crime victim advocacy

Message to Vic Toews - read your election platform!!

2012-02-03T08:45:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews did an interview with Evan Solomon on CBC`s Power and Politics on the latest report from the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime report, "Shifting the Conversation." One of the recommendations in the report was for the government to make victim fine surcharges mandatory...which is something I recommended to the government a few years ago.

In their 2010 Throne Speech, the government said they would do it. They did nothing. A year later, they made the same promise in the 2011 election. Over 6 months later, still nothing. The surcharges go to provinces to support services for victims.

So yesterday, when asked about it, Toews said it is an interesting idea that he could support. He even suggested he would support it if opposition parties brought it forward. Message to the politicos who write the talking notes for the Minister - YOUR GOVERNMENT ALREADY PROMISED TO DO IT TWICE!!!!

There were many other recommendations in the report that touched on corrections, restitution and deportation (you ever get that feeling of deja vu...like you have seen something before?). Toews touted the provisions in Bill C-10 that expand victims right in the corrections and parole system and said his government has been pushing for years to get those through...which suggests opposition parties opposed these provisions. I know the Minister has a lot on his mind but lets not rewrite history - most of those provisions were introduced in 2005 BY THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT. For the Tories to pretend they are the ones who came up with these provisions is almost as ludicrous as Tony Clement telling bureaucrats not to go on a spending spree.

Finally, Toews said he doesn't get too worried about statistics...well, unless they support his ideology. He said stats don't mean much to someone who has been raped by a dangerous offender - true, and the Criminal Code has provisions to deal with dangerous rapists so not sure what he was getting at. He also touted the statistics that show 88% of sexual assault victims do not report...but he can't seem to turn his attention to those actual victims and ask himself why the number is so high. It is an alarming statistic but there is nothing in Bill C-10 will make change anything for sexual assault victims. If you're going to use a statistic to point out a problem, Minister, don't you think you should actually offer a solution that address that issue? Granted, the solutions are a little more complex than your talking points about getting tough on crime but real problems are often not easy to solve.

I sincerely hope that Ms. O'Sullivan has better luck than I did trying to get this government to understand that the needs of victims are complex and most victims care more about how well them than how badly the governments treats offenders. But watching Minister Toews yesterday, I don't have much hope. How about you?

Ramblings on the 2011 election

2012-01-08T10:30:00.000-08:00

It has been a while since I have posted and one of my New Year's Resolutions is to post more often. And unlike my other resolutions, I plan to keep this one.

2011 was an interesting year politically with a federal election and a number of provincial elections. It's no secret that I am not a fan of the Harper government, but not for ideological reasons or loyalty to another party. I have voted for various parties in both federal and provincial elections. I respect any voter's choices but have never understood simply voting for the same party every time regardless of what they do or don't do with power.

My opposition to Harper and company is focused on some of his policies but more on his disregard for democracy and his hypocrisy. This is the guy who ran for the Reform Party which was heavily critical of MP pensions. Anyone remember a young Jason Kenny attacking former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein for their pensions. Any guesses on how much of a pension Minister Kenny will get when he retires. One might have thought Harper and company might actually do something about the gold plated pensions they so eagerly attacked...and by do something, I don't mean wait to collect them.

But that was years ago, some might say. True, but Harper was also the guy who came to power hammering the Liberals on ethical issues, and rightly so. He promised open and accountable government but was the only government in our history to be found in contempt for not telling Parliament what its crime agenda would cost. Let's not forget the broken promise on income trusts or deficits, being fiscally responsible with tax dollars (hello Tony Clement), breaking his own fixed election law for no reason except a strategic one, not appointing Senators and the list goes on.

And yet somehow, in 2011, he got his majority government. This does require some clarification though - he did get a majority of seats in Parliament BUT he did not get a strong mandate from Canadians considering about 60% of Canadians did not vote for his agenda. He has the ability to do what he wants in Parliament, and no doubt he will, but he does not have the support of the majority of Canadians.

