CONTENTS
Monday 28 March 1994
Draft report: Victims of crime
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
*Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND) for Ms Akande
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Bisson
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Tilson
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1554 in room 228.
DRAFT REPORT VICTIMS OF CRIME
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I call the meeting to order. We have a report on victims of crime that Andrew McNaught has prepared, obviously to review with the members. We could begin with that today, go through the recommendations in fact, and discuss each recommendation as it comes, page by page, or any other way you might suggest.
Mr David Winninger (London South): I believe the draft report was sent out last Wednesday, and I have had a chance to look at it in a preliminary way. A number of changes have been made since we last went over the first draft many months ago, and of course some of our recollections may have dimmed a bit in terms of exactly what was said at the time.
I, for one, would appreciate another week or so to go over the report and make some marginal notations. I know we only have three hours and change left on this particular referral, and if we're going to spend that time wisely and well, I think it would be helpful to have a little more time to focus our thinking on the contents and the language of the draft report. For that reason, I'd be asking for at least a week's adjournment on this particular report.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I received mine on Friday. I worked on it for about three and a half hours yesterday. I like the suggestion being made, but I did come prepared today with extensive notes on the report, so it may be helpful that those are shared now so my colleagues can have access to what my thoughts were.
I will say that I'm somewhat disappointed that on December 21, 1993 -- perhaps I am guilty of not making it abundantly clear to both the clerk and the researcher, but I had hoped that I had conveyed my understanding that as soon as the response from the ministry had been received by the clerk, I would get a copy of it. The fact that this information has been sitting in the researcher's hands for almost three months is cause for a bit of concern on my part.
Having said that, I'm prepared to work with whatever time lines, but I undertook a fair bit of work on short notice and would probably have done more justice to it if it had been shared as I had requested.
I'm amenable to the suggestion simply because there's a substantive amount of information here to be examined. I've tried to read through the police report on victims' assistance and I have several questions that flow from that. Maybe we could spend a few moments today to direct a couple of further questions if the Chair and the committee determine to reconvene next week and proceed in earnest on the amending of the report.
The Chair: Of course. Mr Murphy, do you have any comments on this?
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): No. I'm basically happy to do what Mr Jackson desires, subject to the committee's view. It doesn't matter to me. My view is that whatever's the most efficient way to do this is the best way, and I'm more than happy to be subject to Mr Jackson's views in that regard, at least for now.
The Chair: Mr Winninger and Mr Jackson would like to put some questions to the committee before we reconvene, as a way of helping us all out, in terms of addressing your concerns. Is that what you're asking?
Mr Jackson: What I was suggesting was that the extensive amount of material Andrew has shared with us has given rise to a couple of requests for additional information -- not to be frightened by that; just some minor requests that flow from the documents we received. I think that would be in order and that's what I would like to share. If you want specific language and areas, I'm prepared to discuss that, if you wish. I have a couple of areas that I saw are strengthened or could be weakened.
There is perhaps one item which I should table with the committee. It's about the language around the rejection of the victims' bill of rights. To write in the report that it was the committee's opinion that this was frivolous -- I don't know if that really reflects. If there's a decision that we not proceed, I could live with that, but I'd like to serve notice that I can't live with the language that involves at least my colleagues with that statement. I think it could be treated differently and say something differently but achieve what the government wishes.
The Chair: I think we could allow Mr Jackson to make some remarks, if that's what you want to do today. Once we have done that, we can adjourn until next week. Just to remind you, we have approximately three hours and 45 minutes left for this. Mr Jackson, proceed.
1600
Mr Jackson: The Solicitor General -- the reference is on page 34 in this document, Victim Services Review, Ontario Police College -- references six different documents, reference materials. Is it possible to secure copies of those reference materials? That would just be a request.
On page 8 of the actual report, I was suggesting we should indicate that there is a statute of limitations on applications for criminal injuries compensation, and nowhere in the report does it say that you have to apply within a certain specified period of time or else you're ineligible. When you read that it makes it sound like it's open-ended. It's just a matter of information, and if it's possible to indicate that since we're going to talk about civil litigation, we should talk about subrogation rights.
