[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, April 17, 1997
.1037 
[English]
The Chair (Ms Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are considering the subject matter of motion 168, which relates to the victims' bill of rights.
Today we have with us Arlène Gaudreault, who is the executive director of Plaidoyer-Victimes from the province of Quebec. We've seen you before and we welcome you back. I understand you have a brief to present, and then I know there will be questions.
[Translation]
Ms Arlène Gaudreault (Chair, Plaidoyer-Victimes): Madam Chair, committee members, I would like to begin by thanking you for giving us this opportunity to make some comments on the proposed Bill of Victims' Rights. I don't have a brief for you, for a rather simple reason, namely, that I was asked to appear before you last Friday at the end of the day. I'm sure you'll understand that I didn't have enough notice to prepare a written statement. However, I have given thought to the issue, and I can give you my comments orally.
First of all, I would like to introduce myself briefly and tell you about my work in the area of victims' rights. I have been working on this issue since 1994, and I was the coordinator of the first victims' assistance centre in Quebec back in the days when the Solicitor General funded initiatives designed to create such services throughout Canada.
I'm actually the Chair of my organization, which is called Plaidoyer-Victimes, not the Executive Director. Our organization has been in existence since 1984, and I have been the Chair since 1988. It is an umbrella group that represents 250 individual members and agencies throughout Quebec.
.1040
Our members work directly with victims, police officers, the Parole Board and people working in the area of crime prevention. They represent all sectors that are involved with victims.
Because of my own involvement, I have worked on a number of reports and I have taken part in various consultations. This is not my first time before this committee. As well, two years ago I took part in a commission of inquiry into a murder committed by an ex- inmate who was on parole. He murdered his spouse. I was asked to do this work by the Correctional Service of Canada and by the National Parole Board.
I also prepared a brief when we revised Quebec's Crime Victims Compensation Act. For the past three years, I have been teaching victimology at the Université de Montréal, and I have also been the community representative to the Commission québécoise des libérations conditionnelles since 1984. So, I have a broad range of experience in the area, and I have been working as a volunteer, providing assistance to victims for more than a decade now.
I don't want to give a long commentary on how victims are treated within the justice system. Mr. Dupuis was kind enough to send me some transcripts, and I read the testimony that I read to you, particularly the testimony from the relatives of victims and members of organizations such as Ms de Villiers. I'm very interested in and concerned by what was said here. I think it's true that crime victims are subject to a great deal of harm and are victimized a second time, and that we are still far, far away from responding to crime victims' concerns, even though the federal government and the provinces have set up many initiatives since the 1970s. We can get back to that point during the discussion. If you don't mind, I would like to move directly to the question of a victims' bill of rights, because that is the purpose of this meeting. I don't want to throw cold water on the work that has already been done, but you will probably see that my comments are somewhat critical, perhaps even very critical, of this draft that is before us.
At the outset, I would like to recognize that this bill of rights is well intentioned, and that it is a good initiative from the member who brought it forward. I saw that all the members of Parliament endorsed the motion quite spontaneously, and that Mr. Rock, the Minister of Justice, has asked the committee to discuss the matter.
However, after I read the statement in its current form - and I stress in its current form - I was somewhat disappointed with the content. I found that it hardly went any further than the statement of principles that we had in 1988, which was adopted by Canada, a statement of principles that ended up gathering dust on a shelf or in a drawer somewhere. I thought that the statement had really just continued to gather dust.
Be it the UN declaration, the Council of Europe convention or legislation passed by various provinces to grant victims' rights - in Quebec, we have such a law, which is called the Crime Victims Compensation Act - the intent and the concerns that led to passage of such legislation are very valid. I always tell my university students that the year 2000 AD is nearly upon us, and we have just started realizing that it is important to be concerned about the needs of crime victims. It is never too late to do the right thing.
However, I have many reservations about these bills of rights and statements of principles, because they are declaratory laws, statements about things that we should do better, but in practical terms, they do not really grant many rights to the victims of crime.
.1045
None of these laws offer recourse to crime victims whose needs are not met and whose rights are not taken into account. Nor do they create any accountability for the various stakeholders, such as people in the criminal justice system, the correctional service or in social work.
Often people say that these laws have no teeth. They encourage us to do the right thing, but unlike the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for all practical purposes they do not give crime victims much power to exercise their rights, and they do not really offer any practical measures to enforce these rights.
I'm always struck by the fact that these statements of principle create obligations only for the victims of crime. They always contain a provision that says victims must co-operate with the justice system. We understand why that's necessary, but nothing is ever said about the obligations of crown attorneys, judges and police officers. Nothing is ever said about that, and one has the impression that all obligations are solely upon the crime victims' shoulders. I'm saying that I have some reservations about a bill of rights because these laws are just paying lip service to victims' rights. It may be the first step we should be taking, but to my mine, it isn't enough.
I suppose this is the first draft of a victims' bill of rights. When I began my presentation, I said that I thought we hadn't gone much further than what we had in 1988. It would bother me to leave the draft bill of rights in its current form, because our knowledge and awareness of victims' issues have increased a great deal over the past 10 years, and Canada's statement of principles does not go as far as the UN declaration, the Council of Europe declaration and even certain pieces of legislation in Quebec.