I was admittedly surprised and disappointed in the result. Not because I thought he would lost, but because I did not think he would get a majority given his actions. I, like virtually everyone else, did not see the NDP rise in Quebec coming and I thought Michael Ignatieff's campaign was ok. But the old saying proved true - it is easier to scare people than inspire them. Harper doesn't inspire anyone to vote for him; he scares people to not vote for the other guys. In this case, it was fear of the coalition (and the pass he got from the media on his own attempt to do the same thing in 2005 or 2006).

People did not warm up to Iggy and some of it may be the apparent increasing disregard for academics. I don't quite understand this growing trend but pollster Frank Graves suggested many people support the Harper crime agenda, not because they think it will reduce crime but because they just want bad people punished. Now I get the urge to punish and I understand (but don't necessarily agree with) people's assumption that punishment will reduce crime...but I don't get the argument of not caring if it will reduce crime. But it goes back to this mistrust of academics which the Tories have capitalized on.

Why dislike someone because they spent a long time studying a specific issue? I take my car to a mechanic because he is an expert in cars. I call an electrician to fix my wiring because he is an expert in electrical stuff. They have studied these things - they know more about them than I do. Why would I not consider the opinion of someone who has studied the middle east or climate change or criminal justice policies?

It doesn't mean they are right because there are often other academics who have studied those things and have different opinions. It is called a debate and allows people who pay attention to develop informed opinions. But to disregard someone's opinion because that are an academic and because I may not like their opinion seems kind of silly to me.

Ironically, the one area where almost all the academics (that I have heard or read on the issue) agree is that the government's crime agenda will (a) not reduce crime and (b) may increase recidivism. The one exception is Carleton University Professor Ian Lee. I have read some of this stuff and you can google it, but his arguments to me come down to 3 things - Canada does not incarcerate that many people in comparison to other countries, Canada does not spend as much on prisons as other countries and while our crime rate has dropped in the last decade, it is up from the 1960s. Granted, I am not doing his arguments justice here and I recommend you check them out for yourself, but not putting as many people in prison or spending as much as other countries doesn't seem like much of an argument to put more people in prison or spend more on prisons. Shouldn't our goal be to spend as little on prisons as possible while still protecting public safety?

And the comparisons of the crime rate today to the 1960's seems a little dubious to me. First, the homicide rate is its lowest in decades. Second, things are a bit different now than they were back in the day. When women call the police because their husbands are beating the shit out of them, police actually do something. We don't try to keep it quiet when kids tell us Uncle Bob put his hand down their pants. Those are just two examples of how things have changed so comparisons are tough. But beyond that, Lee says the crime rate has dropped in the last 10 years...which doesn't seem like a strong case for spending more on prisons.

If there are studies that suggest Harper's approach to crime will work, then let's see them. The Tories have certainly been asked enough to give us some evidence. I have asked my own MP...who told me the Truth in Sentencing Act was not about protecting the public but about holding offenders accountable. I was stupid enough to think that the goal of holding offenders accountable would be to protect the public but my bad. I have also asked some of the MPs on the Public Safety Committee which is studying the gun registry bill because they have demanded evidence from supporters of the registry that it works. They need that evidence because the registry costs a couple million dollars a year but don't need it for the billions the omnibus crime bill will cost.

All of this to say I thought the Liberals made a mistake when they tried to make Iggy a regular guy - he wasn't. He taught at Harvard. He was known around the world for his intellect. I never understood why that was a bad thing but maybe the Tories and the pollsters are right. Canadians don't like really smart people, which makes me wonder what people think of Harper if they voted for him.

I guess what confounds me the most is how Conservatives can swallow themselves hole ignoring or defending things Harper does that they tore their hair out when Chretien did it. Harper's appointment of 3 failed Tory candidates to the Senate days after they were rejected by voters was, in my opinion, outrageous. But the conservative radio station in my city had Conservative voters giving the PM a pass. I am sure loyal Liberal supporters do the same thing and I am equally perplexed by it.

