the victim and tries to encourage them to consider this option.

• 1550

One of the things we found is that victims want an opportunity to talk. They want an opportunity to be heard. They want to ask questions. Sometimes they are simple questions about the criminal justice process: they talked with the officer; charges were laid some six months ago and they really don't know what's happening. Their familiarity is with television. Things seem to be expedited on TV and they're wondering why the matter is still in the court.

When we talk with people, we end up giving a lot of information. None of us are lawyers providing this information, so it's not legal information that we're giving; it's just process information on a justice system. Of those people, about 40% will agree to try an option and that option means they've agreed in some form to sit down with the person who is accused and to face them. They may be doing that one on one.

Yesterday I had a situation with five people on one side and five on the other side. We ended up being involved in a matter that involved 47 people and we did that as a circle. That was in that case youths and some supporters. It really depends on the kind of case as to the process that we use, which is why I'm not just using the term “mediation”.

In over 90% of the cases we deal with where people agree to meet, they come to some common understandings. We are not pressuring anyone to go to settlement. We have some lawyers who are volunteers with us who perhaps are eager to see a settlement, but what is more important for us is really process. In spite of that, over 90% of people come to common understandings. In the documents I've provided you with today, at the end of the package there are examples of two agreements based on common understanding. What I want to do toward the end of my presentation is really talk a bit about those. One of those cases I referred to in the materials I provided for you. For the other, this will be the first time it has come to your attention.

I think the other thing that's relevant is that probably half of what we deal with involves matters where the public feels maybe we shouldn't because it involves assaults, threats, assault causing bodily harm. We're involved in matters by and large that are physical offences, I like to call them, as opposed to property offences. I think that's fairly unusual, because usually it's people involved in property offences. Those physical offences can involve anything from a push....

I don't know about any of you, but I learned to drive in the province of Quebec, so I have a particular driving style, which didn't necessarily meet the driving style of people when I moved to Toronto. I found myself sometimes feeling vaguely frustrated with the other drivers. However, I was lucky; I chose never to get out of my car and tell someone else what I thought about their driving. If I had I could have found myself being charged with assault, or if had I kicked the tires of that other car, that would have been a charge of mischief.

Initially those were the kinds of matters we dealt with. You're thinking that's a fairly minor incident, but I'm thinking of people who would come to mediation who had been involved in a traffic disagreement and for them it was a major event. It was something they were living with daily. It was something the police were not paying attention to. A charge had been laid but chances were it wasn't going to trial. There were some people who were very injured, who wanted to talk, who wanted to find out what was going on, who wanted to ask questions and get answers to why were they cut off: “What was your problem and why did you try to kill me?” They are somewhat extreme reactions, but sometimes those were the kinds of reactions we got.

What I want to talk a bit about is our process. We take referrals from pretty well anyone from within the criminal justice system, the victim or the accused. It has to be somebody directly involved in the incident or directly involved in the processing of that incident. We will look at the matter and determine whether in our view it's suitable for mediation so the crown may refer a matter or the police may refer a matter, but that in and of itself doesn't mean we will accept the case. We have standards that we tend to look at. They're not carved in stone, but they're guidelines we use.

We then access the mediation suitability or the dispute resolution suitability, and then we'll contact the victim and determine if they're willing to try some form of dispute resolution.

• 1555

If the accused has no counsel we will contact them directly. If they have counsel we contact the counsel.

If there's an agreement to meet, then that will be scheduled and the services provided by a volunteer and a member of the community. We are a volunteer-based organization and the some 25 mediators we have represent a cross-section of the community of Ottawa-Carleton.

The meeting is convened. If there are any common understandings reached, those are normally written at the time. Our meetings range from an hour and a half to three hours. Last night it took longer, because if you have 10 people who all want an opportunity to speak, by the time you get around the room once, you've gone at least half an hour. So that would take longer.

The only document that will leave the mediation or the dispute resolution option is that agreement based on common understanding. We provide no reports for the court, for the police, for the schools, for the judiciary. The only document is that agreement. That agreement is treated as confidential unless we are given permission by both parties to release it. We had permission from both parties to release the document contained in the initial material.

Last night the question to me was what I would tell the crown attorney. I said nothing. I was asked about any notes taken. I said we would rip them up at the end of the day.

People are asked to sign a release saying they agree not to subpoena the mediator or the representative of the dispute resolution centre, and so far that has not been tested in the courts. In Manitoba there were three subpoenas issued for mediators but they were never called. I'm not aware of any cases where someone has been required to testify.

