:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, committee members. I am delighted to be here this afternoon and to have this opportunity to meet with you and to discuss my appointment as Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.
Allow me to begin by saying that I was both honoured to be chosen and extremely enthusiastic at accepting this appointment and in so doing in putting my passion to use through serving the victims of crime. I believe that this organization is truly capable of changing things for the better and of raising the awareness level of some of the difficult challenges confronting victims in Canada.
You invited me here today to discuss the qualifications and skills that will allow me to carry out my work as ombudsman. Let me begin by saying that I believe that the selection of the leadership for organizations such as ours is important and that I fully support, without any reservation whatsoever, the measures taken to this end.
In order to facilitate your examination of my appointment, I will provide you this afternoon with a brief outline of my background and experience, including the skills and abilities that I will be applying to the fulfilment of my duties in this position. I will also share with you a bit of the specific passion that drives me in this area and my management style.
[English]
I would first like to take a minute to tell you a little bit about who I am and where I come from.
I was born and raised here in Ottawa, and I come from a family of six children. My parents instilled in each and every one of us the basic sense of right and wrong, the importance of honesty, integrity, and treating people with respect and ethics. Their golden rule was simply that if you could help someone, you helped them.
Why I share this with you this afternoon is that these are the core values that guide me in both my personal and professional life. I describe my leadership style as principle-centred; in other words, do the right thing for the right reason.
My career experience dates back almost 30 years. I graduated from Carleton University in April of 1981, and I started as a police officer with the Ottawa Police Service one month later. I joined the service because I wanted to help people and make a difference in my community.
I started my career walking the beat, and I've worked in patrol services, the criminal investigation division, and operations support. I have had the opportunity to see first-hand the devastation crime can wreak on victims: to see parents told that their child has been killed by a drunk driver; to interview children who have been sexually assaulted; to investigate crimes where the victim has special needs and may not be able to communicate; to see a victim of domestic assault have to pick up her children, her belongings, and go to a shelter for her safety and the safety of her children; to see families and victims try to navigate the complex and complicated criminal justice system.
In those roles I have also had the opportunity to see how meeting the needs of victims requires a multi-agency approach, one that will support victims from the initial contact through the criminal justice system and beyond.
Following that experience, I moved to patrol services, where I became the district and then duty inspector. As inspector, I was responsible for attending and assuming command of major and high-risk incidents. This position helped me learn to be strategic and collected in a crisis and, most importantly, to be flexible. It taught me the importance of thinking outside the box and evaluating all the possible options and outcomes before taking action.
In the early 1990s I was seconded to the Canadian Police College, where I had the opportunity to work for a year in the communications skills unit and another year in the executive development unit. But I also had a unique opportunity—and some of you may recall the Rix Rogers report on child sexual abuse—to be the lead working on a national police prevention of family violence training initiative, and was able to co-author and contribute to over ten national reports in the area of vulnerable victim police training.
In 2001 I was appointed the deputy chief of operations support, and was able to achieve and work on some significant areas, including emergency management. I worked on the city's five-year emergency management plan. I was co-chair of the original chemical, biological, nuclear explosives program here in the national capital region.
I was executive sponsor of the respectful workplace program for the Ottawa Police Service, which was five years in the making and really helps to address what is one of the largest struggles that organizations must deal with, having a healthy and safe work environment. I was also involved in information sharing among government partners to mitigate security threats, and in crime prevention and the development of the Ottawa Police Service youth strategy. And I also had the unique opportunity, as a result of some tragedies within our organization, to be part of the redevelopment of the critical incident stress management as a result, sadly, of numerous officers' suicides within our organization.
In 2006 I moved into the post of deputy chief for patrol operations, where I was able to provide further leadership in the area of strategic planning, in particular as chair of two of the Ottawa Police Service's business plans.
I finished my career as the deputy chief of operation support, where I was instrumental in developing and implementing a program called “operation intersect”, playing a leadership role as president of the leadership in Counter Terrorism Alumni Association, an international network of senior police leaders committed to addressing issues regarding leadership, intelligence, and operations in relation to terrorism, issues that are increasingly important in both our city and our country.