At the end of the day, I know one thing - Stephen Harper knows a lot more about politics than I do. And one more thing, having been at and watched some of his MPs perform at committees, I can see why he retains so much control over what they say and think. A little fear may work for him but Canadians couldn't handle that much scary!!

Conservative MPs inconsistent on long gun registry

2011-11-24T06:16:00.000-08:00

There is a story in the Globe and Mail today about the National DNA Databank linking a recent murder to an unsolved 1995 sexual assault. The police have not identified a suspect.

I have been watching the hearings on Bill C-19, the bill to end the long gun registry. When I am not about to barf because of the disgusting behaviour of some of the Tory MPs (note to Candace Hoeppner - if you are going to accuse 2 chiefs of police of lying, have the guts to let them respond), I am struck by the sudden interest the Tories have in "empirical evidence" to prove the long gun registry has prevented one death or saved one life. Despite repeated questions, witnesses have not been able to give the name of one victim who was not killed because of the registry.

On the Tory side of the table, this means the registry doesn't work. They have, in the past, pointed to cases where people have been killed with guns as evidence the registry does not work. So, if I use their logic (which I find really difficult to do...I get all dizzy and the world looks like a war zone with predators on every corner), I might conclude the DNA Databank does not work. This poor young woman was killed despite her killer's DNA being in the bank - it did not help police prevent her murder.

Now, when my mind clears, I see how utterly ridiculous this argument is...just as I see how utterly ridiculous the logic is of the Tory MPs on the committee. I have been a long advocate of the DNA Databank - it was one of the first issues I began advocating for when I got into this line of work and I have followed the success of the bank ever since. Now, I think I know more about it than the average person, but I cannot give you the name of one person who was not raped or killed because of the registry. So in Tory world, that means the databank has not saved a life...so let's end it!!! We could save millions of dollars and Tony Clement may need some new outhouses in his riding!!!

Stupid, isn't it? Yes...there is no empirical evidence that the DNA Databank has saved a life. We cannot find the victim who was not murdered. Nor can we find the child who was not abused because of the sex offender registry. But that doesn't mean they have not helped police track down bad guys who would have done bad things. And it doesn't mean the police have not taken a long-gun out of the home of an abusive husband which he would have used to terrorize or kill his wife.

These tools help law enforcement identify suspects or identify how rifles an abusvie husband has...both of which can prevent crimes. But you cannot prove a negative anymore than we can empirically prove that we have prevented another murder by putting Willie Pickton in prison for life...we think we have but we cannot prove it.

If the Tories were consistent with this logic, that would be one thing but this sudden interest in evidence is limited to this one issue. I have emailed some members of the committee and asked for empirical evidence that Bill C-10 will help victims, reduce crime or increase public safety (all of which the government has said it will do) and the response has been...wait, there has been no response. Their demand for an impossibly high standard of evidence is limited to the long gun registry, not the billions the omnibus crime bill will cost.

I believe the DNA Databank has saved lives and prevented abuses. I believe the long gun registry has done the same. If I am wrong about the later, duck hunters and farmer will have to fill out some forms (which I admit is a incovenient). If the Tories are wrong, some families will be filling out death certificates.

An email to Stephen Woodworth, Tory MP

2011-11-03T09:43:00.000-07:00

Stephen Woodworth is a Tory MP who sits on the Justice Committee. When I testified on Bill C-10, he asked me a question and refused to let me provide a full answer...we got into a bit of a shouting match. I wanted to ensure he and all the members had a more fullsome answer than the one I was permitted to give so I sent him, and all the committee members, this email:

Dear Mr. Woodworth:

During my appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, you asked me a question towards the end of the meeting. Your preamble was rather lengthy and you refused to allow me the opportunity to fully answer your question. I will paraphrase what I understood to be your question: “Over the past 2.5 years that you have spent on the Committee, every crime victim that has testified has said they want tougher sentences so how is it I do not hear this same message?” I summarized a rather lengthy preamble so I hope I have captured the essence of your question.