This is somewhat embarrassing for Canada. In my view, a great deal of work needs to be done to round out this victims' bill of rights. It would be a good idea to add a preamble including some whereas clauses that would demonstrate our concerns, our awareness and the objectives we are pursuing by drafting such a bill of rights. The word ``victims'' should also be defined, and it should be quite explicit that the term includes both direct and indirect victims, that is to say, it should include family members and others close to the direct victim.
Such a victims' bill of rights should also cover witnesses, who also need protection, information and assistance when they are dealing with the justice system. The foundation of this bill of rights should be strengthened. In addition, all the rights set out in this bill should be reviewed, because some are defined too narrowly and are conditional upon the victim's participation in the legal process.
Victims are entitled to information, not just when they become witnesses and take part in the legal process. They are also entitled to information when they ask for health and social services. Close attention must be paid to the entire issue of information regarding the sentence and how it is served, parole, probation and so on.
Because of my experience, I am very focused on the issue of providing services to crime victims, and I find that this bill of rights does not go far enough regarding the need and the obligation to offer victims services promptly and to make it easier for them to gain access to the services they need.
.1050
We also have to consider services for groups and families that are more vulnerable. We should set out our concerns in a statement such as this one. It should also be more specific about victims' right to respect and to privacy, and for certain witnesses who give testimony in organized crime cases. Nor does the bill of rights mention speedy restitution of property.
So rights must be described in greater detail, and the bill must be much more specific than it currently is. The bill of rights should also stress the offender's obligation to make up for the harm he has done, and it should be clearer about taking the impact of the offence into account throughout the system, when the time comes for plea bargaining, assessing the harm caused victims during parole hearings, or during the proceedings in the court, with the victim's impact statement.
The bill of rights mentions training. People working in the prison system are not the only ones who need better training. Physicians and nurses who provide health care to victims need better training, as do social workers. We also have to remember those who will be working with victims in the future within the legal system.
One example would be law students. In my view, in 1997 it is unacceptable for law faculties not to offer any course about victims' rights and the law. Medical students are another example. It's a major challenge, and such concerns should be found within a victims' bill of rights.
To sum up, if we want a bill of rights that will enable us to go further, we are going to have to work on it some more. Perhaps we should start with what already exists in other countries or provinces, and we must be much more specific and practical than the current draft. It is far too vague in my view, and we have to get the message across. People who are unaware that Canada had such a statement of principles in 1988, may be very pleased to learn that there is proposal to adopt one, but if we tell them that there was such a statement in 1988 and that it is quite similar to what we now have on the table, they will be frustrated. So I think we have to go further.
I realize that the entire issue of administering justice and providing services is a provincial area of jurisdiction. It's not easy. Different levels of government are involved, and some provinces are more aware of the problem than others. It is part of our areas of jurisdiction. I myself look beyond these problems of federal and provincial jurisdiction.
I'd like to talk about the federal level, because I am closer to that context. This bill of rights must be thoroughly revised and updated. The main aspects must be more specific, and the bill of rights must cover all needs of crime victims.
If you don't mind, I will express one hope: I hope that the federal government shows a lot more leadership than it currently is showing on the issue of victims of crime. I do recognize that there have been many initiatives. I am very familiar with the report by the federal-provincial task force. I followed the amendments quite closely, and I know all of the legislative amendments that were found in C-89, C-127 and C-15. We have made progress. However, I think that if we looked beyond the drafting of a victims' bill of rights, the federal government should be taking stock of current initiatives, in co-operation with the provinces and territories.
.1055
We should see how far we have come in the application of legislative measures that have been adopted. We might say that, thanks to C-89, we now have the victim impact statement, a quicker restitution of property, and the property rights affidavit, but if we look beyond these provisions, we realize that many others have not been implemented in most provinces.
The time has come to see to what extent the provisions are being applied, and what difficulties the victims are encountering when they wish to address the court to explain the impact of the crime, when they want to quickly recover their property, when they want compensation from the accused.
I think that some housekeeping is in order, and that we should take stock of what has been accomplished. We must also examine the initiatives that have been set in place to create services. In the mid-1980s, the federal government, particularly the Department of the Solicitor General, was very supportive of provincial initiatives to help victims, and helped guide victims and witnesses through the court process.
I must also say that the federal government, until 1992 if memory serves, gave financial support to the provinces by granting funds for compensation schemes and for direct community services, after which it withdrew from its funding.
In the economic context in which we all live, we seem to be slowing down. Many services have disappeared. At least, that is what is happening in Quebec. I'm not sure if that is the case in the other provinces. In comments made by witnesses who have appeared before the committee, I read that in other provinces, victims services have had to close their doors.
There should be an inventory made of services that are available at this time, in order to see whether they satisfy the requirements of the victims, and the shortcomings that must be addressed. Particular attention should be paid to certain types of victimization. If the federal government wants to go beyond a statement of principles, it could play a role as a coordinator in order to help us take stock. Then, beginning with the statement of principles, guidelines and an action plan should be developed, followed by priorities to express concrete steps to improve the situation for victims.
I am a very practical person. I know that we can't do everything at once. I know that there are budget considerations for decision-makers just as there are for all citizens. We are all affected by the economic climate. However, we should give ourselves some priorities, and establish guidelines.
I went to Belgium recently. You are all aware of the Dutroux case, which has made a great impact on Belgium. The Belgian people decided to take things into their own hands. They have elaborated a victims' policy, but that was not enough for them. They decided to grant funding for mediation services and to accompany victims to court, for example. Their objectives resulted in concrete initiatives.
