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 16, 1998

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Good morning. I hear there were no fire alarms in the hotel last night, even though we ordered one.

Today we're going to conclude with theme three. I'll ask Chuck Cadman to introduce the theme.

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

Theme three this morning is the role and rights of victims in the incarceration, release planning, release determination, and release into the community stages of the criminal justice process.

This is one of the areas where we find some serious complaints by victims. For example, they're walking down the street in their town one day and run across an offender they thought was incarcerated. That's just one of the things we will address today in this section. I'm sure issues surrounding section 745 might come up here too.

With that, let's go.

The Chair: Thanks, Chuck.

We've set out in each of these sections five or six questions in relation to this that take us where we thought we wanted to go in terms of focusing as a committee. But you may have other views. We're here to go where you want to go, not so much where we've predetermined things to be.

I wanted you to keep in mind as well, while we're looking at this section, that we've also undertaken a statutory review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which we've opened but won't really start handling until sometime in September. I expect that review will take, on a part-time basis, the better part of next year for our committee. This is a good way for us to start, but I'm confident there will be a victims' focus to that process as well, now that the committee has been well sensitized.

I want you to keep in mind as well that Kathy Louis is with us. She is the vice-chair of the National Parole Board for the Pacific region. She's not here in that capacity, but certainly she can act as a resource person to us and provide us with some information. I know she can take your message back to the Parole Board as well. So we're grateful for her presence for that reason, in addition to what else she brings to the table.

We know that one of the problems—and we heard it loud and clear yesterday—is with information and the dissemination of information to victims. But we have sensed that, as acute as this is during the initial process, this becomes even more acute during the final phase of corrections and conditional release. So we'd like to hear a little more about that.

We would also like to talk about the victim impact statement and whether there should be another victim impact statement. As Chuck said yesterday, the statement he would have written a few days after his son's death is substantially different from the statement he would write today.

• 0910

Nobody's going anywhere with this. Let's ask Nigel. I can always count on Nigel.

Nigel, as a crown attorney, after somebody has been convicted and they've gone away to jail and you're onto other files, do you have any role at all? Are you ever asked about parole? And if you are, do you give a victims' lens to that, or do you try to?

Mr. Nigel Allan (Individual Presentation): When someone is sentenced to a federal term of incarceration, the parole board immediately—often, it seems, too soon—requests input from the crown with respect to the role of this individual in the crime, to characterize the offender and the nature of the offence. It gives you a relatively broad range to say whatever you want to say, not constrained by legal nicety.

You can say this is what the individual was charged for, this is what I think of him, and this is what I believe him to be with respect to a danger to the public. And I could say that any suggestion that rehabilitation is possible for this individual should be carefully scrutinized, if I wanted to be negative in that regard.

But certainly under no other circumstances are we ever asked for input in that regard. I don't know how carefully scrutinized it is or what weight is given to it. I'm amazed at the speed at which they request this information, because I take it it's used for their consideration in release. I've convicted individuals on murder charges and within months have been requested for this information. I couldn't quite understand why, because I expected them to be away for at least 10 years. They were getting the information well in advance, I hope.

The Chair: And what about the provincial parole boards, Nigel? Do you get asked by your province or their parole board?

Mr. Nigel Allan: Not at all.

The Chair: Okay.

Marvin, do you get involved at all in parole board hearings, and do you get asked the same thing?

Mr. Marvin Bloos (President, Beresh, DePoe, Cunningham; Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers): I get involved at the stage of assisting in pre-release planning. I'm sometimes consulted about how to do that.

I wondered about the question you asked earlier, about whether it should be possible for a second victim impact statement to be provided. I wondered what the purpose of that would be.

I'm concerned that the parole and penitentiary services spend a lot of time trying to determine whether a particular individual is ready for release or early release and whether various programs or a street plan are in place.

If a particular victim were to disagree and imagine they had some persuasive ability to prevent that early release programming, there is an unintended consequence to that, which is that the particular offender may become soured on the whole process and then set upon their own plan of revenge, if you like: “The system is against me; I'm ready for release” and so on.

A number of interests have to be balanced. I would think there's a societal interest as well as that of a particular offender. I'm sure the parole board takes all of that into account.

So I ask the question, why would a second statement be provided unless its purpose were to try to prevent early release or some other program that the offender may well have earned or be available for?

The Chair: Steve Sullivan, do you want to tackle that question?

Mr. Steve Sullivan (Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime): Yes. One of the things the parole board members and Corrections Canada assess is the offender's ability to understand and take responsibility for what he's done. Part of that is understanding what he's done to the victim. And that doesn't just mean immediately; it means 10 years or 20 years after.

As Chuck said yesterday, his feelings and the effect have changed over the years. Part of what the parole board must assess—and perhaps Kathy will correct me if I'm wrong—is the offender's ability to understand what he has done to the person he's harmed.

• 0915

So the impact statement 10 years later is as relevant as the impact statement 10 days after. The notion that it's not, and frankly the question of why it wouldn't be, the logic escapes me. It is one tool the parole board uses to assess an offender's ability to accept responsibility for what he's done.

The Chair: Colette.

Ms. Colette Mandin-Kossowan (Chair, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, Alberta): As for obtaining a victim impact statement at the onset, I don't think any victim has any idea of the long-term impact of that crime. If I write one six months after the crime, two years after the crime, and 10 years after the crime....

Now, looking back at the crime that occurred in our family, the impact is still manifesting itself and probably will continue to do so over a long period of time. When I wrote my victim impact statement seven years ago, I had no idea what that impact would be now, seven years down the road. So having an impact statement now is very important.

I don't think the public realizes the devastating effect, especially of homicide, on families—the aftermath, what it does to families, what it does to people's long-term health, or any of that. There's no way I could have documented that seven years ago. I can document it now.

Not allowing that kind of voice to be heard at this stage of the game, or even two years from now or whenever, is just not right.

The Chair: So is the point then purely to communicate to officials and to whoever is going to read that file how you feel, for the sake of communicating it, so they will have that knowledge? Or is there another point?

Marvin and others watching this may be trying to get their minds around the motivation for doing it. I don't mean this in any negative way; I just mean is it to write it for the sake of writing it so others will understand? Is it to have an effect on whether he's released or not? Or is it a combination of those things?

Ms. Colette Mandin-Kossowan: It's a combination of all of those things. Yes, it's a matter of communication, because if you don't have the information at the onset, how can you communicate it? Once you've learned that information, you can communicate it.

The idea is if this is an impact statement and if the intent of the impact statement, from what we understand, is to bring the realization of the impact that crime has had on you and your family, that doesn't end at the time of sentencing.

So the whole point is, yes, it's all of those things.

The Chair: Elizabeth, did I see your hand up?

Professor Elizabeth Sheehy (University of Ottawa): Yes, I just wanted to make a couple of points.

I want to follow a bit on what Marvin Bloos was saying, because I see it in the context of the majority of victims of crime being women—women who've experienced sexual assault, women who've experienced domestic violence.

This whole issue is really not all that relevant to those women, first because victim impact statements are often much more damaging and exposing for those women, and second because most of those crimes are not punished by federal sentences where you're going to end up in a parole situation.

So first I just want to make the point that this is not really a strategy or a solution focused on the needs of that group of victims. Those victims are really under-represented here—under-represented in terms of who is being consulted, but also under-represented in terms of the kinds of issues we're looking at and focusing on.

Secondly, in taking victim impact statements at parole hearings as a legitimate issue for families of homicide victims—and I understand it is a legitimate issue in that context—I want to also note that it's important we not put too much responsibility on victims. That's not appropriate. They shouldn't be held accountable or responsible for the carriage of criminal justice.

And it's important that we not focus too much on those people's subjective interpretations of the offender's risk. That's one of the things that gets a bit muddied here in this context. We should be focusing, yes, on the injury, on the longevity, and on the changing nature of the injury to the family members, but their ability to assess the offender's risk is a very different issue. Sometimes that gets a bit muddied in this context.

The Chair: Thank you.

Just a sec, John. I'll get to you in a minute, but Brenda MacDonald had her hand up.

Ms. Brenda MacDonald (Individual Presentation): I just wanted to say that I have just written my second victim impact statement to go to the parole board. The reason I wrote it is that at the time I wrote my first one, I was not thinking of release. I was not thinking of what I would be feeling when the time came, because quite frankly, I thought he would be in jail for the minimum 10 years. This is about a year and a half later that I'm having to think about him actually being released, maybe coming back to our area.

• 0920

I do have fears. I wanted the parole board to know that I did have fears about him being released. I wanted conditions put on his release such that he couldn't come in contact with me or anybody else in our family. That's a real fear for us. It was not something we put in our original victim impact statements because we were not thinking about sentencing or release at the time we wrote our first one.

The Chair: John Goertzen.

Mr. John Goertzen (Chair, Niagara Victims Support Services): I think back to Marvin's concern that we should not lack understanding in terms of why that's so important. Those of us who have never suffered as a victim, as some of you around here have, really have difficulty understanding some of that.

I think it comes back to, in many cases, the invisibility that the victim feels throughout the whole process. Their stories are really not very often heard. I'm talking about the parents of Kristen French, Cara Taylor, Stuart Brown, and Zachary Antidormi, who were all murdered at the hands of another individual. Their stories must be heard for them to begin their healing. They must be able to tell that to someone.

When I spoke to them, the first question they would ask was whether I was going to use their names. My thought was that they didn't want me to use their names, but they adamantly insisted that they be identified. It's so important for their stories to be told and for their names to be used so that they can be in their closure by knowing that the world, the society out there has heard their side of it. I think that's often overlooked.

The Chair: Thank you.

Kathy.

Ms. Kathy J. Louis (Regional Vice-chairperson, Pacific Region, National Parole Board): Madam Chair, thank you for announcing that I am not here to represent the parole board, as I'm here because of my experience and my time in observing how criminal justice works.

I do want to share with you the fact that victims play a very significant role in decision-making in the risk assessment of offenders. In order to be able to assess the understanding by offenders of the effects the crime had on the lives of the victims is very important as part of our decision-making. I want to give you that assurance.

I also want to share with you that I share the victim's fears. I can understand your fears. I can understand the emotional kind of ways in which the fears are very legitimate. I, too, am a victim. My sister was murdered in 1983, and it's an unsolved murder. I carry some of those kinds of concerns.

Thank you.

The Chair: Peter Quinn.

Mr. Peter Quinn (Victims Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Madam Chair, I have one thought about doing a second statement in some situations. In Alberta, for example, I looked at the emotional and physical damage of crimes that occurred for a lot of people. That physical injury actually changes quite a lot over a period of time for some people. They might be suffering symptoms that have worsened three or four years down the road. It's really important for input to be included because situations do change.

Again, it goes back to what we were talking about yesterday in terms of giving victims options as well. Another thing is that it puts pressure on him to simply be asked whether he would like to submit a victim impact statement. It's not mandatory, it's an option they're entitled to do. Simply giving people options, I do not think puts pressure on them. It includes them and invites them to be part of a system that still affects them.

The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

Gary Rosenfeldt.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt (Executive Director, Victims of Violence International): Madam Chair, for the last 17 years we have had a fair number of dealings with Correctional Service Canada, not necessarily the National Parole Board.

Our son was murdered 17 years ago, in 1981, by Clifford Olson. A few years after that, we received a letter on our wedding anniversary, May 11, 1984, in which Olson described to us in vivid detail exactly what he did to our child. This came out of the prison. In this letter, he also threatened to sue us. He signed the letter. At the bottom of the letter, he said, “We'll see you in court, smart-asses”. This is the sort of stuff we were getting from Clifford Olson.

I wrote a letter to the Solicitor General of Canada at the time to complain about the mail that was coming to us. A few months later, a member of Parliament showed me a letter—my letter—that Clifford Olson had sent to him. What happened was that I sent the letter to the Solicitor General of Canada with my home address and phone number on it. Clifford Olson was able to obtain a copy of that letter somehow out of a member of Parliament's.... This was possibly out of Olson's own file.

• 0925

Olson has tormented us for 17 years; it's as simple as that. Not only did he take the life of our child, but recently, as an example, I received a phone call stating that Olson had made a series of 12 videotapes along with the warden of Prince Albert penitentiary. The two had signed a contract, copyrighted and made a series of 12 videotapes and made them available for sale in the community. And of course this has been discussed in the House of Commons.

I phoned various people, and at Correctional Service Canada they told me that Correctional Service Canada would never allow Clifford Olson.... We were told it's not true, that it didn't happen.

We checked with the copyright people and had a meeting with Correctional Service Canada a few days later, and Louis from CSC walked into a restaurant downtown and looked at us sheepishly and said it was true, he and the warden did conspire and put together a series of 12 videotapes. They're available for sale. You can buy them through Olson's lawyer out in British Columbia.

Needless to say, that's only one of the main instances. He has serial killer trading cards that he sells from prison. It has been a continuous tormenting of us and our family for a total of 17 years.

Last year we were allowed—we were forced into, actually—a 745 hearing in British Columbia. We travelled out there at our own expense, and at the 745 hearing we were allowed to present a victim impact statement to tell what the crime has done to us and our family. We were only allowed to present two per family: in other words, my wife and my daughter can present a victim impact statement, but I'm not allowed; my son isn't allowed to present a victim impact statement. The courts would only allow two per family. It's like it only affects two people in a family.

Those have been our dealings with Correctional Service Canada over the last 17 years. I won't take any more time, but I could go on and on.

Olson regularly sends out pornography to members of Parliament with my name and my wife's name written all over it. John Nunziata regularly gets this material in the mail. It comes out of Correctional Service Canada. I've complained. I've gone to the postal authorities. Correctional Service Canada has told me it's impossible; they can't stop this mail from coming to members of Parliament, pornographic pictures with my name and my wife's name written on them.