We then refer the matter back to the judicial system, and it's a system that makes its decision. As I said, we're not diversion, other than the pre-charge matters of the police, and what happens is that the information contained in those agreements is considered by the court in its determination of the outcome.

Somebody once said to me that the best way of talking about what you do is to tell stories, and I don't know how long you've been sitting, but I think by now you probably have heard a lot about process and statistics. What I'd like to do is talk about stories. I'd like to talk about one of the common understandings contained in what I handed out today.

This case involved a youth who stole a car. He believed he was being chased by the police. He unfortunately didn't know how to drive. He lost control of the vehicle and crashed into another car. The other car was a very solid car, a very good thing because if it hadn't been, the two people in that car would have been killed. As it was, they were very seriously injured. They both required hospitalization and they both now have mobility problems. We were approached by both the defence counsel and the crown and asked if we would consider mediation in this matter. It came to me and I thought, I'm not sure about this. The last thing these two people needed was some smart-alecky kid who really didn't care what he'd done wounding them yet one more time.

So even though I strongly support dispute resolution options, I think you also have to ensure that your parties are adequately prepared, and that includes not only the victims but the other parties who are going to take part.

There was a probation officer who did a predisposition report on this youth. They were contacted. The youth was in custody, so the people in the custody facility were also contacted. Everyone was of the view that this youth was not going to further victimize the two ladies who had been injured. So we did the mediation.

I was the mediator in that case. As the youth came into the room and looked at these two people, he said “I'm so glad you weren't killed”. That was the first time they had heard from him since this incident, which had been nine months earlier. They looked at him and said thank you. They thought he was a smart-alecky punk. They had a lot of questions about what had happened and why, and the driver wondered whether or not she could have avoided it. Her friend, who had been in a wheelchair and was almost out of it, is now permanently in a wheelchair because of that accident. The driver has mobility problems. They are two very wounded people.

• 1600

They sat with this youth for about three hours.

Earlier the dog was mentioned. Somebody here must be a dog lover. One of these ladies had with her a working dog because her disability is such that she can't pick anything up. The dog was very attentive at the beginning of the process. When the dog was asleep it started sort of chasing rabbits, lying down and twitching. It was a very relaxed puppy. That's when I knew its owner was fine too. My gut was that everything was going well, but it was looking at that dog that I thought yes, we're all fine.

The ladies asked questions. The youth answered the questions. They wanted to know who he was, where he came from, why was he there, what was he trying to do, what was his record, where was he going, and did he know what he had done to them. By the end of that meeting they decided they wanted to know where he is in six months and that six months is up. He has written to them telling them where he is and what he's doing, and they decided they wanted some ongoing contact.

At some point he may or may not know where they live. Right now this is done through one of his workers. He's in an open custody facility, and I gather, because I checked before I came today, that he is taking responsibility for his actions. He is no longer saying “it wasn't me, it was somebody else”. The thought is among those who know him the most that this process where he met the victims one on one has contributed to his taking responsibility.

In the other case I did report in the materials that I gave you. What I've included today is the speech given by Susan at a conference called Satisfying Justice, which took place in Vancouver over a year ago. She gave this speech about life in the two years between the time that her brother died and the person charged with leaving her brother to die in the car accident came to trial. At one point Susan recounts in her speech that she just wanted to ask him some questions. In court she went up to him and he said to her “I can't speak to you”. She came from Toronto for each court appearance in Ottawa and she was starting to get very frustrated. she said “I want you to talk to me”. He said “I can't”.

I guess she became quite upset, so as a result she was evicted from the court because she was the one making a commotion, yet she was in fact the victim. But the accused was doing what he was told to do, which was “don't talk to them”, so he wasn't talking to them. She just wanted information. When I asked her why she agreed to mediation she said they needed answers to questions: “I wanted to know what my brother's last day was like. I wanted to know if he talked about his family. Did he talk about his son? Did he have a nice day? What happened?”

In the details of that case, two friends were drinking. They went out for more food or alcohol. It was slippery. The driver skidded and ploughed into a series of parked cars and then ran away from the vehicle, leaving his friend to die.

They didn't become the best of friends, the mother, the sister, and the person who had killed the brother, but what they were able to do was move on. There was an impact on sentence in that the person who had pleaded guilty and is serving a three-year term...when he comes out, part of the condition is what he agreed to in the mediation agreement, which was that he would go out and talk to youth about the dangers of drinking and driving. So there is going to be some follow-up.