The federal government could help by taking stock, and by adopting a comprehensive policy. We do not have the impression that in Canada there is a global vision concerning victims. Perhaps the federal government should once again become involved in the funding of organizations that work with victims. It has often been said before this committee that victims have no rights, that offenders have more rights under the Charter.
Something the federal government could do would be to support the work done by organizations that defend the rights of victims of criminal acts, since there are very few of these in Canada at the present time. Most of these services get short shrift, only because the only organizations that manage to get funding are those that provide direct services. I have worked in this field for more than ten years, and I have realized that we do not have the means to study the files, and to defend victims' rights. All of this work is done by volunteers in the evenings and on weekends. I have said this a number of times before the committee. It is not enough.
.1100
Inmates' rights are defended. Groups such as the Bar and lawyers' committees are very present. The government does not seem to support the work of groups that defend victims' rights, at this time.
For example, an organization such as ours has received an annual grant of $40,000 for the past four years, and it has existed since 1984. You all know what we can do with a grant of $40,000. If we want to promote victims' rights, we must support various groups whose mandate is to protect the rights of victims. The federal government should give more support to what is being done by community groups.
This statement of fundamental principles will not take us much further than we are now, if we don't have a comprehensive outlook, and if the federal government does not draft an action plan, or take on a leadership role with respect to the provinces, or establish priorities and set an agenda. If all this work is not done to flesh out the statement of principles, I will not support this statement of principles. I have heard a lot of talk about good intentions, and I have seen a number of documents like that one. I think it's a good idea, but we must also act.
The victims or parents of victims who came before you all said the same thing. One could simply put something in writing. But if you don't want people to say that this bill was conceived solely with elections in mind, you must go much further. First of all, the bill must be completely reworked. Having said that, I await your comments and your questions.
That is all I have to say for the time being. I apologize; I would have liked to table a brief. I feel a lot safer when I have a written document, but I was told about this presentation on Friday at 4:45 p.m. You will understand that for me, it was the end of the university year. It was difficult, but I felt it was important to come here this morning to at least speak with you. Thank you for your attention.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): Thank you very much.Mr. Langlois, 10 minutes.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, B.Q.): Ms Gaudreault, thank you for your presentation, in which you have managed to cover most of the subject. Personally, I want to narrow the topic a bit, which will not prevent you from broadening it again in your answer.
In a federal State such as Canada, criminal law, through section 91, is of federal jurisdiction, and criminal procedure is also federal. Moreover, since the administration of justice is of provincial jurisdiction, but taking into account certain parameters established in the Miller decision, we might ask ourselves where provincial jurisdiction ends in the case of the administration of justice.
In legislation, besides federal laws that would allow for assistance to victims by making it easier for victims to recover their property through restitution orders, by allowing victims to speak at sentencing, by allowing victims and their relatives or representatives to speak to the National Parole Board, what other measures that fall under federal jurisdiction would you see?
.1105
Some sectors such as social work, victims' assistance, victims' compensation... In Quebec,25 years ago, we passed the first Compensation Act.
Ms Gaudreault: The new Act, on which I worked and which I mentioned earlier, was given assent, but was not enacted.
Mr. François Langlois: Therefore, the Compensation Act still applies.
Ms Gaudreault: The 1972 Act still applies, and I think amendments will be made.
Mr. François Langlois: Without it having been enacted.
Ms Gaudreault: I believe that the bill will die on the Order Paper and amendments to the present Act will probably be moved without a complete review. I say that with reservations, because I don't know what the Justice Department has in mind.
Mr. François Langlois: When I studied law in Quebec, we used the good old principle that was all the rage among university professors: Don't talk to us about responsibilities defendants have to victims other than penal responsibilities; since section 1053 exists, let them use the civil procedure recourses available to them and then we will see. Compensation for victims of criminal offences was not even mentioned. Studies were conducted and pressure was brought to bear to overcome that resistance where victims were forced to take their grievances to civil court. That did not work.
I am going to reword my question. At the federal level, in what particular or specific areas do you see a need for legislation that could result in concrete measures and not lip service, as you said earlier?
Ms Gaudreault: That is not an easy question you're asking me.
Mr. François Langlois: That is why I am asking it, Madam.
Ms Gaudreault: I will say that none of the other countries have come up with an answer to that either. Generally speaking, whether it be in the United States, Belgium or France, statements of principles like that one are currently being used. When we talk about legislation that would give victims more rights, whether it be in terms of protection or in terms of being heard, it is generally through amendments to the Criminal Code, which are in response to specific needs. There have been many over the past few years.
You alluded to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which was amended in 1992 and which should be amended again, in my view, to go a little farther with respect to victims' needs, because the door has just been opened slightly with respect to victims' needs. I think that it will be amended soon. For example, it does not go far enough with respect to the victims' right to be heard by the National Parole Board.
I attended a National Parole Board hearing and I recently accompanied a family whose brother had been killed. I saw that not being able to address the Board during the hearing was traumatic for the victims, an injury to add to the other elements. You asked in what area legislation is required. A small door was opened with the Corrections and Release Act.
When I appeared before the committee in 1992, I was not sold on the idea of victims attending hearings. I was not even convinced that the victims should address the Board. Now, I would go farther and I would say that the victim should be heard too. We must find ways of doing this. It would not be at the same time as the offender is heard, but I do think that the victim should be heard. There are issues that are of great concern to the victims and for which there are no answers.