The principle is that if you go and apply to workers' comp, you subrogate your rights to the workers' comp and you can't sue. The similar principle in law is in effect for criminal injuries compensation, so the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board inherits your subrogated rights to recapture the moneys they pay on your behalf. That again is not clear.
Mr Murphy: I just want to clarify that. Maybe the researcher knows this. I thought, and I could be wrong in this, the subrogation right was to the extent of the award by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board --
Mr Jackson: That's correct.
Mr Murphy: -- and you don't give away your right to sue; or do you? Do you give away your right to sue and you subrogate to the extent of the compensation provided, or do you keep the right to sue and you subrogate to the extent of the compensation? Which is it?
Mr Andrew McNaught: I suspect you give your right away but I will check that.
Mr Murphy: You could probably find that right in the act itself.
Mr Jackson: My understanding is you give your right away, and that is a function of the size of the award.
Mr Murphy: That might be important because there might be a recommendation that arises out of that distinction.
Mr Jackson: I have one that's for that and I'd rather share it with the committee and then we can deal with it, but it flows from that piece of information.
Let's see. Funding of victim services: If we were to look at the Victim Services Review, Ontario Police College, at the bottom of page 20 in the footnote it sets out how complex the issue of funding victim services is in the province of Ontario. Just to read that indicates by my count five different government or ministerial levels. When I read that it triggered for me, in the body of the main report, the fact that we really don't explain funding of victim services -- we don't clarify how it's funded in Ontario.
Now I don't wish to engage the researcher in a long and complicated explanation, but it strikes me that if we're going to talk of funding of victim services, the only reference we make is the victims' fine surcharge, and we're bringing inordinate attention to the fact that we're the only province that doesn't have a dedicated fund for it, whereas victim services are funded by many ministries, by all three levels of government in a sort of complex way.
For me it was a trigger, that to deal with the issue of funding we've only referenced it in the one spot, whereas funding surfaces in a lot of different places, like who pays for the closed-circuit TVs in our courtrooms. You know, we mentioned that it was a pilot project and now the government has extended the pilot project in Ontario. Perhaps it's not the committee's desire to deal with that. That's fine.
On page 16, we felt it was inappropriate to publish a report in 1994 stating that it was the government's intention to bring in a provincial surcharge in the fall of 1993.
Mr Winninger: Which report are you on now? Are you back to the draft report?
Mr Jackson: I'm sorry; I'm back in the main report, bottom of page 16. First of all, on page 16, Andrew did ascertain for us the accurate amounts of moneys that have been raised from this fund in Ontario, and I would ask that we insert into the report, after the second paragraph, the very short table of five years. I think it would be helpful. That was going to be a recommendation, since he did obtain the material, if there's no disagreement with that. He did get the answers to those questions for us.
Further down on the page, we talk about the Attorney General's announcement on June 25, 1993. This was an intention to dedicate funds regarding the surcharge, and the language that's used in this report should more accurately reflect a wording change. I'd be willing to share that now but I think we should also indicate not that the government announce that it's going to do it, but to give us a time line, because to date we've seen nothing on that.
On page 17, I thought the report would be strengthened if we indicated in the second paragraph -- "The program currently operates in 12 crown attorney offices" -- 12 out of how many? Is that half? Is it 95%? That number would be more relevant if we know how many crown attorneys' offices there are. Just a suggestion, but it requires research so I think they'd appreciate having notice.
I think at one point we're referring to crown attorney's office and crown prosecution, and I wondered if we could stabilize that language. Which are we using? The coroner's report I was reading in the last couple of days referred to the crown attorney's office. So perhaps we could just check that so that we're using the proper lexicon.
I just want to bring up some stuff that may require some clarification and thought, and not get into text change, if that's helpful to the Chair.
Recommendation 12 on page 22 refers to "and child sexual abuse syndrome." I underlined it and said, just what is that, since it's not referred to in the report, other than to say a child's allegations are sometimes false? But then we jump to make a statement about child sexual abuse syndrome, and that's a very, very sensitive issue right now. I just wondered, before we put it in a recommendation we should make sure we've defined it as a term in the body of the report.