Beyond management skills and leadership, the position of deputy chief requires someone who is unafraid to tackle tough issues. There's often no road map for some of the decisions that have to be made. In this position, and throughout my career, I was an advocate for progress to keep pushing forward and finding new and effective ways to deal with the increasingly complex challenges.
I would never feel comfortable taking credit for the good work of the Ottawa Police, because the truth is that the work is only as strong as the team behind you, and I have had the privilege of working with some of the best teams. I will say, however, that the skills I developed in working with and managing these teams will be invaluable to me in my new role.
Our time together is limited, so perhaps I can best illustrate my leadership style and experience through two specific examples.
The first I would like to tell you about--and I mentioned it earlier--is Operation Intersect. This came about as the result of my work with leaders in the field of counter-terrorism.
Within the national capital region there was a need to develop a tri-government framework, a framework that allows municipalities, provinces, and the federal government to work together to share information; in other words, to ensure that when difficult decisions had to be made in times of threat, people were making those decisions based on the best information available and information that could be shared among agencies.
We dealt with six different threats, and it allowed for a planned approach by all responders to mitigate the effect in a manner that alerts rather than alarms and enhances public safety and awareness during times of instability and uncertainty. Operation Intersect is in practice now and has been used to support many major events within the national capital region and it has been deployed through major terrorism trials such as Khawaja. I could go on.
Operation Intersect involves over 32 organizations.
[Translation]
The program is also available in both official languages.
[English]
The success of this program was seen, I think, when I was invited to represent the organization to present at an international counter-terrorism conference this spring in London, England, the kind of work this community was doing to break down those silos when having to deal with those multi-agency environments.
The second one I’d like to highlight for you--and why I mention Operation Intersect--is because the program that has been developed is built off the five years of great work. The governance structure was to better coordinate responses for victims of crime here in the city of Ottawa, a program that has come to be known as the coordinated victim assistance program. It was born of the recognition that if we are truly going to meet the needs of all victims, they cannot be met by any one agency, and we must be working together strategically to leverage all the organization’s responses to be able to support victims and all their unique needs.
If I may say, CVAP also uses all the lessons learned from Operation Intersect and brings together, as I mentioned, representatives from all three levels of government to address the proper support for victims in the community here in Ottawa. This program is still in its early stages. I am confident that the work that has been done will result in positive change for victims locally and beyond.
When the opportunity for this position arose, I saw it as a perfect fit. I felt that my experience working in law enforcement for the past 30 years had given me an incredible respect for the immediate and clear impact that crime has on victims. The trauma, devastation, strength, and resilience of victims I have seen and assisted has always been a source of inspiration for my work in the community and will continue to inspire me as ombudsman.
I am excited to have the opportunity to use my hands-on experience and all that I have learned from the victims we assisted to make a difference for all Canadians. For me, it is the chance for my work to come full circle and to help those who are most affected by crime, the victims. There is no doubt that as ombudsman I have a much wider responsibility to victims of crime in Canada. For that reason, I have worked very hard to get up to speed and learn the ins and outs of the boundaries, capacities, and role of an ombudsman in the federal government. I will continue to strengthen that knowledge as we move forward.
I would like to conclude by sharing with you my vision for this office and the work we can accomplish. As ombudsman, I see it as my job to bring about positive change for victims. I have a responsibility to both victims and the government to ensure that our office is responsible to victims, that we listen carefully to the issues victims raise, and ensure that their voices are heard at the federal level.
There are many ways to accomplish this, but my preferred approach is by keeping open lines of communication and providing everyone involved the opportunity to become part of the solution. We need to find common ground among governments, NGOs, and victims to ensure we are able to make that change happen.
I will not always agree with government, and where I disagree I will make my views known. However, I am not concerned with being critical for the sake of.... What I am concerned about is doing the right thing for the right reasons and making things better for victims of crime in Canada.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I hope this afternoon I have provided you with the information you need to feel confident in my appointment as ombudsman for victims of crime. I believe I bring to this position a proven track record of solid work, integrity, and leadership.