When victims send information to the National Parole Board or to a detention centre, the information cannot remain confidential. That can put some victims in danger. These are issues that must be examined, and it is a federal responsibility. I do not see how legislation could solve all of these problems.
To answer your question, what is being done at the federal level must continue. For example, over the past few years, we have been made aware of issues like self-induced intoxication, and the Minister of Justice acted quickly. The amendments that were made to protect children are, in my view, positive steps.
.1110
Restrictions were placed on judicial reviews under section 745. Some of the loopholes have been closed so that certain criminals can no longer apply for a judicial review. That partly corresponds to victims' needs.
Ad hoc adjustments will also be made. We must continue to legislate to change things. The problem I see is mainly with respect to applying these measures. For example, in 1989, the federal government adopted a measure that I think is excellent; it created a fund to help victims of criminal offences. This is an excellent measure. Some provinces have not yet created assistance funds and compensation from fines goes into the public purse. This money does not go into funding services like it should.
This is a problem that merits your attention to and it is directly linked to some of the concerns in the statement of principles. We must ensure that the Act is implemented. That is why I said we could take stock of what has been adopted and see what difficulties there are with respect to implementation.
Everyone is talking about victim impact statements. Everyone who has appeared before the committee has talked about that at length. In Quebec, victim impact statements were not implemented in all legal districts until June 1995. That means that victims in other regions of Quebec could not use the measure before that. At present, in the youth justice system, victim impact statements have not been implemented. I do not have the feeling that they have been in other provinces either.
So even if legislation is adopted or if statements of principles are made, if, for all intent and purposes, we can't implement them for a lack of money and resources, we are not relieving victims' suffering and we are not meeting their needs.
Mr. François Langlois: The shorter the questions are, the more time you have. I will try to be even briefer.
What approach, in a federal State like Canada, are you in favour of for helping victims in general? Are you in favour of multi-party negotiations that would give rise to provincial legislations that would be more or less the same or would you like the federal government to set national standards and make money available to the provinces provided that they comply with the national standards?
Ms Gaudreault: That is a tough question. The second question regarding compliance with standards is interesting. It goes without saying that if money is distributed to the provinces, the federal government must be entitled to expect the services to be provided or the standards to be complied with, to the extent that the provinces have some flexibility.
The federal government should have multi-party agreements with the various provinces. It is clear that the federal government should fund more services in the provinces, even if it means setting up national standards that the provinces must comply with. Take for example compensation that the government supported a few years ago and for which the provinces no longer obtained any funding. I am talking about Quebec, but I think that the problem exists in other provinces.
As you know, families that have lost someone to homicide cannot obtain psychological services under compensation plans. This is a major flaw in the Act, and I know that other Acts contain this flaw. For example, in funding a compensation plan, the federal government could require that part of the money be earmarked specifically for psychological rehabilitation for families of victims of homicide or families of victims of kidnapping.
.1115
These are very serious crimes, crimes that have long term repercussions. At present, these people receive no psychological assistance. All they receive is the reimbursement of the funeral costs. In Quebec, they get roughly $600.
There are also major gaps where victims, needs are concerned. In Quebec, and probably throughout Canada, our system is organized well enough to deal with cases where children are abused by members of the family, but when children are abused by other parties, or by strangers, these families receive no assistance, whether it be in terms of compensation or support from social services. In Quebec, social services consider them to be good families, families capable of meeting their children's needs.
There are major flaws that must be examined. That is why I said that priorities must be set and that the government has to work with the provinces. It seems to me that the federal government has distanced itself considerably from funding initiatives. For organizations like ours, it is even very difficult to find out who is responsible for victims at the federal level, to know which door to knock on. There is no general coordination; we are not even apprised of government policy. That is unacceptable. This is lacking at present.
I am not saying that the federal government hasn't done anything, but there are some shortcomings. I think I recall Ms de Villiers saying that if the government were to go ahead with that statement of principles, there should perhaps be an ombudsman for victims. We had already made a similar suggestion to Mr. Rémillard, when he was the Quebec Minister of Justice. Even if we say that victims are entitled to this or that, that they should be treated one way or another, when things don't happen as they should, what can victims do and who can they turn to? I think we should examine the idea of an ombudsman, or at least of an office where victims could turn to talk about the difficulties they faced in obtaining services or about the way they were treated by the justice system or the correctional system.
Mr. François Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): Thank you very much.
We'll now turn to Mr. Ramsay for ten minutes.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Chair, thank you. I apologize for arriving late, and I apologize also to our witness for missing some of your testimony.
The federal government grants rights to convicted offenders, and as a result of those rights that have been granted an enormous gulf is emerging between the rights of criminals who've been convicted and any rights the victims have. I guess that's why we're looking at motion 168 today. Have you read and examined the victims' bill of rights, the centrepiece of motion 168?
[Translation]
Ms Gaudreault: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Inasmuch as the federal government is granting rights such as conjugal visits, we now have a murderer in New Brunswick who's demanding that he be taken to Nova Scotia for conjugal visits with his wife, who is also in jail for the murder that was involved. This would be done, of course, at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. They have the right to vote. They have the right to a host of things.
The victims' bill of rights we're examining basically asks the authorities to keep the victims informed. It's a flow of information that is requested, by and large. Restitution forms part of it, but by and large what many of the victims are asking for is just to be informed about the dates of the charges, court appearances, whether or not a charge is going to be reduced or there's going to be plea bargaining, whether or not the victim of a sexual assault should have the right to know whether the offender had a communicable disease; those kinds of things.