So those have been our dealings with Correctional Service Canada. Ours might be a more bizarre case, and I don't know about the other victims around the room here, but it has not been a good experience, believe me, in having to deal with the system.

We thought when he went to prison 17 years ago he'd be locked up for 25 years and we'd never hear from him again. That's not the way it is, believe me. Murderers are allowed to torment their victims continuously from prison, and it's something we hear from victims all the time, all over Canada.

The Chair: It's scary.

Arlène.

[Translation]

Mrs. Arlène Gaudreault (Executive Director, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes inc.): I would like to come back to the usefulness of the victim impact statements. I have some experience since I have been a Parole Commissioner for a provincial board for the last ten years. I have worked extensively with the Correctional Service of Canada and I have trained officers.

I don't think we should force victims to provide statements, but if they wish to do that, they should be encouraged to do so. The impact of victimization they describe in their statements are very useful for the Correctional Service of Canada. When an offender comes into the system, we take care of him, we offer him programs and we work for his rehabilitation. I think that we very quickly forget about the impact of victimization.

The victim impact statement puts things into perspective. It confirms what has happened and it is almost the only tool that agents have to know the impact the crime had on the victim. We very seldom contact victims, although this is not part of our mandate and we do not necessarily feel comfortable doing it. I think it is important to get that statement.

Earlier, we were talking of empowering the offender. The statement also gives clues as to the real seriousness of the offence and is a tool not only for case management, but also for the offender's rehabilitation and the victim's protection.

• 0930

I think that that aspect of the impact of victimization is very much overlooked presently in the Correctional Service.

When a victim provides the statement at a later stage in the process, seven or ten years later, it is not necessarily for the same reasons. One of the speakers said earlier that she thought it was important to ask the board to impose specific conditions or to express her own fears. For me, this is the first role the statement at a later stage plays. As a member of the board, I can tell you that when commissioners have to decide whether an individual must be released, they of course take into account the impact, but they also check very carefully if the offender has evolved positively and if he has taken some programs. Before making a decision, they assess if the individual can go out into the community and if the community and the public are safe if the individual gets parole. The commissioner will take into account the impact, but it's not going to be the first criterion for parole. It is important to let the victims know that so that they do not feel injured again and are subjected to secondary victimization.

The victims' statements do not necessarily play the same role according to the stage in the process when they are made. The correctional system must have that input from the victims and victims must remind the system that they are there, that they suffered emotional and physical injuries and that the family continues to suffer, or the victims will continue to be absent of the system. This has been my experience.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks, Arlène.

Lorraine.

Ms. Lorraine Berzins (Analyst Coordinator, Church Council on Justice and Corrections): Good morning. First of all, I would like to say hello to everybody. I was not here yesterday, but my colleague, Rick Prashaw, was here. I am from the Church Council on Justice and Corrections.

I want to support what many people have said about the importance of the voice of the victim being heard any time the person wants their voice to be heard.

I think the question of motivation is one we should talk about a little bit more. I think it is a mistake to think the only motivation the person has is to prevent release. I think that's what makes us become afraid of it and sometimes boxes the victim into gearing it in that direction when there are lots of other very, very good reasons that people have mentioned.

For the victim's own sake, in their own healing process and their own need to deal with their fears and all the consequences, it is a very, very important thing to be open to every time that person wants it, never to force it, absolutely not, but to offer and respond to the opportunity.

I agree with Arlène that it is also very important, not only for the victim himself or herself, but also for the prisoner and the people working with the prisoner, the important reminder in front of all the defensiveness and denial that is there, the important reminder of the human impact what they have done has had, and the very important consideration to keep bearing in mind as planning goes on. To not keep it in the past, not just have a regurgitation of the past but to keep moving along with what is now happening and the continued impact and to be forward-looking, is important. Also, most importantly, do not just leave it as a written statement that someone makes as the only tool, but surround it with services that help support the victim in whatever it is they are still experiencing. I think many more resources should be put into support services for victims who are still dealing with fears. There are many things that can be done about that, but people need to be attentive to that.

So the purpose is not just to have a statement that goes on a file supposedly to prevent release but to attend to the needs that are still there, and put resources in place for that.

The final thing I want to say is, again, I think attention to a human process is very, very important, and the fact that we box it too much into legal proceedings as the only time we allow this to happen is not a safe place for victims. The legal process, with all the adversarial work of the lawyers working against the possible negative impact on the offender, is not a safe place for victims. To be able to air what they still need and what people need to still hear is an issue to be attended to.

So I would really encourage us to look for, in and around the legal process that has to continue on, other kinds of opportunities, ways for the victim to be heard safely and ways that make the prisoner and the officials able to listen to what is being said and pay attention to it, instead of just fighting against it.

• 0935

The Chair: Thanks, Lorraine.

Suzanne Dahlin.

Ms. Susanne Dahlin (Director, Community Justice Branch, Victims Services Division, Ministry of the Attorney General for British Columbia): Madam Chair, I was going to say that I think the victim impact statement probably serves about three purposes at this point in the process. One, it does allow the long-term impact to be communicated back to the offender and to the parole board that is making the decision. I think it is really important to make sure that that concern is reassessed and re-evaluated and looked at again.

The second piece—I think that is the piece that Brenda raised—is that there are safety and protective issues that some victims have in the community. I think it is really important for the parole board to hear that. If they are considering a release of an offender, they can maybe look at a way to make sure there is a no-contact order or some kind of safety and security mechanism to fit in at that point in time. I think for particular types of victimization, those issues have to be raised at that point of the process as well.

The other piece is just an information update for the victim. We talk about the offender being back 15 years and whether or not he has gone through a number of changes, but that is where the victim is as well. If the offender has made some changes in his or her life, if that is communicated to the victim it may reduce some of the safety concerns and where they are coming from.

In the case with Gary Rosenfeldt, I guess that is clearly not the situation. The offender is still very much alive and kicking and is doing exactly the opposite. But I think there is a need to have some of that shared information as well, so that the victim can have some understanding of where the offender may have moved in the process.

The Chair: Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Madam Chair, I was listening in particular to Mr. Rosenfeldt and Ms. MacDonald. It is obvious that a victim and the perpetrator are connected in a life-long way, whether they want to be or not. Because the sentencing and the trial process ends, that is not the end by any means. It just seems obvious to me that we have to have something in the process that allows victims to continue, if they want to.

I agree with what Peter Quinn said, that it should be an optional process. If they choose to continue to be involved, they should—not only for their own good, but I think it is a constant reminder to a perpetrator if they see the victim, if they choose to be at the hearing or if they realize at a parole hearing that those comments are there.

I think there should be something in place that forces the judiciary to openly acknowledge the victim, that they have received this, that they have read it, that it is factored in, acknowledge the presence of the victim at the hearing or in a courtroom.

I think we can do more in terms of legislation to ensure that happens in a courtroom. I have heard it time and time again. Acknowledgement of a presence in a courtroom is immensely important. I think perhaps we should look at that in the course of writing our report on this forum.

It occurs to me as well—we will probably get into this later on—that the emphasis on rehabilitation.... I question sometimes the emphasis on rehabilitation within CSC. To use the extreme examples of Olson and Bernardo, there is less emphasis on rehabilitation for victims in terms of ongoing counselling or life skills counselling for some long-term abuse victims. I would be interested to hear from others what we might be able to do in the area of rehabilitating victims and using that terminology, not just focusing on the rehabilitation of offenders.

The Chair: Michael Lomer.

Mr. Michael Lomer (Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario): Madam Chair, in response to Mr. Rosenfeldt, as I was listening to him one of the things that occurred to me was that one of the most important rights we have is the right to be left alone. That is a charter right that we all know about.

It seems to me that there has to be some mechanism within CSC, whether by regulation or by law, that can, for cause, take away a privilege such as the right to use the mails. It makes no sense to me that when you have something happen, like Mr. Rosenfeldt was describing, then to allow the person to continue to use the mails.... I can remember editorials in the Kingston Whig Standard about whether they should take away this privilege; it was relentless. It was not just Mr. Rosenfeldt, as we know. Most other people received various unpleasant missives.

• 0940

It is certainly something the parole board could consider on release. They could put terms that would prevent that type of thing. If the parole board can do it on release, why can CSC not do it inside the institution?

That is the first point. It seems to me there has to be some mechanism to examine the powers within CSC, because they do have, as we know, very draconian powers if they need to exercise them.

In response to Mr. Allan and the early obtaining of information from parole, it is not just parole that does it. They need it for classification purposes. As well, for long-term offenders, if you try to get the information 10 years later, it may not be available. That is why it makes more sense to do it earlier than later, even if it is not going to be used right away.

The last point is with respect to the second victim impact statement. I certainly understand why it is being used. Again, this is coming back to some of the safety issues. It re-engages the offender and the victim.

Regardless of whether you want to or not, that is the effect of what happens. Ms. Louis can correct me if I am wrong, but the essential part of the victim impact statement, the second one, has to be given to the offender. It is sort of a principle of natural justice. You have to be able to respond to whatever the other side is saying about you.

If that is the case, it really does start it up again. The only cautionary note I would sound is that that is exactly what happens when you do it. It is not to say that you should not do it or ought not to do it, but the question is whether you want to re-engage.

The Chair: Thank you.

Wilma Derksen.

Ms. Wilma Derksen (Victims' Voice): I just want to ask why the impact statement should be the responsibility of the victim. Why do they have to go through that process when really we are always monitoring the offender? We are watching their process. If there were equality, we would be monitoring the victims outside in an independent way. We would just be studying to see what is happening.

I had an experience a little while ago where we had about 25 victims who all got together. We were more or less all the same. We were the same age, same culture, and we had all experienced a murder in our lives. This was an alumni kind of meeting, 13 years after the incident in our lives.

As we looked over the room, we were shocked at how many people walked in with walkers, with casts. We looked at each other and said “Wow, we look like we are veterans”. We looked terrible, and we laughed about it, yet we sort of wondered if this was because of what had happened or not. We didn't know, but it was very obvious.

About three weeks later, I had the opportunity to go into Rockwood. The lifers there put on a drama. It was a wonderful drama, very well presented. They too were probably the same age, same culture as we who were visiting them. I prefer to do this crossing the boundaries. I usually do not notice these kinds of things, but after the drama I said to my friends, “Did I notice that these men were tanned and well built and well looked after? Was there a large degree of self-care?” We all had to say that they looked awfully good compared with what we victims looked like.

I want to very clearly say that I want them to look good. I think it is great if we are treating our inmates and our lifers well. I want them to be rehabilitated and healthy. But I think what we want is equality on the other side, that the victims, 13 or 15 years later, can look as good as the offenders.

The Chair: Thank you, Wilma.

Kathy Louis.

Ms. Kathy Louis: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to share the fact that the board is required in law to share information with the offenders under the duty to act fairly and natural justice.

• 0945

When there is an impact statement involved and the victim is still fearful, we try to take that into consideration. There are victim service workers in the office who work very closely with those people, the victims who are prepared to have direct contact with the board, to be able to indicate that they are experiencing fear and that not all the information should be shared. The gist of it, however, is required of us to share with the offender.

I think that is something you can consider. But I also want to share with you that as a decision-maker I have had no contact conditions laid out on an offender's release. Keep in mind that if the offender violates the release and those kinds of conditions, in particular having contact with the victim in any manner, he can be suspended and returned to prison.

The Chair: Thanks, Kathy.

Paul DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Chair, I wanted to comment on the earlier questions and comments concerning the emphasis on rehabilitation.

I was getting the impression that it was sort of victims against offenders. I think Wilma's comments were very apropos. She is making it not an “us against them” situation. I was interested in the thoughts that victims might have on the role of combining their rehabilitation with that of the offenders.

As a society, if these people are going to return to the community, it is in everyone's interest that they be rehabilitated. I think maybe we are sort of getting into the concept of restorative justice that we were discussing yesterday. I was fearful, until Wilma's intervention, that we were setting up a situation of victims against offenders in the area of rehabilitation.

I would be interested to hear more on that cooperative effort and that cooperative spirit.

The Chair: Thanks, Paul.

Rosalee Turcotte.

Ms. Rosalee Turcotte (Individual Presentation): Madam Chair, I wanted to say that I see the victim impact statement as not being something that is purely punitive to the offender but as something that can also be of benefit to them. If the purpose of corrections is to rehabilitate the offender, then I would suggest it is difficult to do that if the offender cannot understand the impact the offence has had on the victim.

The impact statement is one way of confronting the offender with that and allowing him to begin to realize what he has done.

The Chair: Thanks, Rosalee.

Steve Sullivan.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Madam Chair, I would quickly point out that Corrections Canada does have the ability, if they get a request from someone, to prevent mail from going to a certain individual. It is a simple written request. If Corrections Canada gets that request, they can prevent mail from going to a certain person.

The Chair: Thanks, Steve.

Michèle Roy.

[Translation]

Mrs. Michèle Roy (Spokesperson, Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel): As I said yesterday when I was mentioning the proceedings for the collective rape that happened lately in Quebec city, the four accused were men on parole and they were supposed, according to the terms of the release, not to meet, not to go to the same bars and not to drink alcohol. The assault happened after an encounter in a bar. They had drank alcohol, the four of them were together, and they had been in contact. None of those violations of the terms of their release was mentioned during the proceedings whereas the victim was asked all kinds of questions on what she was doing there, with whom, etc. The victims feel that even if there are conditions to the release, they are not often complied with.

There is also another aspect to that: the release conditions often have a significant impact on the people who are close to the offender or the released person, for instance their mother, their sister, their spouse and their children. We do not necessarily take this into account. Because of the situation, women are often left with responsibilities which are not being taken into account.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks, Michèle.