[Translation]
I was drawn to law enforcement because of my desire to help people. Today, in this new position, I will continue to work to serve the public and it is my hope that I will be able to continue to do this over the course of the next three years.
[English]
Given my 30 years of hands-on experience, my leadership style, and my vision for this office, I feel I have what it takes to build on the success of this office and to help balance the scales for victims.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
[Translation]
Thank you.
:
First of all, the office of the ombudsman is only three years old, so I have the privilege of building from the foundation of the former ombudsman and the staff.
Some of my priorities would be outreach and awareness, risk management, roles and responsibilities, and consultation. I'm going to reflect on Mr. Comartin's comments. I have a lot of opinions, and I have a lot of experience as a police officer. I bring that to the table.
One of the commitments I have is to be a voice for victims. When I speak for victims, I really want to be their voice. One of the priorities for our office is to continue to develop a framework for consultation dialogue around this country, so that we can connect. In 12 short weeks, I have talked to a lot of people in different provinces and territories. We talked about the need for national consultation dialogue. I am cognizant that there are different advisory committees.
I'll use one example. Correctional Services Canada has invested for several years in the National Aboriginal Advisory Committee, which has some of the most iconic people in this country addressing these issues. Is there an opportunity for this office to leverage when that committee meets, and, by having open lines of communication, to be able to participate?
We don't want to reinvent wheels. Victims have been telling us what the issues are. What we want to do is construct a broader framework for dialogue and bring those issues to bear. Everyone in this room knows that victims have different needs, that those needs may be unique, and that there probably won't be consensus on all priorities based on a victim's experience and needs.
You hear about problems such as human trafficking, terrorism, Internet luring, victims affected by immigration and deportation, the need to strengthen the CCRA and some of the information that's allowed to go to victims. These are some of the priorities we're looking at. In looking at them, we need to have that dialogue and consultation. We need to be a reasonable reflection of what victims are telling us in Canada. And we need to continue to work on the iconic reports and strategies that are already out there. We know what legislation is on the table. By ensuring that we have that framework, we'll be able to leverage in a better way.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Bill S-6 and the faint hope clause. I have become aware of the statements made by various important witnesses who appeared before the committee and dealt with the issue from numerous different angles.
It is clear that the issue is not simple and that a vast array of valid arguments for or against the clause can be provided. However, I am not here to analyze these arguments. I am here as Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, to play the role which is our raison d'être: to give a voice to victims.
I am going to share with you what victims say in order that you be able to take this into account in your deliberations.
[English]
I have had the chance recently to talk to some victims and victim advocacy groups about the issue. Unfortunately, I have not conducted exhaustive consultations at this stage, as time did not permit. As such, the information I am presenting here represents those groups I did have a chance to talk to but cannot be taken to represent all victims as a whole.
During my discussions it was made abundantly clear to me that there is strong support for Bill based on three main areas it addresses: accountability, transparency, and compassion.
The first, accountability, is a big one. People who have lost loved ones to horrible, brutal acts of cruelty want to be sure that this person who did it is brought to justice and serves time. Depending on their individual outlook, victims may see that time as a means to rehabilitation and to assisting the offender to become a reformed and productive member of society. From another point of view, the victim may just want to ensure that the offender who did this isn't roaming the streets and that he or she has been required to pay for the life that they took. Either way, no matter your outlook, it would be important to you that the offenders serve their time and that this accountability be maintained.
Based on this, you can understand that it would be difficult for a victim to understand why, when given a sentence of 25 years, an offender would be given the opportunity to get out early, to pay a lesser debt to society for the crime they have committed, and essentially to pay a discounted rate for the life they have taken.
That is not to say that there are not compelling arguments for the impact this loss of hope might have on offender rehabilitation. That is an important discussion, and I am sure you will delve into that here, but I bring to you the victims' point of view.
My second point, transparency, has to do with how well victims are informed of the faint hope clause generally, when or if an offender applies, and what their rights are in terms of participating in the process. As members are aware, the notification process and requirement are a provincial responsibility. For example, in Ontario we understand that victims do not have a legislative right to be informed when an offender makes an application for faint hope, nor when their application is heard by the jury. This isn't to say that in practice it doesn't occur, but it is discretionary and without a right. Victims have no form of recourse if they are unable to participate in the process in any meaningful way.