.1120
I think this is common sense. This is something that apparently the justice minister feels has been complied with in part by the provinces, but we've heard testimony before the committee on this issue that there are no teeth in the provincial provisions for victims' rights. In one case in one area of the province it might be complied with, but in other areas it might not be complied with.
How do you feel about the provisions that are being provided for by the provincial governments, where there does not seem to be any sanction against the officials of the courts, the police, the crown prosecutor, when these rights are not granted and are not forthcoming? Do you feel that along with statutory rights, legal rights, legislative rights, there should also be sanctions for the violation of those rights?
[Translation]
Ms Gaudreault: You are right in saying that in many cases, these rights, which have existed since 1985, are not complied with. You are also right in saying that there is a major imbalance between victims' rights and the rights of the accused. Now, can we legislate all of these issues? I don't think that everything can be legislated.
With respect to victims, there is a lot of work to do, and in my view, not everything requires legislation. There are some things that involve awareness, training for workers involved and perhaps more accountability on the part of decision-makers and those people who are in various organizations.
For example, I cannot see a case where victims would be told that they are entitled to information on their rights and recourses. If a victim is not informed of his or her rights and recourses and turns to an ombudsman, would sanctions be a good idea for every case where the right wasn't recognized? I'm afraid that we're getting involved in a system that might be very burdensome and very costly.
We need a long term strategy to help encourage the various levels of government to act. For example, Quebec has set up a court information program for victims that they are putting the finishing touches on. Generally speaking, it is not a bad information program, although it does not meet all of the needs. Victims must be informed, but the general public must also be informed that certain services, recourses and rights exist. The people working in the field must be informed and well informed because they are in contact with the victims.
So everything cannot be resolved using legislation and sanctions, because that is a costly process. You are right: some things are unacceptable and perhaps we need legislation in certain areas. For example, victims can send information to the National Parole Board and the confidentiality of this information is not respected, and that might well jeopardize victims' safety. I think we should have legislation on issues like that.
Should we make legislation to say that information should be sent to victims in all cases and that victims should be involved in plea bargaining? I think that we have to start by trying to adopt incentives, because we know that legal recourse is currently extremely expensive.
.1125
You could say that inmates cost us a lot of money and you would be right. There is an imbalance between what is being done to recognize the rights of the accused and the possibility for victims to exercise their recourse.
These issues should be examined by groups such as the Canadian Bar Association rather than by me, as I am not a lawyer. It would perhaps be time to stop discussing these issues, let the legal specialists examine them so that we can see if certain victims' rights couldn't be incorporated into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example.
If we want to take the issue of rights farther, the legal community will have to help us. Victims' advocacy groups and victims' associations are not in a position to do that work. We will need assistance and other people will have to work with us.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Some of our members have attended section 745 hearings. That's where a murderer is allowed to apply for early parole or a reduction in parole ineligibility after serving 15 years of a life sentence.
The courts have literally sanitized the victims' impact statements. They have taken out parts of the written statements so that when the statements eventually reach the jury, they don't at all resemble what the families have given. There is real concern that there is resistance on the part of the judicial system to recognize the rights of victims.
Those who are perhaps more compassionate and more sensitive to the needs of victims will provide information according to existing policy. But if the rights of the offender are violated, there is accountability for that. If the rights of a convicted offender are violated and not respected, there is a sanction for that. All we have to do is read Judge Louise Arbour's report on the riot at the Kingston Prison for Women to see that. Yet we do not have any sanctions, any accountability, any repercussions, when the policy that exists now, according to the justice minister, in many of the provinces - which would provide almost all, if not all, the provisions of this bill of rights - is not respected by the officials.
What good is a law if it can be ignored? What good is a right if that right is not recognized by the parties involved and if the benefit of that legislation is not received by the victims? It seems that these rights are at the pleasure of the crown prosecutor or the police investigator or the court. In the section 745 hearings they are at the hands of the judge, who has the power to simply remove parts of the statement that he doesn't think are appropriate, which are the heartfelt feelings in many cases.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): Mr. Ramsay, can I ask you to wrap up?
Mr. Jack Ramsay: This is the problem we're looking at, and it's emerging. Would you like to comment on that?
.1130
[Translation]
Ms Gaudreault: What you have pointed out with respect to victim impact statements is quite right. In fact, there is currently a lot of resistance to victims in the system. Victim impact statements or the possibility for victims to be heard at a judicial review are new provisions that cause a lot of disruption in the way things are done.
Some judges have already told me, look, Ms Gaudreault, we are lawyers and we have experience; we know all about victims; we have already seen victims of sexual assault; we know what they do and we don't need victims to come and tell us about the consequences of their assault to assess the impact of a crime like that. I found that comment very insensitive, because it is very important for victims to be heard at that stage of the procedure, as well as during the judicial review by the National Parole Board.
You are right in saying that information is filtered at all stages. It is filtered because people are ill at ease, because these are not strict rights and because basically, the victims are also isolated. Victims' advocacy groups are not the only resources victims need to work on their behalf and support them. So for all intents and purposes, in my view, we cannot talk about victims' rights; we talk about needs or concerns with respect to victims. If we wanted to move towards rights, we would have to do what you said: make legislation so that offences have consequences and sanctions.