I want to introduce Sheila Finestone, who is a member of the justice committee. She is joining us today. Mrs. Finestone is from Montreal.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Madam Chair, thank you very much. Yesterday was access and custody orders for divorce. Today it is victims' rights. Sometimes they are victims in both systems.

• 0950

What I am very interested to know is, if the victim is either expected or attends the hearings, what are the financial assistance plans? Where they are recognizing the importance of planning and using the victim impact statement, I think there is a concomitant responsibility on government to pay for that.

Secondly, I am extremely concerned about the physical and psychological well-being of the victim. I think the equality principle is a very important one, and I would like to know that there are better services for victims in terms of psychological impact.

The Chair: Gary, I am just going to pick on you for a minute here, although—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...to Gary because he wrote a letter to Corrections Canada saying that he doesn't want the mail.

The Chair: All right. I am going to ask Gary that.

Also, Gary, you did a section 745 last summer. You talked the last time we were together about the difference with the new program that Susanne is responsible for in B.C. and how helpful the crown was and that sort of thing. Could you give us some idea of that? I was quite taken with the good things you had to say about that process.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: Well, 17 years ago actually, at the time of the murder of our son, we had absolutely zero services through the court system. We phoned prosecutors and nobody would return our phone calls. Police would not return our calls. We went right to the Premier of British Columbia. Nobody would return our phone calls or answer our letters. Nobody wanted to talk to us.

That is what we went through at the time our son was murdered and Olson was convicted of the crimes. We left with rather a bad taste in our mouths, but we were totally amazed last summer.

Olson's section 745 had come up and we had to attend it. We felt we had to attend. I was totally taken aback by the number of phone calls that we received from the crown prosecutor's office in British Columbia with regard to the case. They went over the details, exactly the way it was going to be handled.

We went out for the preliminary hearing last spring and the services that were provided to us were beyond all imagination compared with what it was like 17 years ago.

I can say that even though it was a very, very difficult experience having to go out and attend the preliminary hearing and the actual 745 hearing in August, with the support and assistance that we got from the British Columbia victims' services program in the crown prosecutor's office it immensely made a difference with regard to the trauma we were going through with the whole case itself.

The only complaint I might have with regard to it was the fact that one time, throughout our discussions with the crown prosecutor's office, I had discussed finances in going out there. I was told by one of the prosecutors exactly this: “Mr. Rosenfeldt, I doubt the people of British Columbia would allow you and your family to have to pay your own way out here”. I got a phone call back a few weeks later from an assistant of hers stating “Mr. Rosenfeldt, I guess you do have to pay your own way out and all your own expenses”.

We were actually very fortunate. We were left with the difficulty of having to pay our expenses out there, but the Canadian Police Association was kind enough to help support us with finances.

However, I cannot say enough today for the services we were provided with in British Columbia throughout that 745 hearing. It was astounding.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Supplementary to that, is it because you were in a very high profile...? Even in Montreal, with very little involvement, we had mail with respect to this man—that section 745 was totally inappropriate, that we had to get rid of it because there's no reason.... The case of the Olson victims was the major issue, and then of course the other famous case. Otherwise, would this have happened, do you think?

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: I thought that myself, Mrs. Finestone, at the time. When I came back, I was thinking is it only because of this particular case and its high profile, the amount of media that were there and that sort of thing. But interestingly enough, I have had contact since then with quite a number of victims. I find it interesting that they are telling me exactly the same story. They are getting the same services from people in British Columbia.

• 0955

Believe me, British Columbia has a victims' services program, and it's astounding what they're doing out there for victims. I've met with the Attorney General here in Ontario and discussed it with him.

If anything is to come out of this forum today, I hope we can get this message across that it is possible to provide very good services for crime victims in this country. It is being done in the province of British Columbia. I know that we have victims' services programs throughout the rest of Canada and that many of them do a fine job, but from everything that I hear from being in contact with crime victims throughout Canada regularly all the time, it always comes back—and I've experienced it myself—to the province of British Columbia. They're doing something right out there. I understand that they have a staff of about 80 people in the province and the budget's in the millions, compared to the minimal amounts of money being spent in other provinces.

When I met with the justice minister a few weeks ago, the message I tried to convey at that time too was that I think one thing we should look at doing in this country is ending the disparity of services for crime victims. If you become a victim of crime in Newfoundland right now, there is no criminal injuries compensation for you, simply because the federal government has cut off the provincial transfer payments for criminal injuries compensation.

And there's one thing I'd like to see done: I'd like to see a standard set here in Ottawa. If we establish this new office for victims, what we need is a national standard for the treatment of all crime victims in Canada.

But go to British Columbia and look at that system out there. They have something special. It works. It's fabulous, believe me. It can immensely decrease the amount of trauma and pain a victim is going through if he or she is treated in that manner when going through the system.

The Chair: So we can put the other issue to bed. Briefly, did you take some steps with Corrections Canada to have this harassment stop?

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: Actually, the Solicitor General of Canada did eventually put an end to the letters coming to us, but we cannot, to this day, stop the pornography with our name written on it coming to us nor can we stop letters going out to other people. That cannot be done.

The Chair: I must say I've had one, but I didn't read it. I just threw it in the garbage.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: It's not uncommon. Members of Parliament receive them all the time, and we're his favourite topic. But I don't think that my family and I should have to put up with a convicted murderer mailing out pornographic pictures with my name and my wife's name all over them.

The Chair: Thanks, Gary.

Karen O'Hara is next. And then I'm going to try to move us into another topic area, although this one has been very fruitful.

Ms. Karen O'Hara (Executive Director, Tearman House for Battered Women, Tearman Society): I'll do that.

I'd like to respond to Peter's comment on rehabilitating victims. I'd like to speak about and have the committee consider the children who witness their mothers being abused. These are hidden victims. What are little boys learning who hear their mothers being called all sorts of vile names, who see their mothers punched in the face and kicked in the stomach? Then, of course, that's reinforced by our media and by videos. If we can think about providing services to kids, we might go a long way in terms of prevention.

At Tearman House, we're funded for one children's services worker. We serve three counties. She is seeing 27 kids on an outreach basis. She's in the schools three mornings a week and then she has the eight to ten children at Tearman House to see. She's very tired. I've been telling her that she'll get her vacation this summer, but it's not a good answer. What are we doing for these kids who grow up seeing violence as a way to resolve problems? And we're seeing more violent girls now too. It's a real concern.

The Chair: I'm going to take a moment to respond to that, because I think all of the parliamentarians around the table are hoping that the new crime prevention money we have is going to focus on some programs for kids who are suffering in that way. One of the things we should be thinking about is the link between crime prevention and dealing with the rights of people who have been victimized by crime.

Under the second section of theme three, this goes back to the concept of information, of victims wanting and requiring information, and it addresses sections 26 and 142 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which deal with disclosure by the National Parole Board and by the Correctional Service of Canada. They talk about what these agencies are required to provide the victim with and what they may provide the victim with. The issue we're raising is whether these provisions are adequate: is it enough that there's an onus?

• 1000

I think Elizabeth Sheehy raised an issue today that is relevant to yesterday's discussion on restorative justice but is also relevant to this, and that is, how much responsibility do you put on the victim as opposed to what is given voluntarily or ordered to be given without the victim having to make much, if any, of an effort to obtain the information?

Are we giving enough information? Should we be giving more information about what's happening to the offender while he's in custody? What is the nature of the information that victims want? And having said that, should they take any responsibility or should the responsibility be completely with the government? Or is there a way that we can work that out?

Does anybody want to answer? I'll pick on Steve Sullivan, because he has a way of focusing us.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I think a lot of victims certainly do want the information, but it's a question of letting them know that they have the choice of asking for that information. For the people I have spoken to, that is adequate, I think. It's not a question of the parole board or the corrections service contacting every victim in Canada. The police or the prosecutors can tell people that they have the option of receiving information about the offender as the case goes on. Then, I think, it's up to the victim. It's a question of giving them options and choices.

When I speak with victims about this, they tell me that the kind of information they want to receive are the parole dates and those types of things, which the corrections service can release now, but they also want information on this question: has this offender taken steps to improve himself and has he really taken steps to rehabilitate himself? For example, is he taking sex offender treatment or is he bettering his education?

I think a lot of that information can alleviate the concerns that victims have when the offender does come up for parole and is wanting to get released.

There are people—like Gary's case—for whom certainly there's no hope, but for a large number of offenders who do take those steps and do try to improve themselves, the communication of that information can certainly alleviate a lot of concerns that victims have when the person is applying for parole and conditional release. That's important information to share with victims.

The Chair: Kathy.

Ms. Kathy Louis: I just wanted to say something about the aboriginal community contact. I don't think there's really an established mechanism in place to reach out to aboriginal communities where there are victims. The healing circles and talking circles that have been initiated by aboriginal women in various communities across the country are really their initiatives.

And some understand that system well, but on the whole, these kinds of process are not understood in the mainstream criminal justice system, and I think you people, as parliamentarians and lawmakers of the country, need to keep that in mind.

I just want to share this with you: it's so important, therefore, to realize our world-view and the importance of the emotional, mental, physical and spiritual balance and contact, the elements of a healing process that need to be in place. Aboriginal women are doing this amongst themselves in many communities. In my own community, they are very proactive.

The Chair: Yesterday you said that you were concerned and wanted to try to explain to the group a definition of spiritualism or the difference between what you're talking about and what you think we're hearing.

Ms. Kathy Louis: I want to share with you a quote from something I've written. I do volunteer work for the Law Society in British Columbia and this is something that's going to be published in one of the pamphlets, just to try to set the record straight.

This is a very different world-view. Aboriginal justice is based on cultural values that are different from those of the existing mainstream system. Aboriginal people have a unique world-view based on the belief in the creator, the great spirit, and they believe that in order to be truly healthy as a person, the spiritual aspect of life is as important as the physical, mental and emotional aspects.

Further, aboriginal people believe there is interconnectedness amongst all beings, the two-leggeds, which we all are today, the four-leggeds, the plant world, the winged ones, those that swim, those that crawl, and natural forces existing in the physical, social and spiritual realms, that is, the air, the fire, the water, etc. These beliefs and teachings form a holistic approach, which is both rich and effective in maintaining and restoring peace, balance, harmony and healthy situations.

• 1005

Of specific importance is the fact that in the application of aboriginal justice healing is a primary value. This fact is in sharp contrast with a primary value of punishment in the existing system. I share that because I think so many people, such as defence lawyers and crown counsels, at the front end of the system don't understand these kinds of concepts when they're dealing with the aboriginals, whether they're offenders or victims. I think those things need to be understood and promoted, and that's why I mentioned yesterday there's an absolute need for education and training for mainstream justice personnel.

I thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I wanted to introduce as well Paul Forseth, who could not be with us yesterday. Paul is from B.C. He's a member of Parliament and he's one of the vice-chairs of our committee.

Welcome, Paul. Did you have any comments at this point, or do you want to hold on?

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): I could talk in a broader way about how we recognize the needs of victims and how they're connected to the offender. The broader issue I want to talk about is general accountability of the justice system. Who does the broader justice system really serve anyway? In its present concern of course it becomes offender-focused, but why is it offender-focused? What is it looking after the offender for, and for whom?

Jails and prisons inherently become offender-focused because they have a practical need. There are the practicalities of release plans and where they are going. So that is their job. But increasingly I think we need to see the operations of jails being more accountable for their operations to the community at large.

And on the jail side of things, victims as individuals, or the community as victim, I think have a stake in the success of how jails carry out their realistic mandate. There is an issue of the performance of that system in the eyes of the community.

The community pays the bills and the community delegates its authority to this professional jail or justice system to do a job for general community peace and order. But the justice system operations, first in terms of the processing of the guilty and especially the jail consequences, I think must be more accountable in how they operate and how they conduct themselves, especially in regard to how and when offenders are released, risk assessment and so forth, and how the offenders are supervised thereafter.

So ultimately these questions I think are political and societal in nature. They concern having the correctional services in general geared inherently in their operations to respect and be accountable to the community they serve.

Many would I think see real practical changes in the operations, in the manual of standards and just how jails operate, if their main focus were changed. Change the offender preoccupation to a broader one. After all, who are we doing this all for but for the community? So it's a matter of balance in the operations of this detached professionalized jail system that gets out of step with who it's really accountable to in the long run.

So I'm looking for a broader shift to consideration of community more than being so historically offender-focused. And then from that will flow the kind of victim consideration and victim accountability and service we're looking for.

The Chair: Thank you.

Arlène.

[Translation]

Mrs. Arlène Gaudreault: The present Act does not go far enough concerning the disclosure of information to victims. There are things that must be told and other that can be told. I think that the National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada have a lot of discretion there. I think that disclosure to victims of information such as the age of the offender, the name of the penitentiary, the date on which the offender is to be out and the conditions of his release should be required. It is not all that difficult to give that kind of information to victims. The Act should really go in the direction of the victim's rights and it should not be discretionary.

Besides, the Act should also contain provisions concerning escapes which we call quiet flights in the system. This has to do with the protection and security of some victims particularly.

• 1010

It does happen that a victim is told that her aggressor is in a halfway house, but she is not told if he escapes when we know she is in danger. This happened recently in Quebec and I am sure that it also occurred elsewhere. We should strengthen the Act in this regard so that that kind of information is disclosed to the victims.

I will now go on to the issue of programs. One of the main concerns of victims is to know whether the offender is a good guy, if he has made progress, if he has taken programs, if he has been seeing a psychologist, if he has had a treatment for alcoholism, etc. It is presently very difficult for victims to get that kind of information because it is part of the offender's right to privacy. Those who are asked skirt round the issue. They give some information but not too much. They do not know. They are so afraid of seeing the Charter mentioned in favour of the offenders' rights that they dare not move.