My answer, had you allowed to me to provide it, would have been that over the last 18 years, I have met with, spoken to, communicated with, cried with, supported and advocated for hundreds of individuals and their families. They have been families of homicide victims, people left with severe disabilities from impaired driving crashes, women who were abused by their partners, men who were abused as children, sexual assault survivors, victims of terrorism, victims of hate crimes, victims of robbery, and the list goes on.

I appreciate the committee hears from crime victims and would encourage the committee to hear from immigrant women who have experienced partner abuse, women who have been terrorized in their homes by husbands who owned guns, Aboriginals who have been repeatedly victimized, people with disabilities who were sexually abused and other vulnerable Canadians who are often at a much higher risk of being victimized than you or I. My guess is that your committee has not heard these voices.

Your suggestion that victims speak with one voice about tougher penalties does not reflect my experience or the research. One cannot reduce the experiences of unique individuals with different life experiences and who experience victimization individually to a single minded focus on punishment. It simply does not address the complex needs of those victimized by violence and does them a disservice.

The reality is Bill C-10 will not impact most victims of crime because most do not report. There is no evidence Bill C-10 will increase reporting rates. As I mentioned, a small minority of women who have experienced sexual violence report the crimes but when asked why not, light sentences are not a common reason. When survivors are asked why they did report, only a minority say it was to see the offender punished. Most children who are abused will not report; most exploited street youth will not report; most abused women will not report; etc. Bill C-10 will address none of their needs.

When I said that sentencing is not identified as an issue for many victims, it is because most of their needs are not addressed by how much the offender is or is not punished - financial issues, the need for counseling, the treatment they received in the criminal justice system, long term safety, etc. are often more pressing needs. Even for those that do place more importance on sentencing, Bill C-10 offers false hope because the evidence of the Crown Attorney's Association suggests there will be more plea bargaining and more stays.

Sentencing is more important for some victims than others, but the problem with Bill C-10 is that is all they are being offered and the public is being told this will enhance justice for victims. You are asking victims if they support Bill C-10 but if the question was different, say should the government spend 5 times more on healing child victims or punishing offenders , some may have a different answer. I submit to you that the government's priority of spending five times as much money on punishing offenders than it does on healing children does not put victims first.

There is so much more I could say, but I felt it important to clarify my position because your synopsis of my position was misleading. I would also ask you to carefully review the statement of Wilma Derksen who testified before the committee today, and would refer you to some of the editorials written by those who have been affected by violence which are part of CSC"s Basic Toolkit on National Restorative Justice Week (which can be found on their website) for more differing views on what justice means.

Response to a critic

2011-10-04T16:03:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, I did an op-ed for the Hill Times in which I raised concerns that the Harper crime agenda would be bad for victims because it will result in more stays and plea bargains. Tory Senator Pierre Boisvenu, whose daughter was murdered, wrote a rebuttal and said I was prejudice and bias (against Harper I guess) and I did not understand victims. The Hill Times was kind enough to print my response to the Senator on Monday:

Last week, Tory Senator Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu responded to a piece I had written for the Hill Times a few weeks ago where I expressed concern that the Harper crime agenda will do little to help most victims and may do harm by resulting in more plea bargains and stays because the system is already overburdened. Sadly, the Tory Senator chose to attack me personally rather than engage in a debate about the concerns that I and many others are raising.

The Tory senator said I was biased and prejudiced. He is right – I am biased toward government spending on programs and services that will actually help victims and I am prejudiced against wasting money on initiatives based on slogans rather than evidence.

The Tory senator celebrated the passage of Bill C-2 which is intended to speed up mega-trials which is a worthy goal but sadly, as the Senator’s committee heard, the Crown Attorneys tasked with those trials said the bill will not make much of a difference because the system is so overburdened.