There are any number of stories I could tell, and given half a chance I probably would, but I think what I really want to do is summarize that in the nine years that I've been doing this, what I've learned the most is that victims need the opportunity to ask questions that have nothing to do with the law necessarily. They have to do with why: Why me? Was there something I could have done so that I wasn't victimized? Did I contribute? Was I just in the wrong place at the wrong time? How do I move on so that I stop worrying?

• 1605

Sometimes they need to put that other person in context, not to become best friends, not to say I forgive you, I hope you don't get a prison term or whatever. They just need to put context to it. It made sense to me.

At one point I was driving on the highway and a transport truck came across the median. It came across the road behind me. I saw this all quite clearly and I continued. About ten miles later I thought, did the transport truck come across the road or was that just my imagination? Were people injured?

I stopped and asked the OPP. Yes, the truck had come across the road. No, people hadn't been injured. But it struck me that I was there, I saw something, but I still had questions on something that hadn't even personally affected me.

I think victims need to put their own framework on the scenario that has affected them.

I think I'll stop there because it's 4:05 p.m. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cadman, did you have some questions?

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Eldridge, for coming today. I have a couple of quick questions. First of all, what's the most violent offence you've dealt with and been involved with as a mediator?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: I'm not trying to be difficult here, but by violent do you mean the most serious charge?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Bodily injury or personal injury.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Probably the two ladies and the youth, where there was the most amount of damage to their bodies that they will never recover.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: So these are traffic related.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: That was traffic related. I can think of others.

I have an unusual question. Is part of this in camera?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: One of the difficulties I'm suffering from here is that everything we do is confidential. So if I talk about some specific cases, they are fairly identifiable.

We have been involved in serious assaults. We have been involved in assault causing bodily harm. That would probably qualify as the most serious where people have been injured.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: If I can put it statistically, what kind of success rate do you have with those as far as getting some kind of mediation occurring?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: About 92% to 95%, once people have agreed to meet.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: How do you go about getting a victim? What kind of a process do you use? I'm going from some experiences I've had or at least things I've heard back in B.C. There were some horror stories about people who were doing mediation actually calling up victims and saying “You should really do this, it will be good for you”, almost to the point of being coerced.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: No. We try very hard. I'm very stringent. No one is coerced.

Let me tell you about my meeting with the two women who agreed to meet with the youth. Maybe that's the best way of explaining it. As I say, they're the most injured.

One of the parties felt so injured and so upset that they couldn't come to the courthouse. They made appointments with the crown attorney but they never kept them.

I contacted them at home because we had decided that because of the nature of this case it would be important for them to know that the crown attorney supported this as an option but they should feel no compulsion to attend, that it wasn't necessarily going to affect sentence, because this was pretrial, pre-sentence, and that they should have answers to all the questions they might have about process. Hence the attempt to meet in the courthouse.

I contacted the victims and asked if there was a reason they weren't able to come to the court house. It was difficult with para-transpo. So I asked if they would like us to come to their place. Eventually it was yes, please. When we went I talked about process. I talked about what in this case the mediation would provide, which would be the answers to questions.

I had read the victim impact statements, so I knew the points they had questions on and that they felt injured about.

• 1610

I basically put it to them that there would be a framework, that there was a process, that it was confidential, that they could leave at any time. That's one of the conditions we have. Anyone can leave the mediation. You just have to agree to say you're leaving and why, and listen, and then give them a couple of days to think about it.

So the process we follow is we do not require anyone to attend immediately. We will tell them that the court may have thought it was a good option to consider and that when we talk about the situation with them we may feed back to them some things they might want to bring up in a session.

Does that answer your question?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: One of the things we're hoping to do is have the judiciary refer serious cases to us at the pre-sentence stage, and that was a proposal we put in. The report I gave you is by and large a proposal we had made to the ministry of the attorney general in Ontario to provide us with some funding. That included the fact that we're asking the judiciary to refer matters directly.

One of the questions the judiciary had is why should a victim mediate. What is there to mediate as a victim? You've been victimized. You shouldn't have to give up anything. It may be that it's time for a new term. It's a new term for a framework, a process that allows people to explore options they haven't in the past and be able to move on. That can work with serious crime. That can work with minor crime.

Some members of the judiciary are comfortable in referring matters to us; others aren't. In a year's time, hopefully I can report that we've had any number and what the rate has been. One of the preconditions is that none of the victims is to feel that by either agreeing or failing to agree to meet, that's going to affect sentence. We never ask a victim what they would like to see with sentence. Defence counsel would like us to, but we never ask. We explain that. We don't work for the crown and we don't work for defence, and the role of the mediator is to be impartial, or the facilitator, depending on the situation.