The issue of programs should be studied because it is really an important concern. This would perhaps force Correctional Service Canada not only to share the information, but also to assess the programs. I attended several hearings and I also went along with victims as an observer. The issue of programs within Correctional Service Canada is most of the time a big crystal ball. You are told that yes, he has made progress, he has changed and is ready to be released. But how has he changed? What exactly happened? What kind of an individual was he when he came into the penitentiary and what is now different so that we can be sure he is ready to go out? It is very difficult to get specific parameters and this is a real concern for victims. The issue of programs should therefore be studied.

Victims should get more specific information on the programs so that they can be reassured. In fact the questions the victim is wondering about are the following: when is he going to come out? Could he still do the same thing to me or do it to other people? What enables you to say that what you offered that person has had positive outcomes? We hear a lot about the accountability of the correctional system and the justice system. I think we mean the accountability of the correctional service and the board.

I think that when we amend the Act, those sections should be strengthened. We've been talking about victims' rights since yesterday but I think that we should be talking about victims' privileges. Apart from the compensation for some categories of persons, victims only have privileges. When those privileges are challenged and weighed against the rights of the accused and when we refer to the Charter, victims often lose. As an example, one should look at how the victims' privacy is protected when we ask for their medical and psychological reports. Victims are often loosers. I will now close this parenthesis. All I am suggesting is a strengthening of the provisions of the Act in that regard.

I beg your pardon. I was pleading for my organization.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll take a little break. We're going to go downstairs. Remember that yesterday we went downstairs for lunch and that's where the coffee is. Can we be back up here in 15 minutes? Then we're going to try to wrap up.

I'm going to ask Peter MacKay to speak a little bit about an idea he has for an ombudsman for victims within the correctional services. We've had that recurring theme yesterday of the national office for victims in general, so I'd like to try to get back to that as well when we get back after our break.

So let's take a stretch and we're going into the home stretch.

Thank you.

• 1014

• 1050

The Chair: Welcome back. I almost hated to break up the coffee klatch downstairs, except that you were all chatting with each other and we weren't getting the benefit of some of the things you were saying on the record.

One of the purposes of these forums—this is the second one we have done—is for people from across the country who are working in the same fields or who have interest in the same fields to get to know each other. Apparently we have accomplished that quite handily, judging by the noise level downstairs.

I want to acknowledge three people who are in the room and who are here because of the loss of relatives of theirs. I want you to know that Susan Ashley and Margaret Bright are present. Margaret is the mother of and Susan is the sister of Linda Bright, who was murdered. Theresa McCuaig is someone the colleagues here know well; she is the grandmother of Sylvain Leduc, who was murdered here in Ottawa.

We want to acknowlege your presence and we want to acknowledge your loved ones as well. Thank you for coming.

Now it's clean-up time. Some people approached me and said there were a couple of things they wanted to say. Arnold Blackstar is one of them. Arnold is going back to report to their justice commission this week in Saskatchewan. He just wanted to say a couple of things that he felt he wanted to share with everybody here.

Arnold, go ahead.

Mr. Arnold Blackstar (Individual Presentation): Madam Chair, good morning.

First of all, I would like to say thank you to each and every one of you for expressing your views on victims and victims' services and the need to voice the concerns of victims within this process.

• 1055

What it means for the first nations of Saskatchewan is that there are significant fundamental differences between your views and first nations' views within Saskatchewan. The criminal justice system has not worked for first nations historically and currently in Saskatchewan. Issues such as high incarceration rates of first nations men and women, and including children within the Young Offenders Act in Saskatchewan, demonstrate the level of inadequacy of the criminal justice system for first nations.

Inadequate policing services for first nations communities in Saskatchewan is another issue. Lack of first nations court services is another issue where you find language needs are not addressed within the courts for first nations. There are few or no victims' services offered from the current victims' services programs that are police-based within Saskatchewan, and there is limited participation of first nations within the National Parole Board and Correctional Services process respecting first nations offenders.

All have contributed to systemic discrimination of first nations within the whole criminal justice system, again re-victimizing first nations communities and entire aboriginal cultures and peoples.

First nations in recent years have been demonstrating that this is not tolerable, that enough is enough. That is why first nations justice strategies are fundamentally different from those of the anglophone and francophone views of justice that were expressed here in the last day or so. These significant cultural, linguistic, and spiritual differences challenge the partnerships between first nations and the criminal justice system. Any legislative changes in victims' services must have a strong community-based and aboriginal component in order to meet those unique needs of aboriginal peoples in Canada as well as in Saskatchewan.

With those views stated, I would like to thank each and every one of you for expressing those concerns surrounding victims' services.

In Saskatchewan we have moved quite significantly within first nations justice strategies in encompassing all areas in the criminal justice system. And it's always a challenge within our communities to try to work in partnership with the existing system, which does not carry the voice of victims, does not carry the voice of communities and families, who are maybe secondary partners or players within the system itself.

That's basically all I wanted to say. Again, thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Arnold.

I'll start taking a list, but I have three people who I know wanted to talk and spoke to me at the break.

Chuck, you had a story you wanted to tell us that you thought would illustrate some of the things we were talking about this morning.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Madam Chair. It's just a point to illustrate how important the notification by Corrections Canada on release can actually be.

There was a double homicide in Surrey back in 1992 in which two women were killed. The perpetrator received a manslaughter sentence for ten years, but not too long ago the mother of one of the victims was notified that he was going to be given work release out of Sumas Community Correctional Centre, which meant he would have been in the town of Abbotsford on day release, on work release.

Right away the alarms went up, because the mother realized that her three grandchildren, who were actually her daughter's children, the victim's children, lived in Abbotsford. The youngest one of those, who was four years old at the time, witnessed his mother's killing. Right away she thought of what's going to happen if those three kids, the youngest one especially, who's ten years old now, were walking down the street one day and ran into the offender on the main street of Abbotsford.

Right away she called back CSC and said “This is really inappropriate, I don't think this should happen”, and to its credit, CSC agreed and the work release was suspended. They withdrew his work release. Obviously he wasn't too happy about it, but I'm not so sure that's really what we're concerned about.

I wanted to use that point to illustrate just how important notification can be. And this came almost as a serendipitous thing; they really didn't expect it. But I wonder what would have happened if Cody would have run into Mr. Hicks on the main street of Abbotsford one day.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Chuck.

Brenda, you spoke to me at the break and wanted to speak.

Ms. Brenda MacDonald: Thank you. I wanted to take a minute to express my thanks to the committee for allowing me the opportunity to be a part of this forum.

I listened to everybody else's views and ideas, and there was a lot I did agree with. It goes without saying that I think a national victims' office would be of benefit to victims for obtaining information no matter which jurisdiction one might live in or where the crime took place.

• 1100

I really want the committee and people who have not suffered a loss to understand the destruction a violent crime has on a family. When Wilma spoke about the effects and how people change over the years and is it attributed to the violent crime they've experienced, I think of my dad. I also have to think of Ralph Klassen. When she talked about the prisoners being in good shape and tanned, I always imagine Ralph Klassen in William Head on Vancouver Island, practising his golf swing, being out in the sunshine, getting the education he wants. Then I have to compare that to my father, who finds it very difficult to get up every morning and struggle through a day not only without one daughter but with the court system that said very clearly that if she had kept her mouth shut she would be here to this day.

I find it deeply offensive that women are still discriminated against every day in our courtrooms, the women who go there in the hope that the government, the courts, will protect them from the men who are being violent against them every day in their homes.

As a woman, I'm afraid of a stranger attacking me. More women have to be afraid of who they're living with than they do about any stranger when they go out shopping or in the evening. I want our government to do more to protect these women and to stop the bias that is happening, the attitudes in the courtroom, the comments from judges—in our case, that he is not a threat to society; he only killed his wife. That is something a father has a real hard time living with.

So I really do appreciate being able to be part of this.

As far as victim impact statements go, I want all the options that are available to offenders and accused to be available to the victims. I want fairness; I want equality. I'm not asking for anything more than an accused or an offender has. I want the same.

I want the rehabilitation available, and if financial costs can't be covered, I have to live with that. I'm not a person about money, and if I want the rehabilitation, I'll seek it myself. Some people don't know how to do that; they don't know where to go. If we had that intervention at the beginning, like I said before, maybe my father would have been able to cope with things a little bit better.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Karen O'Hara.

Ms. Karen O'Hara: I'd like to follow up on what Brenda said.

I think it's very important for the committee to hear about victims' rights, and especially about how it has affected people, people who have lost loved ones and family members through murder.

I would also really like the committee to look at the issue of abused women. StatsCanada a few years ago did a phone survey and found that one out of six women in Canada are being abused or have been abused in a married or common-law relationship. Some of these women end up murdered.

I think it's very important. I have felt a little out of it here, because I'm the only one here from a transition house. There is someone else here from services for women who have been sexually abused, but I think it's important for the committee to hear from groups like ours as well.

The Chair: Thanks, Karen.

I want to jump from that off to something I talked to Lynne Kainz about at the break. I think you have figured out that Lynne and I are from the same community and that we actually worked together when I was a prosecutor, but I've also worked with her as a defence lawyer as well.

One of the things we talked about that we've missed—but I think there are some lessons in terms of what we heard about the parole board, Lynne—the chunk that we've missed is what happens when somebody is arrested, before they are tried, and we have to deal with conditions of bail and conditional release at that point, judicial release. Can you assist us in terms of how front-line workers deal with that?

Ms. Lynne Kainz (Victims Witness Assistance Coordinator, Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario): I think it's very important to have the victim available at those bail hearings. I know sometimes there's a tendency not to include them for various reasons, which causes concern. I think the victim should be able to let the court know right at the start what those fears are so that the court can put conditions that will address those fears. Most of the time the accused is released into the community pending the trial, and the woman has to live with the fear that he'll try to contact her or cause further harm to her.

• 1105

We've talked all along about the victim impact statement. I think we need more than the police officer at a bail hearing getting up and talking about the harm inflicted on the victim; I think the victim should be there at the very beginning to be making the court aware of their ongoing concerns. So we haven't talked about that, but I think that's very important.

While I have an opportunity, there are a couple of other areas we didn't talk about that I bring forward: the concerns of sexual assault victims who fear sexually transmitted diseases, both for the adult women and the parents of the children, and having a mechanism in place where the accused has to be tested for those diseases.

We had a case recently we were confronted with where the victim didn't know the accused was HIV-positive. There was all this concern about breaching confidentiality and bringing that information forward, yet she had been his victim. Fortunately, the defence lawyer felt it very important and encouraged the accused to agree to that information going forward, and we had to tell the woman that he had tested HIV-positive. I think that was probably the hardest thing I've had to do so far in this particular area.

I know that's often a concern of the parents of young victims: Has my child contracted a sexually transmitted disease? It's terrible until they have that information available to them. There are many accused who won't willingly; there are those who have agreed but there are those who will not. I think we have to turn our minds to that.

There is one other thing. We didn't talk about when the offender is unfit to stand trial.

My niece's husband was murdered here in Ottawa, as a matter of fact. He was Brian Smith. Just having walked together with my niece through that process.... Generally when a crime has been committed, someone is charged, there is a trial, and the accused has to accept responsibility for his actions. But what about where the accused or the offender isn't fit to stand trial, and what about the victim in those particular cases?

I think it's imperative that the victim of any crime be kept informed. But in particular, where we have that happening, I think it was very helpful that right from the beginning my niece was provided with the information that was coming to light with respect to where this was going to go. She didn't have false hopes; she knew from the beginning or very shortly after charges were laid that this was a man who suffered a mental health problem. I think we have to involve those victims through all of the stages as well.

I think the only thing that sort of helped her through it all.... Of course she was very discouraged in her mind that he wasn't going to have to accept responsibility because he was not criminally responsible in our courts. There was an inquest that took place and a number of recommendations came out that inquest. Certainly from her point of view, she has been very, very involved, and she was given standing at the inquest. But very often we don't have inquests; there is no standing. Then the victim walks away with a sense that the person has not been responsible for their actions, and it's very, very unsettling.

I think we have to look at ensuring that the three areas I've brought forward are certainly considered when you're going to the table and looking at how we can better meet the needs of victims.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to deal with two issues that came out of our town hall meeting on victims' rights.

I can only describe it as a free-hanky affair, because it was extremely painful to hear from these victims and to recognize the impact the crime had had on their personal lives—in fact it would be more appropriate to say the destruction of their personal lives.

• 1110

I discussed one instance with Priscilla de Villiers. She's not here today. I wish she had been here, because I think she could have helped us in this particular area. I will just quickly describe the case of a woman who had a bachelor of science and a master of social work whose sister had been murdered in a most horrendous way and she had to identify the victim. This has destroyed her life. She is incapable of working. She had managed a huge department with a large staff and was certainly able to function effectively prior to this happening. The impact on her life is that she's destroyed in the sense that she has not been able to access proper psychosocial help.

It would seem to me that in the instance of equality and speaking for equality as well, we need trained psychosocial workers. In discussing this with Priscilla, she tells me that the impact on her personal life has been devastating as well and that this is the case for most of the people with whom she has worked. It had a very negative impact.

There really are not sufficient, if any, good models, first of all, for handling victims after the crime. Second, the psychosocial workers or the psychiatric workers are not easily available.

I would like to suggest that in the course of whatever we decide, we should look at the government, the Minister of Justice or the ministry, to research the best models worldwide and set up a proper, centralized training service for those who are interested. This would be out of the millennium fund as a millennium project that could deal with the children who are the victims, the women who are for the most part the victims, or the families that are the victims. Certainly that's the case with the father we just heard Brenda discuss.

We have to be able to do something when we hear these stories. We heard lots of them that night, I can tell you. The minister was good enough to have stayed the whole evening. She heard this plea for prompter victims' rehabilitation services.