I agree with him that the government’s commitment to double the victim surcharge and make it mandatory is a good thing (since I recommended it when I was the Ombudsman). It would be better if the government had taken action a year and a half ago when they first promised it. Their inexcusable inaction runs counter to their claim to stand up for victims.

Mr. Boisvenu charges that I do nothing but criticize the progress made but maybe that is because on the front line of victim services, I don’t really see the impact of this so called progress. As for what I might say to the mother of a young woman who was a victim of a sexual assault facilitated by a date rape drug, my first priority would not be punishment of the drug dealer but the well-being of the victim. I wish I could tell her mother that there is no waiting list for counseling at her local rape crisis shelter or that her daughter's dignity would not be ripped to shreds if she reported the crime. Sadly, I cannot tell her those things and nothing the government has done would change that.

Lastly, the Tory Senator suggests that I just don’t understand because I have not been the victim of a crime, and that if I did, I would stand with him and other people of good faith to support his government. This narrow view of how all victims feel ignores the many victims that do not support the Harper crime agenda. It ignores the needs of those who do not define justice by how harshly we punish offenders. And it does not address the serious issues faced by the most vulnerable victims who do not report crimes.

My final message to the Tory Senator is this – if you really have the PM’s ear, tell him that justice is about more than being being tough on offenders; it is about being responsive to victims.

The False Promises of the Justice Omnibus Bill

2011-09-26T16:35:00.000-07:00

The reaction to the Harper Omnibus Crime Bill were not surprising. I do find it somewhat interesting that the Conservatives used to criticize the Liberal Government for using omnibus bills...but Stephen Harper seems to do a lot of things he used to criticize the Liberals for (cue all those Tory political hacks bringing in a 6 figure salary sitting in the Senate).

The Harperites said they are standing up for victims and the streets will be safer if dangerous repeat offenders are off the street. Its not clear how much safer we will be once those same offenders are released after spending a couple extra months in prison...I guess those extra few months will make a repeat, dangerous and violent offender suddenly rethink his evil ways and he will commit to change his ways. If you believe that, Harper has a fake lake he would like to sell you.

Take for example the increased mandatory minimums for child sex offenders. Under the new bill, someone who commits sexual interference will get 90 days (if the Crown proceeds by way of summary) which is up from 14 days. So, if I follow the logic, we will be safer because the offender will spend an extra 46 days in prison (90 days probably means 60 days because he will likely get 1/3 off). If the Crown proceeds by way of indictment, the penalty goes from 45 days to 1 year...which is a bit of an increase but he still gets 1/3 off and there are few treatment programs for sex offenders in provincial joints. Feeling safer already? The point is these same guys are coming out and the government has not provided any evidence we will be safer - if they have it, why not share it?

Sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault (victim under 16) will both mean a minimum 5 years in prison even though aggravated sexual assault is a more serious charge.

It may all sound great and there are offenders who have earned prison sentences but it may not be as great as the press release or slogans make it out to be. Let's say a guy is charged with sexual assault (of a child) with a weapon - he won't get double time credit for pre-trial custody so he demands a speedy trial...and he is not likely to plead because he is looking at a minimum 5 years. The overworked Crown has a decision to make - go to trial on the aggravated sexual assault (and risk losing) or let him plead guilty to sexual assault and get 1 year.

There are some really important questions that Parliamentarians should be asking the government about this bill but likely won't have much of a chance because Harper is going to ram it through the House with little debate (which seems offensive to me regardless of your political stripes). For example, how often do Crowns proceed by way of summary/indictable with these offences, how often do these offenders recidivate (probably not as much as you think), what are the average sentences for these offenders now, etc?

If the increase in sentences is because victims want tougher sentences, what happens in a year or two when victims are still saying sentences are not tough enough? If the (Tory) government does not get tougher, does that mean they don't care about victims anymore (like they accuse their critics of)?