In the matter I was involved with yesterday, which involves five counts of assault on one person, it was very important to ensure that one person didn't feel victimized. I invited them to bring four friends with them to this meeting, hence the 10 people.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Have you done anything as far as post-conviction and pre-release?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Just one.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: The reason I ask is that I have heard some other things about offenders just prior to release deciding that it might be a nice time to go and talk to the victim, hoping they'll score some brownie points for parole. Have you had any experience with that?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Very limited. I think there can be some merit in having a one-on-one meeting, or whatever the format prior to release, especially if that individual is coming back to the same community, because I think there will still be some unanswered questions.

I remember doing a mediation. I don't know what the charges were, but I had two people in the room, both of whom were about five foot four. Both were convinced that the other person was six foot three. They were so amazed when they saw that other person was their height, which was not tall. It's a simple example that people build up all sorts of things in their minds.

Sometimes I think that as pre-release, yes, there is trying to build brownie points. What's interesting, though, is in the process people usually get caught when they're trying to soft pedal. We have had feedback because we do evaluations from accused people who are offenders who say it was much harder to do this than it was to go through the court case. They didn't have to talk, the lawyer talked for them. They never really had to do much. In this they're being held accountable. So we aren't yet, but I could see us doing it.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): You have this book I'm looking at, this diagram here, which is labelled the Dispute Resolution Centre for Ottawa-Carleton, January 1995, process overview, criminal mediation program. It's quite a detailed diagram. Are you currently still working basically on this model?

• 1615

Ms. Carole Eldridge: We are in the post-charge, pre-trial.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It's interesting that this is not diversion, but this is an in-systems process where charges are so-called over the offender's head, and your mediation process still has the background that the justice system will continue to crank on, whereas the experience I've been involved with is that the crown makes a decision up front to divert and then you make the best of it after that diversion and take your lumps. Here there almost could be an element of compulsion in that you get cooperation from the offender to reduce their consequences if they cooperate. It's like a model setting up to beat the game. I'm wondering if you've found that to be happening.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: We've done some research. Yes, it's a voluntary process. You can get into a question of what does voluntary mean for the accused. I think we've had two accused refuse to attend over the nine years, so they're volunteering, sort of. So what we wanted to do was take a look at the thoughts of both the victims and the accused after the matter had been dealt with.

Both in 1992 and in 1997 we did interviews with both accused and complainants or victims after the matters had been dealt with. In 1992, 96% of the accused persons and 88% of the victims who attended mediation self-reported that there had been compliance with the agreements reached. At that point 85% of the matters we dealt with were withdrawn from the justice system. That was the disposition, that they were withdrawn. But that notwithstanding, the rates of concurrence with the agreement were much higher than the traditional system.

What happens is our agreements are balanced. They're not your standard “I will pay $300 for the following”, or “I agree to write a letter of apology”, whatever. They really are crafted based on the wishes of the parties in the room. If one party doesn't agree, then we work to a point where they're comfortable with something else.

Last week I met with four 17-year-old youth who live in a planet that's different from mine. It was a challenge for me as the mediator to ensure that it was their agreement and not mine. What happened was they were able to include things that mattered for them in the language they understood.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'd just like to interrupt you and look at this box down at the bottom here. It talks about the notion that you get an agreement reached and as a result of that perhaps charges are withdrawn and there's some informal agreement, or it says a guilty plea with recommendation for the mitigated sentence. In that category, to perform something in the community, would that be made a part of a probation order?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: It could be, or the matter is sometimes set over. It has happened that the matter was set over for a few months to allow it to occur.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Who are the people doing the mediation process? Are these paid people? Are they volunteers? Do they belong to some non-profit society? I want to get into a bit of how you provide the training, ongoing supervision, some standards of performance when you get people doing these things. There's burnout. How do you keep the motivation to keep the thing going? Maybe you can talk about the people doing the mediating.

• 1620

Ms. Carole Eldridge: They're all volunteers. They're people who have expressed an interest in the process. Initially back in 1989 I was the mediator, the executive director, and the case developer. Our first volunteer mediator was someone in charge of the peer mediation program at Woodroffe High School who had learned about mediation through the training that the organization had done at that stage in the schools.

We had a retired hydro worker who wanted to give back to his community and he was our second mediator. The third mediator was a criminology student who is now an OPP officer.

We've had some lawyers who have become volunteers. They work as lawyers and volunteer as mediators. We have a couple of social workers. We have some people who have worked in the justice system. We have an early childhood worker.

Mr. Paul Forseth: At any one time would you have about six people in your program?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Twenty-five.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Do you have some kind of set formula when you bring someone in that they have a body of training that they go through, or how do you handle the training supervision and so on?