Second, I'm highly offended at the thought that there's no way by which, on another matter, we can control the mail that is going out from offenders. These are people who have been declared as offenders and are in the prison system. Can you tell me why pornography can be distributed at liberty and we can't stop it? Pornography is hate.

There's no reason why we cannot say, at least from my point of view, that those people who have committed these horrendous crimes should be allowed to communicate only with their lawyers, the criminal justice system, and perhaps their immediate family—that's if their immediate family wants to hear from them—and then nobody else? We set terms and conditions under whatever they call it.

I get upset when I think about this, frankly. I can't really understand why the right to be left alone is a privilege that cannot be looked at in terms of those prisoners who have really undertaken a destruction in the lives of other people.

By the way, children who commit crimes are often victims too. That was the other message that came out of that town hall. When you look at the victims, remember that the one who committed this crime is often the victim himself. It comes from generational experience in the home.

The Chair: Thanks, Sheila.

Michèle Roy, and then Joanne Thorne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Michèle Roy: Since time flies and I'm not sure I will have the floor again, I will now lay down all my cards on the table.

There are three things I would like to mention. We did not raise the stay of sentence issue. In the sexual assault centres and shelters for battered wives, we are very concerned because we now see more and more stays of sentences for crimes against people, especially in cases of domestic violence and sexual abuse which, in our mind, lessens the seriousness of such actions.

Commitments were made, at the federal and provincial levels, to impose conditions. It was agreed that we would use them very seldom if ever, that prosecutors in each province would monitor very closely those cases and that conditions, including for the supervision of people and monitoring, would be put into place, but they are not at all implemented presently. I want some work to be done on this issue.

• 1115

We heard on several occasions that victims lack information. It is true and we keep saying it again and again. This is part of the work we are doing for the women we are helping. We give them information on the justice system, on what is going to happen, on the way it is going to happen and so on. It is not a neutral information. It is more a question of saying: "This is how things will happen, this is what the legislation allows, this is the procedure and this is the work the prosecutor does." Women are not only asking for information; they also want justice. They ask, like all the other victims, that the rights they have under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the charters passed in all the provinces be recognized, and also that their right to integrity, security and equality be recognized in the justice system.

I was looking for a comparison. It's a little as if you were told that you have to pass an exam in order to get a job. When you ask for information on the exam you are told: "Well, the questions will be rigged or booby-trapped. The examiners are biased against politicians. They are racists or sexists. The marks are totally arbitrary and change with every person marking the exam. Each will make the assessment in his or her own way. They will be allowed to check in your personal files if you see a psychologist, a doctor, etc. There, now that you have the information, you should be satisfied."

Obviously we agree that the right to information is one of the first things we should recognize, but it is not enough. For all the victims, we have to be clear on it: changes have to be made to the justice system so that not only the right to information is recognized, but also the right to justice, equality and fairness for women, children and victims.

Lastly, I must say that I did not ask to speak when we talked about many of the issues that were raised, because for one thing my position on the topic was not quite clear.

Each fall, the Department of Justice organizes a meeting for the main women groups that are active in the area of violence against women. This consultation enables groups to meet, to take stock, to write position papers to be submitted to the Minister of Justice. We will probably have the opportunity again this fall to study the issues we raised and to propose other changes, but in a collective way. I support that and I feel that most of our support group for victims work in the same direction and ask for the same things. We also have specific views on the issues relating to violence against women, domestic violence, sexual assault and all that kind of things, that we would like to mention.

I am sorry we were given those questions at the last minute. I am probably not the only one who had problems taking a position on any of those things because I did not have time to think of it beforehand. That is what I wanted to say.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks, Michèle. It's always difficult to generalize when you come from a specific point of view.

I can speak on behalf of the members of the committee, I'm sure, and acknowledge that we appreciate that different circumstances do require flexibility and different approaches. The fact that we're not focused in one area today doesn't mean we're not thinking about that area or not recognizing it.

I'm going to ask Peter MacKay to talk a little bit about something I know is an important project for him: trying to define the rights of victims within the Correctional Service.

If you're getting the idea that I'm trying to do some clean-up here, I am. There may be things that are driving you nuts that you want to say. Elizabeth Sheehy is going crazy over there, so we'll get to her next. And Joanne, I won't forget you.

We'd like to hear what that clean-up is, and then as a result we could be thinking ahead. Some people have said they'd like to write on a few things; they'd like to present a written brief as well. I've talked to Phil and Marilyn, and we're suggesting a date of July 15 for that process, which gives you about a month.

• 1120

There may be things you haven't even thought of that were triggered here. A brief only needs to be a handwritten note, if that's what you want to do. Just get it to us. We'll get it translated; don't you worry about that. We'll get it circulated and it will be considered.

Peter, go ahead.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'll go through this rather quickly, Madam Chair. I know floor time is limited.

For me, sitting here at this table with all of you for the last day and a half has reinforced the notion that we need to have a central office, a national victims' rights commissioner or an office where we can improve the access to the justice system for all victims and bring a balance—there's been a lot of talk of the balance or the imbalance that exists between offenders and victims—and to give them a tangible voice within the system.

One phrase that came up yesterday was one-stop shopping. Although that's rather crass when it comes to victims, if an office were available—a starting point where people could go with their complaints, concerns, and suggestions; a coordinated effort for victims—I'm sure representatives of CAVEAT, the victims' resource centre, and others here would want to have significant input into the setting up of that office and the specific recommendations, as would many.

Theresa McCuaig, who was here; Brenda, I'm sure; and the Rosenfeldt family—all the stakeholders, essentially—would, I suspect, be anxious to have input into what that office would be about and the tasks it would perform, with the purposes of highlighting education for those who are active crown attorneys, judges, and lawyers; sharing successes and failures within the present system; and improving regional interaction, which seems to be another highlight coming from the comments in the last day and a half.

I think there would be a fear—I know I would have the same fear—that it would just become another bureaucracy and another place for patronage appointments. So that has to be addressed upfront; it's extremely important who the personnel would be.

The way I framed the motion I moved in the House of Commons was that it would be similar to the correctional investigator's office. I know they have a budget of $1 million-plus and a staff of about 12. When we talk of balance, that's a starting point. That would be the initial size of such an office.

I suggest it would, again, undermine confidence in the system if it were simply an office that became, for lack of a better phrase, a sounding board for complaints. It has to have some legislative teeth. There has to be some ability for the commissioner to intervene in certain instances or demand that certain players respond, if they're being unresponsive.

Some of the aims of this office would be early and ongoing information, addressing this issue of restitution or criminal injuries compensation so there could be tracking and enforcement of restitution orders made by various judges, and perhaps coordinating counselling and the rehabilitation of victims could as well be under the mandate of a national office.

There is a need for that one central office. Then all of the information, the benefit, and the mutual input we've had here in the last day and a half could be brought to the forefront. It would be a terrific opportunity to put to good use some of the information we've heard and exchanged here in the last little while.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Peter, just let me ask you one question for my own clarification. Are you thinking of this as an office that would deal with all aspects of the justice system, including corrections and parole, or are you thinking that requires a separate person within that system?

Mr. Peter MacKay: No, this office could deal with corrections and parole. I don't think you can separate them, to be quite frank.

You go through different stages. You're victimized. The police become involved, then the crown and the court. But when it's over in the legal sense, in terms of the adversarial trial process, that doesn't end it. It's a lifelong journey.

So my suggestion would be that you don't break off the issue of parole or what's happening during the rehabilitation process.

The Chair: Thanks.

Joanne Thorne.

• 1125

Ms. Joanne Marriott-Thorne (Government of Nova Scotia): The issue I want to respond to is, as has been stressed, the importance of the victim being involved in the process very early in the process. Our concern is that even where there are services available, those services are often not in fact accessible to victims because victims are not told about the services very early in the process. One of the things that we've run up against, and I know I've heard my colleague from B.C. mention it as well, is the federal privacy legislation really being a barrier to the RCMP making active referrals to victims' services organizations, including their own victims' services organizations.

As Colette mentioned yesterday, I think, it's not enough to give a traumatized victim of crime information at that point or to give them a card at that point that says there are victims' services available. In the case of traumatized victims, outreach is extremely important. We have to look at ways to break down the barriers to being able to reach out to traumatized victims so that we can contact them and then give them the options in regard to all of the services at a time of less trauma, instead of at the time of the incident. And then we can give them an informed choice as to whether or not they want to access those services.

But unless we can do outreach, we're not truly making even the services that are there available to victims.

The Chair: Thanks, Joanne.

Elizabeth Sheehy.

Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy: Thank you. I have a question and then a suggestion.

What other processes is your committee going to engage in before you come up with your report? You've said you will be accepting briefs, but I wondered if you're having another round table of this sort or if you're inviting further oral submissions.

The Chair: To clarify that, I'll just say first of all that we have a web site which has been somewhat active, although not as active as we had hoped, I think. We've been receiving briefs ever since we announced this process a couple of months ago and we will continue to receive briefs. We don't plan for another round table, but we want to continue to hear from people. And with respect to the date of July 15, I'm not going to say it's a loose date, but certainly at some point we have to stop and sit down and do what we have to do.

Keep in mind—although we haven't had a procedural motion to this effect in committee, I'm sure we will, now that I'm thinking about it—that we started this process in the last Parliament, and I think we would be adopting the evidence that we heard at that time. We did quite a bit of work at that time. We've also, of course, heard from victims throughout other consultations that we've done and that has become part of the culture of our committee in terms of dealing with these issues.

Each member of Parliament has been invited—and many have responded—to hold town halls in their communities and to report on those town halls through this committee. Eleni Bakopanos and Sheila Finestone held one for virtually all of Montreal. The Minister of Justice meant to drop by and say hello at that meeting and ended up staying the whole evening. I'm doing the same in my community and Peter MacKay has had his.

Have you had yours yet, Chuck?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I don't really need one in my riding.

The Chair: Chuck doesn't need one, but his constituents might—

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, they know where to find me.

The Chair: As well, Andrew Telegdi is doing this and I'm sure that other members are, so that's another process. Keep in mind that there are 304 members of Parliament. We can't guarantee that all of them have an interest in this issue, but I think most do, so we expect to hear from them as well. So there will be round tables going on all over the country between now and the middle of July.

Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy: I would just like to suggest that some effort be made to make more contact with the independent women's movement in this country, because there are 30 years of experience of working with victims of violence, and that's a very wealthy experience, one that is rich with analysis. And numerically, you're talking about the vast majority of victims in this country.

Specifically, there are national women's groups that work on violence, as well as provincial groups. You should, I think, be talking with groups like the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, and Pauktuutit, the Inuit women's organization with which Mary Crnkovich has done some very important work on victim impacts and circle sentencing.

• 1130

I think racial minority groups are actually critical in this process. They have a very unique experience of victimization, one which really hasn't been raised by any of us here. This isn't our knowledge, and I think it's critical. As well, the disabled community has a very specific and profound understanding of victimization and has very specific issues.

Finally, there's really nobody here speaking of children in the criminal justice process. None of us are experts. None of us are really talking about the very specific changes that could and should be made to the Criminal Code in their interest.

I think that all of those groups have equality interests that none of us are really well equipped to address. While homicide victims are critical in this as well, I think this whole discussion has really been skewed by focusing on that alone, not that it shouldn't be important. It is critical as well, but there's another very important component that should be addressed and I think if you consulted those groups you would have a very different agenda.

It's not just an add-on, actually. It's a different way of thinking about the issues and it's a very different focus. They would say that most of the things we've talked about over the last day and a half are not relevant and not useful because most of the violence that women experience is privatized violence, violence in the home, not the violent stranger; it's violence in the family, so many of the victims' solutions we're talking about are not the ones they need.

We're really much more interested in looking at the systemic discrimination and policing, the issues around policing. And actually, that extends to the homicide victims, because we know that the systemic discrimination in policing had an impact on the Clifford Olson investigation, on the Paul Bernardo investigation and on the Jane Doe investigation. In all of those cases, had women been believed, had women been listened to, we might have saved some lives.

I don't think the issues are distinct. Violence against women and homicide are not distinct: they're parts of a continuum. Every one of those guys practiced first. A lot of people knew what they were up to and they weren't listened to. I think the systemic policing issues should also be an important focus when you're starting to talk about the rights and interests of victims in the criminal justice system.

The Chair: Thanks, Elizabeth.

Let me assure you that I was listening carefully to the list of groups you were naming. Virtually every one of them has been contacted in some form. The fact that they're not at this round table today.... It could be in one or two cases that they were unable to come or declined. In other cases, we're hearing from them in another forum or they have been invited to submit briefs.

It's a fact of life in Parliament that not everyone gets to speak directly, in person, during the committee process, but that doesn't take away at all from the strength of their presentations or from the importance that we put on them. We value written and even telephoned conversations. Some of us have been known to paraphrase a conversation in a letter and communicate it to all of our colleagues. We try to hear from as many different groups in as many different ways as we can. Some of these very groups will be involved in town halls in their own communities as well.

I don't want you to think anybody is being excluded. We were quite careful in terms of the people invited here today, because there is information that we, as parliamentarians, felt that we needed. This group was put together by consensus of the committee because these were the specific voices that we wanted to hear, for specific reasons. Anyway, thank you; that's very helpful.

Colette.

Ms. Colette Mandin-Kossowan: Yesterday I sensed a common thread that ran through a lot of conversations we were having. First of all, we heard that victims' voices need to be heard. We heard that victims need information so they can plan their lives. We heard that they should have full access to services and should be told and informed and somehow have some form of outreach so that they know those services are available, because often they don't know. And we heard that they should have access to rehabilitation.