I despise what child sex offenders do as much as the next guy and I understand the instinct to want to punish them harshly. And I agree they need to be punished but we should be basing changes on some facts and some understanding of what is not working now. If the government has some evidence that these categories of offenders are re-offending at alarming rates and these changes will help, I support them. But if this is just a gut reaction to our collective hatred of child sex offenders, I am inclined to spend more attention and money on the children they abuse. I would rather help those kids feel better than feed my own lust for vengeance (maybe $500 million for child advocacy centres than $5 million).

That brings me to another false promise. The critics of the bill often talk about the falling crime rates and the government points to victimization surveys that suggest fewer victims are reporting crimes. Without getting into a big debate about whether rates are falling or remaining stable (although homicide rates were lowest since 1960s which is a crime that does not depend on victims reporting), there is no evidence there is some out of control crime wave. And the government is right - fewer victims are reporting crimes but the number one reason they give is that the crime was not serious enough. They give other reasons - police can't or won't do anything, prefer to handle it a different way, etc. Often the offender is someone they know or are related to so they don't want to get that person in trouble. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in the government's crime bill will encourage more victims to come forward. There is no hard evidence that victims are deciding not to report because sentences are too light. So the government throws out this real problem as if their bill will address it...but it won't.

It is the same thing with the Minister's comments about the majority of the cost of crime being borne by victims. Again...he is right...but his bill will do nothing to change that!!! But it sounds good and it diverts reporters away from the facts...that this bill is going to cost the feds and the provinces billions of dollars without saving victims a cent.

There are some good parts to the bill - allowing victims of terrorism to sue states that support terrorists (not sure it will be used a lot but still a good principle) and the overdue enhancements of the rights for victims in the CCRA (which the Libs first introduced in 2005!!). It would have been nice to see the Victim Fine Surcharge amendments in there...especially since the government is doing this for victims. There are parts of the changes re: child sex offenders that I support.

If I thought this would make a difference for victims (beyond meeting some gut instinct that we should get tougher of crime) or better protect the public, I would be the first one to congratulate the government...but I don't believe either is the case.

I know that puts me at odds with some victims' groups/advocates and I even resigned from the board of one such group because of our differences on the Harper crime agenda (although we all still like each other:). I also know based on some media and a lot of emails and Facebook messages that I am getting from victims/advocates that I am not completely out to lunch; that there are those that do not support the government and don't see their needs being addressed.

There are significant changes to our justice system being made and I don't care whether this is something you support or don't - it deserves debate. The government claims they have the support of the people because they have a majority (I doubt voters voted for them based on justice issues) but it is foolish not to hear the views/concerns of those who more experience than the polticians or bureaucrats in Ottawa, like Crowns, defence, correcttional officers, etc. They may see problems with the bill the government doesn't and ram this bill through is not only undemocratic, it is plain stupid.

A Better Way to Spend $50 Million

2011-09-10T13:28:00.000-07:00

Politicians make lots or promises during election time. Some of them are well thought out policies while others are designed to garner votes. Sometimes, politicians may think their policies represent both.

Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak’s may think his plan to make Ontario`s 14,000 sex offenders wear GPS bracelets at the tune of about $50 million is good policy, and he probably is right in thinking it will be popular with some voters. He no doubt thinks the same thing about making Ontario`s sex offender registry public. These measures, he says, are about protecting our children from sexual predators.

No one I know wants sexual predators roaming our streets and parks, waiting for the opportunity to snatch a child. These individuals do exist and they must be dealt in a way that protects our children. For some, that may mean GPS tracking devices and making their presence in our community known (which police can do now). For others, it may mean a lifetime in prison.

But Mr. Hudak should avoid making the same mistakes his federal cousins make when they adopt popular measures that are not based on evidence that they actually work. The Harper government is spending millions and is forcing provinces to spend millions on crime policies that, for the most part, will not make Canadians any safer.