Mr. Carole Eldridge: I should explain that most of the staff is part time. I'm part time. The training coordinator is part time.

We have fairly high standards. We require that people have taken basic mediation training in a program that we know the content of and we recognize the content and approve of it, or they're asked to take our generic mediation training for two and a half days. That does not guarantee that you become a mediator. That just means you've got the basics to start with.

We require that people have worked with us as volunteers and have a knowledge of the programs we run and how we operate. We interview about twice a year and open the roster up at that time. We have ongoing training once a month, which we call our advanced training.

I should explain that it's not just the court mediators who are allowed to attend these. All volunteers can, and we have a system whereby for each volunteer hour you work for us you can use this as a credit. For the generic mediation training it's 30 hours or the cost of $300 to allow community members to attend. The advanced training, which is 3 hours, is $30 or 3 hours of volunteer work.

How do we maintain standards? All mediation agreements or agreements that are reached are reviewed, looked at. If there's a problem, I'm advised. I get paid the big bucks to talk to people if there seems to be some difficulty.

Mr. Paul Forseth: What's the global operating budget of your mediation program and where does that money come from?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: I was hoping you'd ask that because that gives me the opportunity of referring to the last document you have. The coloured one refers to an auction we're having next week in the courthouse. I invite you to attend.

Apparently this year we have $40,000 from the Ontario ministry of the solicitor general to allow us to work in partnership with the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service on a pre-charge diversion for youth. I creatively use that money to run all the programs we operate. We used to do bingo every week.

The ministry of the attorney general currently gives us no funding, although there is an application outstanding. The Department of Justice federally is looking at providing us with some money to work with youth. In the past it did fund us to do the work that we did with youth. And we receive donations. So the joke about me earning the big bucks...it's not really the big bucks, but it is more than other people on an hourly rate.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So you're saying that overall your program is in the neighbourhood of $40,000 a year?

Mr. Carole Eldridge: No, in the neighbourhood of about $150,000, but last year it was less.

I can't give you a global. Four months ago I made the last paycheque and then the $40,000 came in from the ministry of the solicitor general. That's kind of how we operate.

• 1625

Mr. Paul Forseth: Do you have any outside reference group, a board of directors or something that supervises or oversees the operations of the society?

Ms. Carol Eldridge: Yes, we have a board of directors. We're a registered charity.

Mr. Paul Forseth: One of the things you said repeatedly is that everything is confidential. I'm concerned that you would overstate the case and leave people to infer things that are not the case. As you know, the only area of privilege is a lawyer-client relationship, and elsewhere there are specific statutory provisions for being a non-compellable witness and that regardless of what people sign or give permission for or whatever, they're all subject to being subpoenaed.

You mention that usually this doesn't happen and that it doesn't work out that way, that you don't publish your files or whatever, but it's just to be careful that you don't oversell the confidentiality issue.

Ms. Carol Eldridge: With all due respect, I don't have any written record of what has occurred. I cannot remember everything that occurs in the matters that are before us, so as a witness I would question whether I could provide the information being looked for. So when I say that it's confidential, it's by and large the parties who agree that what they learn about each other in the process is confidential and that they agree to honour that in good faith.

Mr. Paul Forseth: As long as you have a cooperative crown and perhaps a cooperative defence counsel, because at some point I could see maybe things don't turn out too well and either the defence or the crown might subpoena people.

Ms. Carol Eldridge: We have an undertaking from the crown that it would not subpoena us in Ottawa.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I see this program is operating while charges are still pending. It's in-system rather than a diversion out. Based on your experience at this point, you are operating within the rules of what the Criminal Code says now. Do you have any recommendations as to changes to the Criminal Code that you've come across that would be helpful for your kind of enterprise?

Ms. Carol Eldridge: Probably more clarity about what a peace bond is and when a peace bond can be used and issued, because I think sometimes section 810 of the Criminal Code is used in ways it isn't intended. So that would be helpful, because sometimes people think they want a guarantee that someone is going to stay away but there is some question about what it means and where it goes.

With respect to the other sentencing options, I think one of the things that would be helpful is if there were more formal recognition of the use of options. I can't give you my global budget. It is silly that we can have rates of success in the area of 92% and have all the parties agree to that after the fact and yet much of the public feels this is being soft on crime. So what would be helpful, I think, is if there were some official recognition that some of the options being used are not soft on crime. In fact, what they're doing is holding people accountable for crime in a way that is directly connected to them and it's not through a third party. I think that's what would be more helpful.