When Wilma spoke this morning about equality and rehabilitation, she whacked me right out because that's an area where there's not a lot of discussion and yet the example she used is so graphic—and we live it. I'm living that with 30 families on a daily basis. I'm watching these families be destroyed.

I would hope that this kind of consultation, where you have a lot of stakeholders at the table who work with victims, would happen on an ongoing basis, so that not only do stakeholders get to understand each other's positions, but the issues that arise and that people have consensus on are dealt with and not just....

• 1135

I guess I'm kind of tired of the tragedy-to-tragedy types of band-aid solutions. We need ongoing sustained growth in the development of services and rehabilitation and rights for victims. This kind of process should be ongoing, so that information comes forward.

I wanted to mention, too, in talking about an office for victims of crime, that I agree with Peter MacKay that we do need experts to help in an office for victims of crime, but I think the services and information should reflect the real needs of victims, and that there has to be participation from victims.

The Chair: Peter Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've not been overly vocal in some of these meetings, and those of you who know me from the justice committee know that's not usually my style, but I think it's been particularly important to listen to the experiences and recommendations and comments from around this table. I want to thank the members who have come to inform us as members of Parliament.

My own experience is as a defence lawyer, which doesn't mean that I didn't have some experience with victims. Much of the work I did was also in the area of family law, and I had a fair amount of experience with women who were victims of violence.

I think what we're talking about here are some fundamental changes to the criinal justice system, to make that system more responsive to all the players.

I came late yesterday, so I understand the issue of.... To me it's fairly important to determine how we're defining victims in the process and what stage in the process we do that, because that will affect how much the process changes as a result of our deliberation. What we've heard today and yesterday is a tremendous amount of food for thought.

If we're talking about making fundamental changes to the criminal justice system, whether it be along the lines of restorative justice, along the lines of a victims' bill of rights, or along the lines of enshrining responsibilities in the criminal justice system to respond to the needs of victims, we're talking about changing a system that has a built-up body of law and prejudices, I suppose, and authorities that have been weighted in another direction, on another side. So I don't think we can minimize the enormity of the task we're looking at, if we're going to do more than just tinker with the system.

I think those of us on the justice committee should take back over the next period of time what we've heard here and reflect upon it very carefully. What we have heard is that victims certainly need a voice, and they have a huge need for information. I've learned a tremendous amount about the gaps in the system, listening to the people here today.

To depart a little bit, I would say for those dealing with the committee for the first time—others have appeared as witnesses before the committee—that to your credit, Madam Chair, my experience has been that in the past year the justice committee has managed to not always agree, but certainly to approach issues in a non-partisan way, and I think there's been healthy debate and discussion on many of the issues.

Again, I thank the people who appeared before the committee as witnesses on other issues we've dealt with. It would be my hope, as we move into the fall, that we can maintain that same working relationship we've had on this most important issue.

I want to thank the people who have come. It's been informative for me, and real food for thought.

The Chair: Thanks.

Arlène.

[Translation]

Mrs. Arlène Gaudreault: Madam Chair, I have a question for you. I would like to know if the committee, and eventually the victims' office, is going to deal with the issue of the victims' bill of rights and if we are going to update the Canadian Charter of Fundamental Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime which, as you know, is not very elaborate and would need a review and an extension. Are we also going to deal with the issue of minimum standards for the services that should be offered to victims and shared across the country?

• 1140

Shouldn't we also study the issue of a code or principles of ethics for the services we should be offering the victims? Some countries in Europe are already ahead of us on those issues. Canada has a good expertise and has done advanced thinking on the issues concerning victims. We should be studying those issues together, we should give ourselves standards of conduct and quality for the services and make sure that we offer minimum services to victims.

Secondly, is the federal government going to deal with the issue of funding of services and of its commitment to financing those services and above all is it going to give an answer? People have said at least 200 times during the last two days that we were lacking resources. Up to 1991, the federal government had committed to transfer payments to provinces for services to victims and for their compensation. Is the federal government going to answer the question of funding instead of just talking about it for the next five years? Does it feel accountable? I know that it raises problems of shared jurisdictions with provinces, particularly with ours, but apart from shared jurisdictions, what do we want to do with this country to improve the situation of victims in the justice system and in their communities? Are we ready to make commitments in that direction? Is the federal government going to commit itself?

I think that we need the help of the federal government for training programs: training for judges, training for prosecutors and training for the people who work in health services. We need to share and create new tools that will be useful in all the provinces of Canada. Presently, everyone is working in his or her jurisdiction; everyone is developing his or her own program and we are always starting from scratch. The federal government could perhaps work with the provincial coordinators. As could be seen here, provincial coordinators have a good experience and a sound expertise. We could go further through a central coordination mechanism with the help of people in the various provinces.

I hope that before the year 2000, we will be able to table a charter that will be far more adequate than the one we have now and that will be modelled after charters such as the UN Charter and that of other countries. I think that is where Canada stands now. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks, Arlène.

I'm not going to try to directly answer your questions, because although you've put them to me, I can only speak with the committee. These are questions that obviously we are going to grapple with, and will take them seriously. We don't speak for the government on funding, although we can put stuff in our report, and I would be very surprised if there were not a large section on at least addressing the issue of funding. I would be very surprised if every committee member sitting around the table doesn't have that in the back of his or her head. But you've defined some issues for us, and we certainly will address them.

Lorraine.

Ms. Lorraine Berzins: I would just like to strongly support what Elizabeth Sheehy recommended and what Colette Mandin-Kossowan also spoke of—the consultation and hearing from groups at the grassroots level. I think it's really important to hear from the groups Elizabeth and Colette mentioned, because of the nature of the solutions they have done a lot of thinking about, which I think have more importance for real safety and prevention at the grassroots level than perhaps the victims office would have.

The only reason I'm saying that is that I'm not against the victims' office, but it's a question of resources. I think it's so important to get resources to people at the grassroots level, where it will have a meaningful impact on real lives with the real problems they are struggling with. I think those groups are really in touch with that, and can bring a dimension that should be considered before the resources are invested in a victims office.

The Chair: Thanks, Lorraine.

Andrew Telegdi.

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

• 1145

What has struck me in the last couple of days is.... I think Gary said it best: we have come a long way and we have a long way to go.

There is no question that the whole issue of victims and justice has to fit into a holistic framework, so to that extent I agree with Peter that we need something at the national level.

Ultimately, if these issues are to work, they have to also happen at the community level, where you make sure that the people involved in the justice system, people involved in policing, people involved in service delivery in the community, always have somebody available, that if you have a horrendous crime, emergency service is available in the same way that if you have an accident involving physical injury, you have emergency services available at the hospital.

I believe we should empower various communities with various strategies and the provinces should be very much involved in that as well, because they have a mandate for the provision of certain services. I think you could see a situation where at the federal level we have an office that acts as an ombudsperson, particularly on federal issues, working as a clearing house. But you have to have down the road the corresponding support right within the community.

It can mean something like making sure, when somebody's a victim, that their employer is aware of what that person might be going through, so their job doesn't disappear because that person doesn't function for the next month or whatever. It is making sure there is an understanding of all the support services in the community.

Madam Chair, I don't think everybody is going to be ecstatic with whatever we come up with in the first draft, but I hope it will be looked upon as a pretty significant milestone on a journey that we're continuing.

Gary, I'm really pleased you were able to give that input, because I think there is a lot more sensitivity. A lot more needs to come. Of course we can't create magic with legislation, but we can start a process that will continue, and we'll get there.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks.

I'm just noticing that my list is filling up now with parliamentarians. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but these people will talk forever. I know, Paul, I see you.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: A point of order. My point is to donate my five-minute summation speech to the people we are here to listen to. Take me off the list.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

I think what I am tempted to do right now, but I want your sense of it beforehand—I still do have some people on the list—I'm tempted to start with Richard Marceau, who's on my list, and take a run around the room and hear what you all have to say in summation.

Are you comfortable with that? All right. I don't hear any objections. Go ahead. I have my gavel and you have only a couple of minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Chair, people cannot say that I took the floor for too long during the last two days. I just want to take this opportunity to thank all those who came here to talk about those important issues.

I must say that my position does not necessarily go along the same line of thinking. Although many people talked about national standards, I am wondering whether it is the best way to go at it. I think it is more a question of funding. As many people said, it is a question of funding at the provincial level and at the community level. The federal government itself has cut transfers to victims' assistance program since 1991. One can talk of theoretical national standards, but if there is no funding to go with that, its totally useless to talk about such things.

I think that it is more a question of priorization of resources. Instead of talking about national standards, duplication, office creation or the creation of a new bureaucracy, we should rather tackle the duplication that exists between the federal and provincial levels so that the money that is supposed to go to victims and to people who help victims, to resource centres, is not lost in the bureaucratic maze that can be very easily created. Those monies should go to the people who need them and to the organizations who help them.

• 1150

If Parliament wants to help victims of crime by promoting the establishment of new social programs, it should do so through transfers of funds to the jurisdictions that are best suited to do it, that is to provinces and communities.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Richard.

Gary Rosenfeldt

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

I have spoken a fair amount during this forum, and I won't say too much more. I would really like to thank the committee, though, for having me and the other victims here today. I really commend the committee for the quality of the group of people you got together. This is one of the better forums I've been at, believe me, with regard to victims in the last number of years. I sincerely appreciate that, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Gary.

Arnold.

Mr. Arnold Blackstar: Again, I would like to thank everyone for the views expressed today. I was thinking about the national office and I was thinking about the National Crime Prevention Council and their office as well. Maybe in the interim we could look at expanding their role in terms of distributing information, being a clearing house for the information that is needed by communities and provinces. Certainly in Saskatchewan we rely quite a bit on the National Crime Prevention Council for their information. Thank you, again.

The Chair: Thank you, Arnold.

Kathy—speaking personally, of course.

Ms. Kathy Louis: Yes.

I want to thank everyone here. I've learned so much from all of you. It just goes to show that human dimensions and human dynamics are so encouraging. I was privileged to hear the views of different people, regardless of where we fall in that system, and to know that sometimes it is not sensitive to their human needs. Keep always in close mindfulness the principles of respect, of care, of sharing, of honesty, of kindness and trust and honour and validation of people. I think these are the very fundamental principles that I have a very strong belief in as an aboriginal person and obviously try to come from a place of forgiveness. I thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Kathy.

John Goertzen.

Mr. John Goertzen: Likewise, I have certainly valued this opportunity to meet with you. I've made a lot of connections here that are going to be valuable after we leave here as well. My role is in the initial intervention, at the time of the occurrence. It has been talked about a bit this morning. I would certainly like to reinforce that victims don't, overall, want any more than the perpetrator or the offender gets—just equality.

We talked about the healing within the rehabilitation, within the system. That needs to happen in the community. I think if there's one thing I hear most often, when we do a follow-up to an intervention we have addressed, when we ask if you were able to access the counselling, invariably it's a case of we could access it but we don't have the money to pay for it, so the healing can't begin. That needs to be taken into consideration.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, John.

Lynne Kainz from Windsor.

Ms. Lynne Kainz: We've enshrined the rights of the accused in the Criminal Code, and I think we need to enshrine the rights of victims. I ask you to consider that as you leave this meeting. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Colette.

Ms. Colette Mandin-Kossowan: I think people get nervous about the issue of standards for services for victims, but at the present time we don't even have a minimum benchmark. I think that's what we would be looking for. As well, I think the infrastructure for services and information is weak and needs repair.

Funding for support programs, of course, as was said, was probably imperative for everybody sitting at the table. We can't get the kind of recovery and healing in the community when there's absolutely no money to provide that kind of recovery and healing. The office, again, I think would be an avenue for advocacy. If there's no official voice and if there's no avenue to bring forward concerns, how can these kinds of concerns on a regular daily basis be channelled?

The Chair: Thank you, Colette.

Peter.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Chairman, I've said most of what I want to say. I do want to add one point, after listening to Kathy Louis and Andrew from Saskatchewan.

• 1155

One of the last cases I had in my other life involved a murder on a native community in my riding. I think we have to be particularly sensitive to the needs of the native community in dealing with victims' rights, especially the points that Andrew made. I also think we have a tremendous amount to learn from that community.

The way in which the victim's family, in that particular case I was involved in, and the offender's family managed to heal each other and at the same time see that there was significant rehabilitation for the offender was an eye-opener for me and most of the people in the non-native community. I think we should be particularly sensitive to that and learn from that community.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Peter Quinn.

Mr. Peter Quinn: I think one of the things that stuck out in my mind from the day and a half of being together is victims' involvement in the system. I think that's incredibly important. But it should almost, in my mind, be taken a step further, where victims don't just become involved in the system, they should be part of the system.

To me, it's sometimes tokenism, where they're saying this is what could be done. They should be an integrated part of the system. It's a paradigm shift to what we have at the moment, but I think that would be a very positive shift.

You get this shift but then it's the services that make that possible and it's the services that are provided to people at the grassroots level that really make the difference in their lives. That's one of the things I see the government coming in with at the federal level, because whenever anybody at a grassroots level is assisting someone, you're going to have two impacts on their life: it's going to be positive or it's going to be negative.

That's where with the government it's important that there are standards. With a national office, it's a way of controlling standards and making sure there are some minimum standards so those interactions are positive in people's lives, not negative interactions. Again, if the bottom line is that there's not funding in place for that, then there's no way those services are being provided to help those individuals.

Thank you for the opportunity.

The Chair: Thanks, Peter.

I forgot to introduce Susan McNab today. She's the local president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and she's sharing the role with Joanne Jarvis, who was here yesterday.

Did you want to sum up, Susan?

Ms. Susan McNab (President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving): Yes, thank you.

MADD has been awfully quiet here through these sessions, but I've certainly heard all of them and I've definitely seen very positive feedback on both sides. I would really like to thank the committee for providing this information-sharing session and giving us this opportunity.