I will not touch on this too much, as it is handled at the provincial level. I will say, however, that all victims deserve to be kept informed and to play a meaningful role in the criminal justice system should they wish to.
My third point is compassion, and it cuts to the heart of the matter for victims. The grief victims experience is devastating, and for those strong enough to try to move forward in life, having to rehash the crime and the trauma at a hearing can feel like reliving the worst time of their lives over and over again. Yes, victims can choose not to attend a hearing, but like anyone, victims often feel a strong compulsion to be there in person and to stand up for the very person who cannot--the victim.
Even before a hearing, the uncertainty can wreak its own havoc. Some victims will say that the worst feeling is simply not knowing when or if the offenders will apply, and if they do and are rejected, whether they will try again and how soon. This state of unrest causes anxiety and stress over and above what they're already coping with. In the current scheme, victims could be expected to face these hearings up to five times in any one life sentence, at 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 years.
There are various ways this could be handled. The suggestion in the bill is to eliminate the faint hope clause completely. Another way might be to apply the provisions suggested for already incarcerated offenders to all offenders and set strict timelines on how often an offender can apply, ensuring at least five years before applications for parole.
[Translation]
In the end, all victims want is that no one else experience what they have experienced. They want the offender to be held accountable for his or her crime. They want to participate fully in the process, if they so wish, and they do not want to relive the crime over and over, so as to be able to look towards the future and healing.
The bill, in its present form, fulfills some of these wishes, but it is not necessarily the only solution to the problem.
On behalf of my office, I reiterate my support of the victims we represent and I encourage members to support the bill as quickly as possible.
Thank you. Merci.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll begin by thanking you for your presence here, Ms. O'Sullivan.
I want to say that I've been on this committee only about 15 or 16 months, but during that time I have pondered some of the recurring issues we face. In my opinion, one of them is that sometimes the needs of victims are not consistent with the needs of offenders.
I'll step back a bit and say that I suppose in a grand general philosophical way, every offender we can rehabilitate helps victims. So in that grand general way, the needs of victims and the needs of offenders converge on the issue of rehabilitation. But in other specific ways, victims have needs that are not always consistent with the needs of offenders. So I was very pleased to hear your earlier evidence, because you articulated that very well when you categorized these needs as accountability, transparency, and compassion. I couldn't agree with you more, although I would have elaborated on that by saying that victims need closure, certainty, protection from further victimization, and a sense of equitable treatment weighed against the treatment of the offenders. And of course sometimes they also have some interest in denunciation.
Time and again we sit at this committee, and we always hear the voice of the offenders. You have to read between the lines, and not every member seems to have caught the same message that I have. So I was very grateful for your evidence here today.
I understand that sometime in the early 2000s the former government amended the faint hope provision so as to exclude multiple murderers from it. After listening to my colleague's comments earlier about how that party always insists on having evidence, I wondered if perhaps your search might have found any evidence from around 2003, when the former government, that party, made this change, I suppose somehow in support of victims, that they generated to support that change?
:
As Mr. Sapers pointed out, the average time served in prison for first-degree murder in Canada is longer than that of other democracies.
In Canada, the average time served in prison for first-degree murder is more than 28 years, whereas in other democracies, similar to Canada, such as New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden and Belgium, the average time spent incarcerated for the same offence is under 15 years.
Furthermore, offenders serving a life sentence in Canada automatically spend at least two years at a maximum security institution, regardless of their assessed risk.
In Canada, a life sentence does in fact mean a sentence for life. One must not forget that life sentence offenders granted parole under the Correctional Service of Canada are supervised until the time of their death.
If enacted, Bill S-6 will impose an automatic parole ineligibility period of 25 years for offenders sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in the first degree.
For offenders convicted of second-degree murder, the parole ineligibility set by the sentencing judge, which varies between 15 and 25 years, will no longer be subject to reconsideration pursuant to Bill S-6.