Do we really want to move towards a system like that? That is a question that must be asked. As I said earlier, it can be very cumbersome. Is this the right time to move in that direction? I think that we have made major progress with respect to victims. Attitudes must change, and we can't rely solely on legislation to change attitudes. I think that to make changes we have to convince people and provide them with tools. I think that we need to work with police officers and prosecutors.
Prosecutors would like to give victims information. In Quebec, I do not know how many Crown prosecutor's positions have been cut and the same must be true in other provinces. Prosecutors are told they should meet with witnesses, inform them and help them with some procedures. We have just written to the Minister of Justice to point out that because of the major cuts he has made, prosecutors arrive in the morning and have 40 cases on their desks. It is clear that they do not meet with the witnesses, that they do not take the time required.
If you legislate, what are you going to do? Are we going to be bringing charges against the Crown attorneys? Write letters to the editor? The problems isn't that simple. I am no better than the others and I have no magical solution for you; that's why I was saying earlier that maybe we should first start by having a look at some of the problems and establishing some priorities.
Why does the government spend some $4.8 million to support national unity? Is that expenditure necessary? Couldn't we have given part of that amount to services for victims? I can say the same thing for Quebec where all kinds of money was spent for things concerning the referendum and the separation of Quebec. A lot of money is being invested in that kind of thing but little or no attention is being given to some social sectors or problems.
If we want to change things, victims must have services; that's the most important thing. If you want victims to have information available, if you want them to be guided in their undertakings and if you want to provide psychological help, then all those services have to be funded.
When an aid centre for sexual aggression victims has a one-and-a-half year waiting list, I'm sorry, you can't tell me that's providing services to victims. I'm going to talk about Quebec, because I know the situation there, but it's not different elsewhere. When an aid centre for victims of criminal acts in a city like Montreal hires only two full-time advisors, that is of course not enough to respond to victims' needs.
If you want those things to be done also, then it won't be only through legislation but also by funding the organizations. I should also point out that it's community organizations and women that are involved in this matter of victims, not men. Maybe the men are the decision-makers, the legislators, but they're certainly not involved in the field.
.1135
Changes are going to happen through services. I think it's unacceptable that in 1997 those people close to the victims get no psychological support. I'm thinking more particularly about child kidnapping cases, here. These are unacceptable situations. Canadian citizens and more specifically the victims, would be happy to see that we're dealing with specific problems and starting to come up with answers for specific needs. They'd be happy if there was a vision, if there was just a door giving access because that doesn't exist at this time at the federal level for victims. I'm sorry, but there is nothing.
You can tell us the Department of Justice is doing all kinds of good things. It's true, but when the victims or even groups like ours have a complaint to make, where do they go? Who is concerned with those matters in the federal government? That's not clear right now.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): Thank you.
Mr. DeVillers.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): As the provinces have their own statement of principles concerning victims and as you've just told us the federal government should show leadership in coordinating the services, do you think the federal government should examine the matter of preparing guidelines concerning victims' rights or should it be more concerned with its coordinating role? We all know that some provinces don't like the federal government trying to get involved in their fields of jurisdiction.
Ms Gaudreault: I don't think that coming up with a statement of principles is useless work. That's not what I'm saying. That shows sensitivity for the victims. However, we shouldn't put the main thrust of our energy into writing or improving a project. Something proper has to be done and I think this project would not be useful to us in the context of other countries.
I think we must have a statement of intent saying: we, in Canada, are concerned with these issues in view of the fact that... etc. What is our definition of a victim? Witnesses must be included in there, as I was saying earlier. The major expenditure of your time and energy should be devoted to examining some specific problems in order to alleviate the suffering and burden of the victims and establishing or reestablishing in some cases...
I know that for many years, in Quebec, there was no participation in the discussions with Canada. I find that stupid because it deprived organizations like ours of the information coming from the federal level and even of some form of co-operation with the federal government. But we had no power over those matters. When I look at this question of victims, I am above any and all partisanship. I concentrate on the needs of the victims and what should be done. We could target some problems where we're ready to work and invest a little energy, time and resources. We can work on the coordination aspect. I think the role of the federal government is to work with all provinces to coordinate things, while respecting jurisdictions. That's what I would expect from Canada.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam, you know something of Belgium's experience and you are perhaps also familiar with the experience of other European countries. Do they have the same problems of coordination and jurisdiction?
Ms Gaudreault: I was in Belgium recently. As you know, Belgium is divided into Flemish and Walloon areas and there are all kinds of jurisdictions. So I'd say they have pretty well the same problems. I think it's Ms de Villiers who was saying that Canada was very far behind as compared to other countries. Personally, that's not my perception. I don't personally think, even though Belgium has just established a policy, that we're far behind. We're behind in some areas, but we're ahead in others. As far as legislation goes, especially for some matters concerning parole, we're ahead. I wouldn't say that Canada lags behind.
.1140
When I started my presentation, I mentioned it was a declaratory piece of legislation and so forth. When you examine the documents having to do with these different statements of principle, you'll see that they're all saying the same thing. Canada is no worse than other countries. Basically, having a statement of principles is not a bad thing. It's a good thing, but if it doesn't go any further than that, it's useless to make any kind of such statement. Basically, we're reproducing what was done in 1988. Do most citizens and organizations know what this 1988 statement is? I don't think so. I think it just stayed in the bottom of a drawer somewhere.