Andrew Telegdi sort of says we've come a long way and we have a long road ahead. I definitely feel a little more confident from these sessions that we are at least on the road. I feel that, working together, we can make progressive change toward a national victims' bill of rights that will address all the victims' issues this committee has been hearing about for many months now.

Thanks very much.

The Chair: Thanks.

Elizabeth Sheehy.

Prof. Elizabeth Sheehy: One of the things that has struck me over the last day and a half is that many of the issues we're talking about are abstract without federal money being put into them. So I want to emphasize the important role of the federal government in creating a social safety net that's pretty much gone at this point.

In particular, the two main things that I think are critical are counselling services for the survivors of violence that are immediate and long-term—not band-aids but long-term—because that's what is required.

Second, the provision of legal aid for victims is critical, so that they can find their place and fight for what they need to fight for in that context, because those rights mean nothing without access to resources to fight for them—and also for offenders, because I actually think we can't possibly expect to get justice for victims if we don't also ensure some form of justice for offenders.

Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you.

Rosalee Turcotte.

Ms. Rosalee Turcotte: I guess we were discussing this morning about information being disclosed to victims. I really feel that should be expanded and that currently it's just not enough. When we allow offenders to hide behind legislation such as the Privacy Act, we'll never be able to demand accountability from them.

• 1200

The federal government should also establish national standards for victims' rights and services across the country. As the parent of a murdered child, I did receive pretty good support in British Columbia, and it is important to me that other people across the country receive the same level of support. I'd like to see something along that line.

The Chair: Thanks, Rosalee.

Nigel, this is the last time I'll pick on you.

Mr. Nigel Allan: Meetings such as this seem to hold the promise that the justice system will evolve into a more responsive system and that the change won't be restricted to input from lawyers, courts, and academics, but the system will receive information from the people it's designed to serve and in that way become more responsive and gain more respect from the people it's intended to serve. That can only auger well for our justice system. It needs improvement and it needs to receive input from sources it has not traditionally been open to.

The Chair: Thanks, Nigel.

Susanne.

Ms. Susanne Dahlin: I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me here today specifically. I've learned a lot; I've found it very informative. It was a good, respectful interchange, and that's not always the case on these most difficult issues.

I do have to agree with Elizabeth, however, that some major groups have been missed here. The issues of communities of diversity and those kinds of things need to be addressed as well as the women's community, although we've had a fairly strong voice in that respect as well. I'm glad to hear there will be more representation with that.

I wanted to make one comment about a victims' office or a victims' overview. I see very much the federal government providing an information exchange office. They can provide a good overview. They can provide a victims' lens in all the federal areas of jurisdiction, from policing to parole to correction services to judges as well, and some training in those areas.

They can provide resources with respect to research and information-sharing at the federal-provincial-territorial level. Even though I feel very grateful that people have recognized what B.C. has done in this area, I have to tell you that when I meet with my provincial colleagues and my territorial colleagues, I learn from them as well that they've made a number of initiatives in various areas that I can learn from. By us sharing and exchanging information, we can move forward in that way as well.

My only concern would be that if there's extra money around—and there has to be money around in delivery of victims' services—I would like to see that in direct service delivery to victims as opposed to a national bureaucracy. So I see the bureaucracy being small at the Ottawa level.

The Chair: Thanks.

Janet.

Ms. Janet Constable-Rushant (Victims Services Coordinator, Government of Yukon Territory): I'm a front-line worker, and I work daily with both first nations and non-first nations people. The issues for victims of any race are the same: they want to be treated with respect and dignity, they want to have their needs listened to, and they want to have a role and some rights within the system.

Those rights have to be legislated. It's too easy for individual personalities to get in the way of services for victims, whether it be the Crown, the RCMP, or whoever you're dealing with. I liked Irvin Waller's suggestion about the RCMP Act being amended.

I wanted to comment on the national office. It's a good idea to have an office for information. I know that in the Yukon we feel very isolated a lot of the time. It's been great for me to be here and hear about these groups. Some of them I've never even heard of before. To have an office where you could get that kind of information would be great. But I agree that it should be a small office, that it should be giving out information for groups that are working individually with victims, and that the money should be going to do that actual work with the victims.

The Yukon doesn't have criminal injuries compensation. It's a real sore point for me. It's something that should be standardized across the country.

That's all I have to say.

The Chair: Thank you.

Paul Forseth.

• 1205

Mr. Paul Forseth: As a member of Parliament, I listen to my community. We talk round and round, and we've been talking now for years. We certainly have problems identified—more than identified—and lots of solutions have been offered. Now we need to move to the next step, to some action. So as a summary statement, I would give a call to action.

The federal government certainly can exercise leadership in this way, looking at the general incentive systems and the facilitating encouragers that reward desired outcomes, but also the elimination and reduction of rules and contexts that produce less desirable results—in other words, managing the contexts so we get better outcomes.

There are some successes. We're especially proud of the front edge British Columbia has tried to show. But across the country we still have quite a patchwork. Yet if you talk to any concerned citizen, politician, or bureaucrat, they all seem to agree, and we all seem to agree around this table.

So I still ask the question: Why doesn't it happen? Why is there so much yet to be done? I say we need leadership. We have to act boldly. The provinces need to come onside, because the administration of justice is mainly their responsibility. They need to be the big actors, the doers. But the federal government needs to set a more facilitative legal context so the provinces can move forward.

I ask that question: Why aren't we further along? And we can ask the flip side: Who is opposing that agenda? Who or what is in the way of us getting our desires? Is it just apathy or lack of vision? What can we do to actually overcome the barriers to get something done quickly?

For example, we have the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, and in their booklet they've outlined 58 clear recommendations. It's a simple agenda. That may not be the only agenda, but it's a good one. We go from here and ask who will take their share—because we all have a part in that—to get from nice-sounding forums such as this, where we agree, smile at each other, and feel good about what we've said, into real changes actually happening on the ground, in the community, for victims.

It's a call for action and leadership. I just say we have to get it done.

The Chair: Thanks, Paul.

Paul DeVillers.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam Chair, I promised I would not make a speech. I just want to thank all the victims and the experts who came and helped us move ahead in our work. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks.

Wilma.

Ms. Wilma Derksen: I just want to thank everyone here too. I've learned a lot, and I appreciate the diversity and the wisdom that comes out of diversity. I would also appreciate a national office that would coordinate this kind of diversity and continue to reflect this kind of diversity.

I do have one caution. When we help and start to coordinate and give leadership, there always should remain a respect for the victims. They come at a very vulnerable time into our lives, and they seem very weak and they need a lot of help. But they do have their own journey of healing, and what they don't need is for us to take over control or to depend on professionals to take over their lives. What they need is empowerment, nourishment, healing, love, and respect. I would hope that's what the office would be all about.

The Chair: Thanks, Wilma.

Eleni.

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

First of all I'd like to say what a minister said once, which is that victims do not ask to be victims; it is thrust upon them. That point was made by most of the victims around this table.

I want to thank you, on my own behalf and on behalf of the minister, as her parliamentary secretary, for sharing your experiences, your pain, and also your recommendations with us as a government. A lot of very good recommendations came out of these meetings.

I want to say also what a lot of my other colleagues said: we do work together, be it Liberal, NDP, Conservative, or Bloc, to make sure that what comes out of these consultations does in fact become government policy.

The Chair: I'm sure you meant to mention Reform as well.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Oh, of course. I'm sorry, Paul. Definitely. Her Majesty's Official Opposition, how could I forget?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I also want to talk about what came out of a town hall meeting, which Sheila Finestone made reference to. No one who came to the mike said they wanted the federal government or the provincial government or that there be one jurisdiction. What came through is that they don't care which jurisdiction. What they care about is their needs and that the system itself is very responsive to their needs.

• 1210

I think the point was made also that there should be a lot of collaboration between the provincial governments and even the municipal governments. Some of the people who came before us at the town hall meeting in Montreal said that there has to be a collaborative effort, it cannot be the responsibility of one government.

Again, I certainly want to say that the funding issue was an issue also that was brought up. We certainly will be looking at that because it is important for there to be support groups out there in order that once a person is a victim, he knows that he can go somewhere to have that type of nurturing that is required and also be helped through the healing process.

So I thank everyone very much. It was certainly an education for me. I thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Eleni.

Lorraine.

Ms. Lorraine Berzins: I was struck one more time by the fact that the list of qualities that Kathy Louis made reference to and that Janet and Wilma have both referred to are the exact opposite of what we usually find in our courtrooms with the adversarial legal system we've got, yet that's the place to which we've all learned to turn for justice first and foremost.

I think we really have to change that. We've gone down a road that has become really destructive for our communities. This is so for victims particularly, but also for offenders and their families and the whole community and a community's ability to continue living together after all of this has happened, which we all need to find ways to do in most cases.

I really hope we find a way to reshape justice and our notion of justice around some different values and do it wherever we can to try to reshape people's sense of justice so that they turn to places where the psychosocial needs of victims particularly will be a central preoccupation of what we seek when we do justice and what we build around. If we build everything we do around the real psychosocial needs of victims, I think we'll all benefit. Respect for all will come out of that. I really hope we move in that direction.

The Chair: Thanks, Lorraine.

Karen.

Ms. Karen O'Hara: I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me. I'd also like to thank the other participants.

It's imperative in a victim's initial contact with the justice system for her to be treated with respect and be believed, and that her safety is always the priority for everyone.

This entails a lot of changes to our system. Some basic starts are the ongoing training of police. It's not good enough to train them for two days. It doesn't change people's attitudes. Judges need training. I'm tired of them hiding behind judicial independence. Education does not bias people, it helps them look at their biases. Most important for me and my children's services worker is that we need resources for service delivery.

The Chair: Thanks.

Brenda.

Ms. Brenda MacDonald: I kind of did my summary a little while ago. I just want to add one thing. My ultimate dream is that all of us victims who spend endless hours volunteering to advocate on behalf of other victims will find that our job has become redundant because positive changes have been made as a result of this forum.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks.

Bob.

Mr. Bob Witman (Individual Presentation): As somebody who's coming from being involved in intervention with offenders, I think one thing we need to realize too is that trying to see the rights of victims I think can go a long way toward impacting the broader community, not just justice. So I look at this initiative as a starting point in terms of just dealing with victims rights not only in the justice system but also in the broader community.

The Chair: Thanks, Bob.

Joanne.

Ms. Joanne Vogh (Sto:lo Nation): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to be here.

I haven't said anything. This is the first time I've done something. It has just been absolutely wonderful and a very educational experience for me.

I lost my sister five and a half years ago to a drunk driver, and I'm here on her behalf. I think one of the things that I find frustrating—Arlène, Chuck, and Michèle spoke about it—is that we're not notified when things are taking place.

Everyone has said my ideas and spoke about them, so I just kind of sat back and really enjoyed it.

• 1215

Consider when they're being released. With my incident, he was released on day parole. On that particular day, we weren't notified. He stole a car and robbed a gas station. On a high-speed chase, he sideswiped a police officer and almost hit pedestrians with a baby.

What if we were out and we saw him out? We weren't notified that he had this day pass. He escaped the Sumas Correctional Centre, and we weren't notified.

Just on my behalf, we need to be notified. We need to be part of it. We're the ongoing victims here. Whether it's one year or twenty years down the road, we're always going to be a victim to whatever crime that has been done.

Again, I would like to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to be here. It's been nice meeting most of you to whom I have talked. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Joanne.

Peter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, Madam Chair, I'll just again add to the many thanks for everyone, all the victims and advocates.

I want to thank specifically Philip Rosen, Marilyn Pilon, and Luc Fortin for their work in putting this together. I thank you, Madam Chair, and all the staff of the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General's department. It's much appreciated.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Marvin.

Mr. Marvin Bloos: This has been a learning experience for me. I've heard perspectives from the other side. I would like to encourage the committee to consider the restorative justice ideas that have been advanced. I think Canada is broad enough to entertain a number of different models in the criminal justice system, and perhaps there is a strong place for community-based sentencing to work well in certain circumstances.

There are a number of victims that defence counsel come into contact with on a regular basis, and these are the family members of the offender. A criminal charge and an offence can be enormously destructive on otherwise innocent members of a family: brothers, sisters, parents, and children. In major cases, the name of the person is usually in the headlines of the newspaper. His children go to school, where they are mistreated by their fellows. This can be very destructive on that family, which may not have seen this coming.

I'm not sure if they have a voice at anyone's table, but I would like to encourage the various organizations for victims to give consideration to this group that may be suffering in silence and that may need assistance as much as other people who have directly harmed by whatever the offence was that was committed.

The Chair: Thank you, Marvin.

Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think one word that we've heard go around this table quite a bit during these past couple of days has been “balance”. Victims don't want anything more than just to restore some kind of a sense of balance among their rights and in the way they're treated within the system.

I'll just take a moment to provide one anecdote that I think illustrates that. My son's best friend was with him when he died. In fact, he held him for the last couple of minutes as he slipped away. Now I can't think of much more of a victim than that person, who was 16 years old at that time.

At the time, we were very concerned about him. We and his parents tried to get him help because we were really concerned about his psychological well-being. His parents were told that it could take up to six months to get the kind of help he was going to need.

Five months later, on the eve of what would have been my son's 17th birthday, this young fellow went out and committed a very minor offence. This was something totally out of character, but it was acting out and it was an offence. He was charged; he had his help within 24 hours. He had to become an offender himself in order to get the help he needed.

He's fine now, he's doing okay, but I think that point illustrates where the problems are. It's a question of just restoring some balance.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Chuck.

Michèle.

[Translation]

Mrs. Michèle Roy: I stated earlier that I had said everything I wanted to say, but I was wrong. I will take this opportunity to say a few more words.