Mr. Paul Forseth: You said you don't work for the crown or the defence or whatever. So implicitly in your enterprise, who do you say you work for?

Ms. Carol Eldridge: The community.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Ms. Eldridge, in your work with your organization, do you provide information about the criminal justice system to the victims?

Ms. Carol Eldridge: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: How do you do that? What means do you use to provide that information?

• 1630

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Often it's when we will call somebody and advise them that the case has been referred to us and it appears to be suitable. Are they aware of mediation? Are they aware of what's happening with their case right now? They may not be aware of what's happening with the case. So we advise them of the court process. We advise them of who they can contact or what is a likely outcome. By that I mean not what the disposition is going to be but that the matter has been set for trial or the matter is being considered by the crown attorney. They could contact this person. They might want to talk to the officer, or is there other information they need.

In essence, and there seems to be a theme with what I'm saying today, we answer questions. We don't provide legal advice. I want to say that quite clearly.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's fair. Would you agree that most victims you come in contact with would have been at the outset quite unfamiliar with the criminal justice process?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: And that unfamiliarity is probably a handicap for your organization.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: Then I suppose on the other hand, if you're starting with a tabula rasa, maybe that might make it easier for you, I don't know.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Sometimes when people are contacted, they say “I really just want to know who is that person. I don't necessarily want them to go to jail.” If it's a first-time victim, their thoughts are “charged, jail”. They don't have a range and they aren't aware of the range, and sometimes the information we can provide is what the range is. They'll say “I don't really want that person to go to jail, but I just want to know why they did this, where did they come from, what were they thinking.” That's when we'll say “Would you want to sit down and ask them that question?” In that sense they're not as cynical, perhaps, as some of the rest of us.

Mr. Derek Lee: If you're asked for information about the criminal justice process, how do you go about it? Is it simply a verbal response that you give or are you able to refer people to brochures or documents?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: All of the above. When we contact somebody we may ask them if they're interested in an 810 application as we explore some options. The matters in the post-charge pre-trial, the ones referred to on this chart, are often in a special court process in the Ottawa area, so it may be that the crown is exploring the option of an 810 or a peace bond. So we may explain to them what a peace bond is and ask them if that's the kind of thing they would be looking for. We have that information before us. If somebody is saying they would like information about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or victim witness, we will do the referrals.

Mr. Derek Lee: In your work with victims, do you have access to other types of information? I'm thinking of a victim who says “Where do I go from here now that the charge has been laid”, or just as the charge is about to be laid. What happens next? How do you fill the ignorance gap that's out there?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Sometimes we will give them the answer if it's a relatively easy thing to do. Sometimes we'll refer them back to the police officer because they may have lost the card, depending on the nature of the situation. Depending on the type of situation, it may be that we refer them to the victim witness program in the courthouse.

One of the things I haven't said is that our offices are located in the courthouse. The local justice community is very supportive of us, so our offices are in the courthouse, and the material we use, the paper here, comes from the courthouse. We have access to all the resources there.

Mr. Derek Lee: This sounds pretty labour intensive.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: There isn't an encyclopedia of criminal justice sitting on the wall of the Ottawa courthouse that would allow—

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Somebody to spin the dial?

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: No.

Mr. Derek Lee: This would be a resource. It would essentially be a mini encyclopedia of Canadian criminal justice procedure focused on victim issues, victim perspectives.

• 1635

Ms. Carole Eldridge: With a community focus?

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes. It would be adapted, I suppose, to the locals. It could be. But if I offered this to you and, as the victim, made an inquiry, one could simply print the subject matter or series of subject matters. This would have to be electronic. You might end up with two or three sheets. These will answer your questions, Mr. or Mrs. Victim, and if you have other questions maybe the pages themselves will have further references.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: That's an interesting idea, and I think for some people it would be of help. For some it wouldn't because either their first language is not English—

Mr. Derek Lee: Or French.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: —or their reading skills are not perhaps at grade 10. Sometimes they can't formulate the question clearly. But it would provide I think a useful tool for the service providers.

Mr. Derek Lee: Somebody says “Why is he or she talking about a plea bargain? What is that?” This is what plea bargaining is, or some other element of the criminal procedure, the sentencing, the other dispositions, alternatives, the process that you—

Ms. Carole Eldridge: The English version of criminal procedure would be helpful.

Mr. Derek Lee: No. It would have to be both in languages.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: By “English” I meant simple, not necessarily English. It could be French, but it would be simple language.