Mr Winninger: Just a clarification: Are you relating that particular phrase to what's popularly known as false memory syndrome?
Mr Jackson: That's why I raise it. I don't know what's meant by this. I read the report and it didn't tell me what was meant, but it's contained in a recommendation. I'm just suggesting maybe the draftspersons might look at it more seriously. I didn't know what it meant.
If I can suggest, on page 25 we say "Victim Services Through Police Departments"; again, "police services" is perhaps the accepted phraseology. A department and its victim assistance programs through police -- that's what they're generally referred to, and that's consistent with the report from the Sol Gen. I just thought maybe "Victim Services Through Police Departments" might be changed.
I noted on page 28 "Victims and Crown Prosecutors" instead of "Crown Attorneys."
A controversial section of this bill would probably be around the victims' bill of rights. The only individual arm's-length, independent testimony was for someone who indicated they didn't support it. I really feel that since there were more people recommending it than against it, we should at least have one person quoted as supporting it in the body of the report.
For that reason, I would suggest that since Priscilla de Villiers quoted it and since the Yeo inquest, the jury of independent peers of this province, made it as a recommendation for the first time -- the first coroner's report in Canada to have it as a direction -- I think that fact as she tried to share it with the committee should at least be in there, because she came empowered from a coroner's inquest to implement one and she had come as her first opportunity before a legislative committee to ask for it.
In the interests of balance, to say it's simply symbolic by one individual and then not mention that many groups offered it -- the contentious line is, "It is the committee's view that, while a victims' bill of rights may have symbolic value, the government should focus its efforts on identifying the deficiencies...."
I don't think the report can speak in that fashion if there's disagreement. The report should reflect that there was disagreement. We have to be very careful suggesting, whereas the report could indicate that there was not agreement. I don't believe there's anything symbolic.
In fact, to press the point, I extracted from the Attorney General her admission that the Quebec bill had teeth and it was working, which doesn't square with her saying that, by and large, they're typically symbolic. She did admit that yes, if it's done right, they can work very well in one province she's aware of, and I can draw her attention to three others.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): What page were you quoting from?
Mr Jackson: On page 33. It could indicate that it's the view of the government members. I don't think that's particularly helpful either, but we have to be careful drawing a subjective conclusion before we get to a recommendation. We have to be very careful doing that in a report.
Those were just a couple of the items. The rest are language and we can work on that next week.
The Chair: We appreciate that. Any other comments from anyone, questions of clarification of things you would want to have considered for the next meeting?
Mr Murphy: Yes, just one thing. I'm not sure exactly where it fits in this, but it's within the context of the profits from recollection. I'm trying to remember offhand, and I may talk to the researcher after, but there was also a private member's bill by someone on the issue of the serial cards and other stuff which had been referenced in the quote and was taken out, the generalized profit from those recollections. There's also the issue of just the outright prohibition of them in some cases as a victim issue.
I think there might be some worth in referencing that bill as well, with a possible recommendation related to it as well. I might suggest that to the researcher for discussion when we come back. I think it was Dianne Poole who introduced that private member's bill. I think it would be worth discussing that in this context too.
The Chair: Okay. Anything further?
Mr Jackson: Just quickly on the issue of items not in the report that may have been included, there were matters with respect to the Coroners Act that were raised by Mrs de Villiers and Scott Newark and Irvin Waller. Although they didn't find themselves into the first two drafts, like Mr Murphy's suggestion of Ms Poole's bill, calls for changes to the Coroners Act were referenced, and if the committee wishes, I'll bring forward a recommendation for a motion. We may wish to add that as a section if they wish. I'll just prepare some information for the committee members prior to next week, if that's their wish.
Finally, I might suggest that we're not meeting as a committee next Monday. Tuesday is our first eligible day.
The Chair: That's right. We appreciate those interventions. We have a report, which we urge everyone to read, including considering some of these suggestions that have been made here today.
I'm reminded to remind you that this report is still confidential to committee members. This committee stands adjourned until Tuesday, April 5.
The committee adjourned at 1615.