Do we want to do something that's going to stay in the bottom of a drawer or do we want something that's going to give us new energy so we can progress further with our action? That's how I see the situation. You have aroused hope and the will to take the whole matter in hand and do more for the victims. I will encourage you, but I would also say you're going to have to work a little more on some of the aspects.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Madam.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): Mr. Telegdi.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to welcome you to the committee. Some of the things I heard you say are something I have been saying: to have a bill of rights without the resources is not very meaningful. To some extent I despair that we're pitting victims against offenders.
There's no question in my mind that victim services are needed. Victim services are needed at the courts, particularly when you have lots of folks going through. You have rape victims coming through. You have victims of other assaults coming through. To the extent that we must sensitize all the players in the justice system to victims, the victims really need their own person when they are in court. I know the assistant crown attorneys in my jurisdiction make over $100,000 a year. Clearly we're much better off having somebody with a lot less money but a lot more expertise in dealing with the victims doing the counselling, doing the accompanying in the courts in serious cases.
First of all, do we agree on needing more resources than exist now, and agree that without them any rights we say victims have don't make a whole lot of sense?
[Translation]
Ms Gaudreault: You've raised the matter of the right to legal aid. There's a problem we could examine and, in my opinion, it is a very concrete one. You say you could legislate. Any legislation that is brought in should deal with real problems.
The victims who put in a claim for compensation and go to review or appeal of the decision often have to defend themselves. They have to make their own representations. You'd never see that for an accused or a prisoner. That person is helped and represented by a lawyer.
At this stage, when we're talking compensation, the cases are often complex and expertise is needed. The victims often give up because they don't have any right to be assisted by a lawyer and there are no lawyers trained to work with them for these compensation claims. Why? Because legal training today concentrates on the defence or the rights of the accused rather than the rights of the victims.
.1145
If we talk about the exercise of rights, that is one aspect we could consider to see how we could help victims. But that takes resources too. Resources would have to be made available. I don't think we could achieve such objectives anywhere in Canada without providing resources and assistance. There are many volunteers working in those areas. However, most of the time it isn't volunteers who work with inmates; it's people with a university education. But the victims of crimes get to work with volunteers, who often are on the job just for a few months. Afterwards, you have to start from scratch, because the volunteers only stay on the job for four months, and there is no follow-up with the victims. This may not be the case everywhere, but it is a significant problem. At present, victims' services rely primarily on the goodwill of volunteers and the women interested in victims' issues. So you have to see the problems from that standpoint as well.
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'm still haunted by a witness who appeared in front of the committee. It was Mrs. McCuaig. After listening to the very real hardship that her family went through, her daughter specifically, when her grandson was murdered, I think there are some very obvious things we can see from her situation. We could see some kind of legislation for such things as financial hardship associated with the burial and hardship associated with counselling, with being able to deal with the tragedy and the other impacts that she talked about, such as not having the resources to go and replace a coat that was destroyed or taken.
Also, by providing that, we're helping their long-term psychological health. Not to help them can end up costing a lot more down the road. I see all of those areas as very real and needed. Mostly it's a matter of resources, of making sure that those resources are available. I definitely see a role at the federal level and certainly very much at the provincial level, because much social service delivery comes at the provincial level, be it through government or community organizations that need resources even if they use volunteers to function.
I very much appreciate your input to the committee. Thank you.
Mrs. Gaudreault: Merci.
The Chair: Mr. Kirkby.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River, Lib.): I know that reference has been made to the fact that those who have been accused of criminal offences have utilized the Charter of Rights through the court system, either with lawyers they've hired or lawyers provided by the state to flesh out and determine what their charter rights are.
But I suggest that there are rights within the charter that also serve to protect victims of crime.
Have you or any victims' groups you're aware of approached the provincial attorneys general to see if the legal aid plan would fund lawyers to advocate for victims' rights in appropriate cases, or have any appropriate cases been referred to the court challenges program for funding to expand the area of victims' rights?
.1150
[Translation]
Ms Gaudreault: No, as far as I know they have not.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby: This is maybe a practical question. What would you recommend for how the federal government should proceed as we're looking at a bill of rights? A lot of what is in the bill of rights is within provincial jurisdiction, under the administration of law. If, having responsibility for criminal legislation, we could impose those requirements through the criminal law, as a practical matter, how do you envision the federal government dealing with the provinces in the development of a bill of rights? First of all, do you think that's a good idea? Do you think it's necessary? How do you think we should proceed along this line?
[Translation]
Ms Gaudreault: Well, the Bill of Rights should be put back on the table, and a committee of experts should study how it deals with rights and examine other aspects I mentioned, especially the definition of ``victims''. Only experts can study the federal and provincial jurisdiction issue. Organizations like ours do not have the skills required.
The issue needs to be considered in depth. A committee of experts should focus on determining how the provinces should be approached. This should be a small committee that works for a limited period, not over five or so years. If you want to see results, you have to work with the provinces, in spite of the problems involved. Many people are sensitive to the victims' issue. The issue may be somewhat politicized, but it affects us all nonetheless. No one is safe from crime. It touches on the awareness of everyone.
A working committee could consider substantive aspects, and determine how everything would be implemented, how the federal government could work with the provinces, and how we could set priorities and have an overall vision.