Of the 13,800 men and women incarcerated in a federal penitentiary today, close to 20% are serving a life sentence. These offenders, the average age of which is 33 years, will likely become elderly before they are eligible to apply for parole.
The percentage of older offenders — those aged 50 years or older — has grown by 50% in the last decade alone. This segment of the offender population has different and often expensive accommodation, health, programming and palliative care requirements.
The Correctional Service of Canada will have to address limitations in an aging infrastructure that was initially designed for a different profile and younger generation of offenders.
Mr. Sapers, you have the floor.
:
As members of the committee are aware, my office's 2009-10 annual report was tabled in Parliament about two weeks ago. My report documents an environment inside our federal penitentiaries that is increasingly harsh, tense, crowded, volatile, and stressed.
As I reported, current conditions inside our federal penitentiaries are challenging the ability of the Correctional Service of Canada to provide safe and effective custody. Access to programs addressing factors contributing to crime, in particular substance abuse, family violence, histories of abuse, and trauma remain an issue when only approximately 2% of an annual $2.5 billion expenditure is spent for this purpose.
Effectively increasing the incarceration rate by curtailing or eliminating parole eligibility needs to be carefully considered in the context of the capacity, intervention, and programming challenges already facing Canada’s correctional authority.
The faint hope clause is tied to the abolishment of capital punishment in 1976. It was intended to motivate offenders serving long-term sentences. It does not guarantee that the offender will be granted parole. The concept of faint hope expressly recognizes the capacity of an individual offender to change, to be rehabilitated, and to become responsible and law-abiding, even after committing a most serious offence.
Bill will likely increase the period of time long-term offenders will wait before receiving correctional programming. Extended periods of idle time will most definitely impact on motivation levels and the ability of long-term offenders to participate in programs, especially as they age in custody and their health inevitably deteriorates.
Holding more inmates for longer periods of time and then releasing them without the benefit of effective intervention is not only expensive, it is ineffective.
To conclude, it seems to me that we need to consider proposed criminal justice legislation in the context of striking an appropriate balance between measures designed to incapacitate and deter against the equally important principles of reintegration and rehabilitation.
I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
Gentlemen, thanks for being here today and sharing your views with us.
Mr. Sapers, in your remarks you conclude by saying we need to strike a balance between measures that are designed to incapacitate and deter and measures that advance the principles of reintegration and rehabilitation.
My view of this bill, and the government's, is that this bill is not designed to incapacitate or deter. We're trying to reinforce the rights of victims and foster respect for them, their families, and their communities. We're trying to restore confidence in our criminal justice system. And we're trying to ensure that the sentences imposed by the courts are actually going to be served by first-degree murderers. That's what this bill is about.
We're not saying to anyone that this bill is going to incapacitate or deter. Obviously, it will incapacitate to the extent that first-degree murderers are going to spend a little more time in prison. They're not going to be able to commit another offence while they're in jail. But that's not the purpose.
I hope all Canadians understand the purpose of this bill: we're trying to design a system that respects the victims. You heard from the victims' ombudsman earlier about the great anxiety that victims' families go through when they anticipate having to go to a faint-hope clause hearing, and then to a parole board hearing. They may have to do this on multiple occasions, each time reliving the worst hours of their lives.
For every murderer, there is at least one victim. But for each of their victims, there are many family members and friends. There are whole communities. Some of these horrendous crimes that have happened recently traumatize entire communities. These communities are going to be traumatized again and again when these faint-hope applications are made.
Perhaps you could give that some thought.
You provided us with a list of countries that in your view have shorter incarceration periods than Canada. You mentioned New Zealand, Scotland, and Switzerland, and that's very interesting. But you didn't mention the United States, which, from my understanding of history, is the oldest democracy in modern times, our largest trading partner and closest neighbour. You didn't mention the average length of time first-degree murderers spend in jail in that country. I recognize that some states apply the death penalty, but many do not. Maybe you could inform us on that.
Also, I wonder if you could tell us about India. It's the world's largest democracy, with 1.3 billion people, and it's one of our fellow members of the Commonwealth. We have over one million Canadians of Indian heritage. I wonder if you could tell us what the stats are in India.