Mr. Derek Lee: Layman's terms.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: Would that relieve your organization of a burden or would it just add work if that facility were there?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: I'm of two minds and I'm going to answer that in the two minds. We just got the information from the Department of Justice on its new youth strategy. It's useful information for us to look at because of what we do. So I put it down and said to folks, please read it. There are five of us. People said they were not sure if they had time.

I think if it were done in such a way that it was user-friendly, yes. Is it going to save us a lot of time? I don't know, because our focus isn't on the provision of the information necessarily. But I think it would certainly be a useful thing to have in the courthouse, and when I think of courtroom number five, this crazy court, sort of night court by day, I think there are any number of people who come through there who would find it incredibly useful. I'm thinking also as a tool for the budding lawyers who also need to know this information, since the legal community needs to alter some of its viewpoints, with all due respect to the legal community that may be represented here. I think it could be a useful tool to then build on. That's why I'm of the two minds.

Mr. Derek Lee: You mean this information system would be designed for victims on a user-friendly basis, but it also might help the legal profession.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Yes. A little humanity is good, and knowing basic answers.

Mr. Derek Lee: Interesting perspective. Thank you for that.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): This morning we had witnesses who were advocating that Parliament should pass a national bill of victims rights that would establish national standards, and that the provinces then would all come onside and enforce these national standards. I have concerns with that, knowing the jurisdictional disputes and the services victims require, the social services they need, the justice system being administered provincially, etc.

In your work with victims, how much impact do you have with the federal system as opposed to the provincial system? Do you have any advice to offer us on how a federal victims bill of rights with national standards could be implemented?

• 1640

Ms. Carole Eldridge: I'm probably not a good person to answer this question. I used to work, as I said at the very beginning, for the Ontario ombudsman's office, and I totally believe in the services to be offered by an ombudsman. After 17 years with the Ontario government, I had to leave because I was a square peg in a round hole and one of us had to change.

When I hear the term “standards” I realize that there are already some people who are going to be left out of these standards and I hesitate to, for example, require mediator standards, which I know in B.C. is certainly something far more than in Ontario, because standards can become so artificial and people get lost. I think guidelines are helpful, allowing room for the individual communities.

I think the groups that advocate the rights of the victims are coming from a heartfelt place and want to make it better. Sometimes there are feelings that you have to push very far to get half of what you want. I don't know the details of the bill they're pushing forward. I can only really speak for myself.

Our criteria for taking cases into consideration by us are guidelines. We don't have standards. We don't have criteria carved in stone.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that having a national victims bill of rights where the rights are outlined and become these national standards might not be particularly helpful for your work.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: I'm saying that I'm not familiar with all the terms being asked for, so I would be wrong to make a black and white comment.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): What percentage of the time of your agency is spent mediating and what percentage of it is spent answering questions at the courthouse for victims?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: That's a good question. I would say the bulk of the time is spent answering questions, because once the case is developed it's a mediator who will go off and deal with the matter. So staff time is spent primarily answering questions and the mediator's time is spent mediating. I had never thought of it as percentage. I'm happy to go back and look at it and give you that answer.

Mr. John Maloney: You call yourself a dispute resolution centre, but in effect you're almost a victims resource centre for the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: We also provide community services.

Mr. John Maloney: A bit of everything.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Yes, we do a bit of everything, other than family mediation, because there are a lot of family mediators in town.

Mr. John Maloney: You say you have a 92% success rate. How do you determine your success rate? With the signing of an agreement?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: That's right. If a common understanding is reached, then we will count that as an agreement, and that's what I've started to use as a success rate. But it's backed up by the fact that we'll do the evaluations about every five years and just confirm that people feel that those were reasonable and that the common understandings were honoured. So it's not just the bottom-line agreement.

Mr. John Maloney: You evaluate your agreements every five years?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Yes, we evaluated the program in 1992 and 1997.

Mr. John Maloney: Specific situations, every situation, or just randomly?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: In 1992 we looked at the quality of the mediations and the dispositions, and we did a comparison between the cases we mediated and the cases that could have been mediated but weren't. We wanted to see how much time we took and what feedback the parties could give us.

In 1997 we focused on youth. We don't allow parents in on the mediations. One of the things we wanted to know was, for example, did youth want their families there. Those who chose to answer the question indicated they didn't.

One of the things I haven't said is that lawyers are not present, the crown is not present, police are not present. By and large it's the parties. With youth, we invite the families to be outside, but by and large we don't allow them into the mediation. So we were looking at youth and what they thought about the process at that point and the agreements.

• 1645

Mr. John Maloney: You have different statements referring to the pre-charge and post-charge. Do you have any difficulties with the crown or defence talking to their clients?