For a number of years we've had a wide support and information network for victims at the grassroots level. But this network faces two major hurdles: the lack of resources, resources that would enable it to answer all the needs and, in most cases, the lack of openness and flexibility of the justice system we have to work with, namely the police, the prosecutors, the defence lawyers, etc.

• 1220

It is important that the solutions that we will implement enable us to go on with our work and that we do not try to create all kinds of new resources. There already are a lot of resources, centres, organizations and victims' support groups that are working with very limited means. There are also volunteers. The standards, the bureaucrats and the grant requests change every other year and this is often a problem for us.

It is in that perspective that I am a little concerned with the proposed creation of a central office and I am afraid it will undermine the work already done at the grassroots level by getting all the money and keeping it in a central point and by taking away the expertise we already have in the field. There are already some groups; they know what kind of information and support should be given to victims. The only problem is they do not have enough money to do that appropriately for all the persons who ask for it. This is what concerns me.

I would like to mention one last thing and I wish somebody will take note. Among the expenses paid by the Standing Committee on Justice to witnesses, the child care expenses incurred by participants are not included. As the head a single parent family, I wish they were. But I really enjoyed this process all the same.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks.

Joanne.

Ms. Joanne Marriott-Thorne: There's a tremendous amount of expertise around this table, and I think we've all come to this table and come to the expertise that we have through different routes and different roads and sometimes with a great deal of tragedy along that road. But I think what we've all learned—certainly what I have learned—is that we become stronger by sharing our expertise rather than being polarized in our own point of expertise and feeling that we know better what is best than somebody else who has come by a different route to their concern.

I think there are a number of voices and there are a number of inputs that are really necessary and we have to be working together in ensuring there's a network for us to share those voices together if we're really going to do what it is we all want to do. What we all want to do is to build a victims' base within the criminal justice system.

We want to change the criminal justice system in a fundamental way, not to compromise the rights of the accused, but to give an acknowledgement to victims as a component of the criminal justice system, not an afterthought, not a group of people who have to be thought to be recognized or who experience barriers because there's some concern that we can't have this balance, we can't have one side receiving full rights, and that is the accused person or the offender, unless we show an indifference to the other side, which is the victim.

I'd just like to say that impartiality and fairness does not equate with indifference. I think we've chosen that road to date, thinking that we have to show a degree of indifference, otherwise we may be perceived to be biased. I think we're all on the same road here and we're all approaching the same goal. This has been tremendously successful for me and I hope for everyone in seeing that we have a great deal of commonality.

Thanks.

The Chair: Thanks, Joanne.

Michael.

Mr. Michael Lomer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee for the invitation and in particular for the choice of hotel and its fire alarm system. I enjoyed that immensely.

The Chair: It's part of the game.

Mr. Michael Lomer: As I mentioned yesterday, I come from perhaps a slightly unique background when it comes to this issue, not just because I'm a defence counsel and the issues that this brings up in the minds of victims' groups, in and of itself, but the fact that I worked on the Morin commission and before that I was one of the counsels to Morin in his appeal. That commission dealt with what I would call the primary victimization of an individual, which was his conviction of first-degree murder for a crime he had nothing to do with.

• 1225

When I hear about secondary victimization, I understand that entirely. The trial process is not a pretty sight. Those of us who participate in it on a daily basis recognize the real risks inherent in it. For my part and from my experience, and obviously the perspective I bring to it, as I expressed earlier, I have significant concerns about the integrity of the process and the integrity of the evidence that comes before the process.

It is for this reason that one of the suggestions we are talking about, the national office, which I see as a code of conduct and code of ethics, may perhaps be misunderstood by some of the other people. What I am suggesting is essentially a national training program for the professionals involved so that we know where the lines are drawn that run the risk of interfering with the trial process itself, so that they know how not to cross those lines.

It may have been suggested that this is a red herring. It is not. It is a very serious concern. That process is the significant issue that we have for the justice system. It is the first significant issue, if can put it that way. The second one is if there is a conviction, what is the proper disposition?

On another point—I heard this before about balance and victims' rights—there is an incredible skewing. In some ways, it is the necessary one at the outset, at the load end of the trial process. It is not and should not be that the victim is on trial. It is the offender or the accused offender who is on trial.

At the same time, when I heard somebody suggesting why we do not have speedy trial rights for victims—you do not even get notified whether there is an adjournment application either by crown or defence—I fully agree. You should be told. You should be allowed to have your input into whether or not this adjournment application is appropriate. You should be given a right to counsel so that you can speak to issues that clearly affect you in things like that.

So when we are talking about right to counsel for accused, we are talking about right to counsel for victims. I have no difficulty with that. In fact, it would allow your position to be heard louder and clearer. It is not a question of forcefulness. It is a question of you actually having a seat at the table. That presents absolutely no difficulty to me

It is a logistic problem, which then ultimately becomes a financial problem and resource problem. But that would not in any way hinder or skew a system in a way that we might consider risky for the primary goal that it has, which is determining guilt and innocence.

Just before the gavel comes down—

The Chair: We are just amazed. We are quite happy with what you are saying, Michael.

Mr. Michael Lomer: Mrs. Finestone, I also was amazed with respect to this thing about the letters and so on, but I view it somewhat differently. I do not say blanketly take away a privilege, which could almost be considered a right, from inmates with respect to postal authorities. However, if it is abused, take it away. It is really a simple one like that rather than saying blanketly we are not going to allow you anything. That is fairly draconian—no offence.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: This dragon is very happy with your statement. I have been called many things, but—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Michael Lomer: Draconian, not dragon.

Once again, I thank you for allowing me to attend.

The Chair: Thanks, Michael.

Steve, you have been waiting.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Madam Chair, yes.

Before I wrap up, I want to touch on the notion that Peter MacKay raised about this commissioner for victims. We have heard a lot of good ideas about what this office for victims should be. One of the things Peter touched on was that there is a need for an independent advocate for victims.

There is a lady and her husband sitting behind me whose grandson was murdered. One of the people responsible for that was on statutory release at the time. There was an investigation into that case done by Corrections. And when I say “done by Corrections”, I mean that: it was done by Corrections; they investigated themselves. There are questions this family has about that process, which that report, that investigation, did not answer.

• 1230

The justice committee has recently looked at two other cases, two other reports, and I think one of the reasons the committee did that was because they read the reports and found that they were inadequate.

The point I'm trying to make is there is a need, and it goes back to information. There is a need on behalf of victims for information. They have questions about why their grandson was murdered. They need to know why it was that this individual was on statutory release at the time.

The other issue I want to touch on was the issue of national standards, because there is a need for national standards in this country. Whether you are a sexual assault victim from the first nations of Saskatchewan or a parent of a son murdered by a drunk driver or the grandmother of a young boy murdered by a gang in Ottawa, you have a right; you have needs. They're individual needs, unique needs. You have a right to have those needs met whether you are black or white, first nations, handicapped or not, because you are a Canadian. That's what we need to focus on.

Ms. Bakopanos mentioned that it didn't matter to victims where the funding for their resources came from. Whether it's the provinces or the federal government, I think they both have an important role.

What the victims want is their services and their needs met. That means met whether you're in British Columbia or in Newfoundland. And I think it is time we urged our federal and provincial governments to put aside their differences about jurisdiction. As complicated and as important as those arguments and concerns are, there are things that are more important and there are things that are bigger. I think we've heard a lot of those things here today.

I want to thank the committee for allowing me to be a part of this. I'd just say that I don't know what I'm going to do all summer with the committees not sitting, but thank you very much.

The Chair: Thanks, Steve.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Steve, I know what I'm going to do this summer.

Madam Chair, I found this to be extremely interesting and like a learned society in many ways. I've listened; I've learned. I hope I've heard the risks, the biases, and I hope that our report and my role in helping to draft that report will reflect with integrity the needed balances and the needed allocation of funds and resources.

I hope our reflection and our writings will reflect and turn toward the right to effective and meaningful equality of service, fairness for both sides of the question, for the victims and the secondary victims and for the accused. I think if we have an enriched, better-focused justice system, it will be because you've all participated. So thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Arlène.

[Translation]

Mrs. Arlène Gaudreault: Madam Chair, many things have been said. Like all the other participants, I really appreciated the quality of the exchanges that happened in this forum. When we work with victims, we often say that we have to put an end to the silence and the isolation. Between us too, we have to stop the isolation. It is by working together and by sharing our ideas, our concerns and our strengths, that we will succeed in changing things all across the country as far as the victims' rights and services are concerned, and that we will maybe force the lawmakers and the decision-makers to move forward.

Judging from the substance and the quality of the discussions, from the openness and the respect that were prevalent in our discussions, I feel reassured when thinking of what could happen in the year 2000. This is an indication of what could be done in the year 2000. I hope we meet before that to continue our discussion and that in the year 2000, we will have moved a few more steps forward. I am convinced that everything will not be solved for I do not dream in colour. I have been working in this field for quite some time and I know that things change slowly.

We have a major challenge ahead of us, and it is to fundamentally change the attitudes of people in the system and the community. This is a very important challenge that we will be able to meet if we do not work each in our own province and our own environment, but rather in meetings like this one.

I would suggest something for the next meetings. I think Michèle suggested that we receive the documents ahead of time and you acknowledged that. We could also perhaps work in small workshops on specific and pointed issues, and then come back in plenary sessions to deal with priority issues. We should not try to deal with 15 issues, but rather to identify three or four main concerns.

• 1235

I would like another consultation after the report is tabled so that we can deal with the aspects we did not get to discuss at this meeting. This would also enable us to give some feedback, because often the government—I will not name anybody or say whether it is the federal or the provincial government—brings forward position papers and allows us so little time that we cannot give any feedback for lack of resources.

Thank you for your invitation.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks, Arlène.

John Maloney.

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

As parliamentarians, we came here to listen, and you have given us an earful. I have appreciated the human dimension and your personal experience, along with your personal expertise that has developed from that. There is no question about it: everyone has made a very positive contribution to our review. I hope you will leave this room feeling that you have made a difference, because in fact you have. The job is up to us now, to prepare the report, to submit it to Parliament and to the Minister of Justice, and most importantly, to go forward with action. I very much appreciated your attendance.

And Madam Chair, I very much appreciate your talent in coordinating and facilitating this meeting.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. John Maloney: You have done a great job.

I appreciate the support of our staff people, Marilyn, Phil, and Luc, and everyone, including the translators.

And most especially, I thank you people for coming.

The Chair: Thank you.

Randy, you've been so quiet today.

Sergeant Randy Wickins (Edmonton Police Service): You wait.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Sgt Randy Wickins: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'll say thank you to the committee. I've met some wonderful people here. I have been reacquainted with some I have not seen for a while, which is great.

The answers are here. I have learned a tremendous amount and I want to take what I have learned here back with me.

Like Mr. Forseth said, the talk's over. It's time to do some stuff. I'll make that commitment. I'll take it back to pretty close to the street level and make some changes with what I've heard here today and yesterday.

Our unit is police-based. It's right in a large urban centre, Edmonton. It's a victims' services unit. They do a wonderful job, but I have heard of so many gaps and so many ways in which we could improve what we do. With those people who are here from Edmonton, I have already made some great contacts and I want to work with them to help us do a better job.

The national office is a great idea. Let us be your first affiliate or satellite office at the community level, because we need to translate what that office wants to do into action at the street level.

I don't know if this is an appropriate time to do this or if it is appropriate at all, but I think it needs to be done. From my experience in restorative justice, I am really into at least attempting to repair harm. We've heard a number of times how Brenda was mistreated by the system. One of the components of that system is the police, and when Brenda's family was notified a couple of years ago about the death of her sister, it wasn't done well. It was done very poorly.

In a kind of public way, I would like to apologize, Brenda. I am sorry for how you were treated then. We'll make sure it doesn't happen again. We'll do what we can.

That's where I'll close. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I want to thank everybody on behalf of the committee. I know that individual committee members have done so, but I would like as well to thank our staff: Luc and the clerk's staff, who pulled you all together, and Phil and Marilyn, who are going to pull us all together when it is over and who have been a great resource.

Also, we thank the staff of members of Parliament and the staff of the Minister of Justice and of the Solicitor General who are present today. We thank Catherine Kane, who is a walking encyclopedia and who we really rely on—more than we rely on a lot of other bureaucrats. We are really glad to have her here.

We also thank the Leduc family and the Bright family, who have been patient and who have been a great help as well, just by their presence.

I want to thank everybody.

• 1240

We have lunch—and I'm told it's a great lunch—across the hall. I'm going to ask committee members to come back around 2 p.m., just for an hour, to room 371, West Block, just so we can give some instructions and Phil and Marilyn can get working.

As well, we have a meeting tomorrow afternoon with an Australian delegation, which we'll talk about this afternoon.

Finally, let me say this to anyone else out there in the land of the public. This is only one part of the process. We want to continue to hear from the people in this room, but from members of the public generally. Call your member of Parliament, and if he or she hasn't had a town hall, make him or her do it.

We appreciate the fact that this is not even the midpoint of a dialogue. This is really the beginning. We want to keep this process going. A lot of people were very brave to come here, for a lot of different reasons, and I think it was just great to go around the table, even when there was criticism, and hear something positive from everyone.

This is only the second national forum that we've done. I think we're of a mind to do others—well, the chair is, and she's kind of hard to push away—on different topics. We'd like to hear suggestions on that as well.

Thank you again, and give yourselves a hand.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Just a minute.

The Chair: Mrs. Finestone?

She always gets the last word. Just a minute.

Your Royal Highness?

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: As long as it's not “Dragon Lady”.

The Chair: No.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I believe you gave us a notice of 340-S today.

The Chair: Oh, did I? It's room 371 in the West Block.

Again, I thank the interpreters. We sort of forget about them.

The meeting is adjourned.