I would rather see two or three priorities, and have several concrete measures planned within a given time frame, rather than hearing that we're going to change the world and make everything allright for victims. I don't think that would be possible. The victims' issue is a recent one, after all. We meet a lot of resistance, even among my own criminology students. I teach 125 criminology students during the day, and even they show a great deal of resistance to focussing on victims. They go into criminology to work with delinquents, not to work with victims. Sometimes, they say things I find very hard, like: ``You know, Arlène, I'd like to shake battered women up a bit. I would never let it happen to me.''
So there is a lot of awareness-raising to be done here, and that takes a long time. Next Friday, I'll be taking part in the Canadian Administration of Justice Conference. There will be meetings with judges. Mr. Ramsay has talked about the victim's statement. We will come back to that. Issues have to be brought constantly back to the table, and we have to encourage everyone to get more involved. It's long term process, just like the work you are doing here in committee. There is no magic solution. There is no bill that will solve every problem.
.1155
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): I think we should correct the record. I'm not sure if it was just in the translation, but I heard somebody refer to Mr. Ramsay as ``Justice Ramsay'', which is not a bad -
Mr. Jack Ramsay: I can't hear you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): Put your earpiece in.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: I don't know if I want to hear you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): Trust me. You were given an inadvertent compliment or something.
Mr. Kirkby, another short question.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby: I don't know whether you touched on this, but what I heard you saying is that as it exists before us right now the victims' bill that has been put forward at present is inadequate in some areas. First of all, you would recommend, at least as part of the process to update, revamp, and whatever else we do with it, that its substance be changed. Once that has been done, and these being principles or statements the federal government or the provincial governments are required to live by, how would victims enforce those principles? What is your view of how you would make that happen? A statement of principles has been in place since 1988, and that has proven inadequate in some ways, perhaps. How would you enforce these types of statements of principle?
[Translation]
Ms Gaudreault: But even if we rework the statement of principles and make it more specific, I don't think that would meet our needs any better than the declaration of 1988, the UN declaration or the European convention, unless very specific sanctions are included as penalties for the violation of certain rights. I believe we are the only country who has gone forward with this. I don't think that we can have sanctions or penalties for all aspects of the bill.
I don't know how we could come up with a statement of principles that would allow this. And, on the basis of the statement of principles, should we make other amendments to the Criminal Code? Perhaps. Should we establish quality standards and assessment criteria? When should the police provide information? What should the police do to provide information? When is it deemed that the police has provided adequate information to victims, and what incentives will there be?
A general statement that says victims are entitled to information is not sufficient. There must be something to indicate at what stage, and by what means the police must provide information. We already have some parts of the answer. We know that the police have to give victims a brochure. In some forces, we know that police officers send victims a letter saying they have closed their file. But most police forces don't do that. For example, could the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police adopt these standards and set itself the goal of going even further, in co-operation with provincial associations?
There may be a number of stages like these to complete before we can talk about sanctions and penalties. These issues must be examined. There is a whole series of rights that are very important, and for which recourses could be provided for in a statement of principles. Some aspects in statements of principles could remain general, or could be accompanied by guidelines for attorneys and police officers.
Take personnel training, for example. We cannot impose any sanctions regarding personnel training. We need incentives. We need budgets. We need to work with education and institutions to make changes and training programs. Those are long term objectives. We need to stipulate that institutions which train police officers across Canada would provide a minimum of so many hours of education on victims.
.1200
That would be a concrete measure which would not necessarily require legislation. It would be implemented with the co-operation of some associations or educational institutions. Quebec could take advantage of the experience other provinces have in some fields, and vice versa.
To my mind, there is not much information sharing among people involved in the field. We are all fairly isolated. Leadership by the federal government would make it possible for us to work together more and to benefit from the expertise of people working in other provinces. Personally, as a representative of my organization, I would be very interested in meeting with other people, learning and understanding what is being done elsewhere, and taking advantage of their experiences for use within my association. Our association has a unique and interesting co-operation structure, which could be used in other provinces. When we tell people that our association includes such groups as the National Parole Board and Correctional Services Canada, they don't understand how that is possible. They believe that the groups have irreconcilable interests.
I'm sure you have understood that I'm very pro-victim, but I'm clearly not anti-offender. I am a criminologist. I work within the justice system, and I firmly believe that the rights of all parties have to be reconciled. We have to achieve a better balance for victims. But this is not arithmetic, you don't take away rights from offenders and necessarily give them to victims, or vice versa.
We have to work towards greater awareness throughout Canada. We have to work towards more services, and much faster intervention by the government. I was happy to hear your comments; you talked about quick action to prevent exacerbation of trauma. If we had more front-line services, we would perhaps spend less on compensation and other services. Things are happening much too fast. The general public does not know what is going on, what measures have been implemented, or what the laws are.
The federal Parliament has passed many good laws which are unknown to the general public but should be made known. Many things happen through information. Citizens should know that they can make a victim impact statement before the judges, they should know that there is a victims' policy, that they can attend parole hearings, and that they are entitled to compensation.
Every year, 10 to 15% of the applications submitted by victims are turned down because the police officer did not even tell them that they were entitled to compensation. Speaking of rights, that certainly is one. We will make the exercise easier if we train police officers. This is how I see things.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Paddy Torsney): Given that there were no opposition members here to ask questions, I've played rather fast and loose with the time. That was a good 27-minute round, but don't tell them.
Thank you very much for coming today, and we wish you continued success with your work.
This meeting is now adjourned.