Ms. Carol Eldridge: No. When we started back in 1989, the crown attorney in Ottawa was incredibly supportive. Without Andrejs Berzins this program wouldn't be operating. Andrejs was prepared to refer matters at the outset. Defence counsel were pretty hesitant, but there was a core of them that thought they would try. About two years later one of them said to me “Carol, at the outset we thought you were a goddam social worker who was going to make life worse. We found it didn't. Cases are going through quicker. We have happier clients.” In a sense, we were able to build the reputation of defence counsel.

We talk to the university students, to the new lawyers, the law students, about the process. So what's happened now is the people coming out into the legal community are more familiar with us, because it has been nine years, and by and large they're pretty encouraging and pretty supportive.

One of the things we've found is that it was important for us to give the lawyers more information to give to their clients so that they could prepare the clients better, and we pretty well know which lawyers prepare their clients well and which ones say get in there and talk. Originally we had a couple who said go in there and say nothing. That was really helpful. You had a guy coming in and sitting there, saying he was told not to say anything. So we would chat with defence counsel. That wasn't helpful.

At this point the support we have is really pretty special. I think part of that is based on Denise, who does the day-to-day operations; the quality of the mediations we provided, the fact that there has been no backlash, that by and large people are more satisfied.

The head crown, as I said, was very supportive, and the assistant crowns have come on line more and more. Partly it's politically the thing to be doing. Partly it's learning that mediation or dispute resolution isn't being soft, that it doesn't mean it's diversion. For a long time they thought it was diversion. So some of them have come along. We have the support of the schools, and the police were probably the hardest ones to get onside. At this point the youth bureau is quite happy with us. It's the credibility of the mediators, I think.

Mr. John Maloney: Does a greater proportion of the offenders who agreed to the mediation process end up pleading guilty? Is there any percentage that pleads not guilty after the mediation process?

Ms. Carol Eldridge: We've had a couple who said they didn't do it, who walked out of the mediation and said they were not going to be a part of this. By and large, there is understanding reached between the crown and defence, or the accused has agreed to plead guilty before we do the mediation. Again, it depends on the nature of the charge and the seriousness of the charge. So the examples I gave in the package today...in both of those we knew there was going to be a guilty plea. It really depends on the nature of the charge. I can't give you hard and fast....

I can tell you that back in 1992 about 85% of the charges were withdrawn, and if I look at 1996 for the mediated matters, 90% were withdrawn and 2% went to jail.

Mr. John Maloney: Is there any proviso in your client base? Is it only first offenders or could it be multiple offenders?

Ms. Carol Eldridge: We have a guideline that somebody should not be on probation at the time an incident occurred, but it's a guideline. We may call the probation officer and ask, “Should your client meet with the other person?” Sometimes the charge may involve a youth and a parent. We're going to take that into account when we make a decision on the mediation.

• 1650

One of the things we don't do is invite somebody back into the mediation or the dispute resolution option if they've used it within the last five years. That one is a hard line.

I started to smile because sometimes we don't have the criminal record when we look at the file, if we get it quickly. So we will have set up a matter without knowing what the record of the individual is. I ended up being involved in a mediation where the person who was charged with a driving disagreement had served 27 years in the penitentiary, but I didn't know that until after. It was still a very suitable case.

So we have some guidelines, but it's not dependent on criminal record, and it's not just first offenders. It really depends on all the circumstances.

Mr. John Maloney: Is the victim informed or consent obtained or at least the acquiescence when a charge is withdrawn?

Ms. Carole Eldridge: By and large, the wish of the victim is put down. If you look at the agreements I provided today, you'll notice that in the one from Susan, what they said was they no longer necessarily felt they wanted a jail term. The crown, however, was of the view that this person needed a jail term. So in that situation that person is serving a three-year term. Involving the youth, the two victims chose not to make a comment on disposition. So it's optional. But often when charges are withdrawn, it's with the wishes of the victim. There may be something else put in place. It may be that the person is going to provide a community service or do something and then charges are withdrawn.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Eldridge. You said there were evaluations done in 1992 and 1997. If you could provide those to us, it would be helpful for us to study this model.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: I would be happy to. May I make a trade? When I give them to you, do you translate them?

The Chair: That's not a problem.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Could I have them back translated? In which case I'd be happy to provide them.

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: Thank you. I invite you all to the auction at the court house.

The Chair: Thank you. We have comparable auctions and functions in our own community.

Ms. Carole Eldridge: I know, but you're resident here and the courthouse is handy.

The Chair: We're resident in our home communities. Don't push that resident thing. Thanks.

We're adjourned.