In fairness, it is much tougher to develop policies that are based on evidence, even if they are unpopular, and try to explain those policies to voters. His policies, as well-intentioned as they may be, are based on assumptions about sex offenders that are not true. For example, he wants to put tracking devices on the 14,000 sex offenders on the registry and let Ontarions know where they live so we can make informed choices about the risks to our children.

Does anyone really think there are only 14,000 sex offenders in Ontario? There may only be 14,000 sex offenders on the Ontario registry but only a small percentage of victims report sex offences so the registry represents only those offenders where the victim has reported, the police have laid charges and the Crown won a conviction. If you are worried a convicted sex offender is living on your street, you should know there is a good chance that one who has not been convicted is already living on your street.

The second assumption is that all sex offenders are child predators lurking in our parks waiting to abduct our kids. The majority of child sex offenders abuse children they know, often children they are related to. This does not make their offences any less horrific and may make them more so, but these offenders tend not to be a high risk to re-offend and they are not likely to target kids they don’t know.

The third assumption is that making the sex offender registry public will make children safer. There is no evidence that US state registries, which are public, have any impact. Other countries that looked at the US model have rejected it because of the lack of evidence. In fact, public registries may put kids at a higher risk of being victimized. The Ontario sex offender registry boasts one of the highest rates of registration in the world because it is not accessible to the public. If it was, offenders would be less likely to register and would go under-ground so not only would the public not know where they live, but the police would not either. A public registry was even rejected by the Harper government rejected and was not recommended by the OPP or RCMP.

Fifty million dollars is a lot of money to waste on a popular program based on faulty assumptions. There are many better ways that money could be spent. For example, Mr. Hudak could spend that $50 million funding a Child Advocacy Centre (CAC) in every major jurisdiction in this province. Cuba has more CACs than Ontario.

CACs are designed to focus on child victims of abuse and they help children and families begin the road of healing and recovery. CACs have proven benefits to the justice system – cheaper investigations, better evidence, more guilty pleas and more appropriate sentences.

If that is not enough, there are economic benefits. Child abuse in Canada costs about $15 billion a year. Abused children go to the hospital more, they are less productive, they are more like to abuse drugs and alcohol, girls are at higher risk for teenage pregnancy, they have more problems in school and the list, or the costs, go one. Not every abused child will have these problems but CACs can help reduce the risks for children who go through their centres.

Tim Hudak (and Dalton McGuinty and Andrea Horwath) should visit the Niagara Child Advocacy Centre to see what $50 million dollars could do to help child victims in this province.

Hill Times Op-Ed (August 29, 2011)

2011-09-07T16:58:00.000-07:00

IS STEPHEN HARPER DELIVERING JUSTIC FOR VICTIMS?

Julian Fantino, Ontario’s ex-top cop, recently told a group of police chiefs that the Harper Government was “delivering justice for victims by ensuring serious criminals serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes.” Makes a great sound bite but one only has to look at the state of the criminal justice system in BC or Quebec to see it’s not necessarily true. The system is said to be reaching a crisis point in BC as media reports suggest cases are being thrown out because of serious backlogs and limited resources for Crowns and police. In one case, a judge stayed the charges against an alleged child rapist because police could not translate the victims' statements and the case was repeatedly delayed over a two year period. She might not agree with Fantino’s rhetoric.

BC recently appointed five more provincial court judges but the Attorney General admits the province cannot afford what it would cost to deal with the backlog. BC is not alone. The Crowns in Quebec went on strike because of the workload. Charges were stayed against 31 alleged Hells Angels in Quebec because of delays and the Canadian Crown Attorneys Association told the Senate Legal Committee that the government’s mega-trial bill (which was fast tracked because of Quebec case) would not have made any difference.

Things are likely to get worse, not better, once the full impact of the Harper crime agenda takes hold. More accused will be demanding more trials more quickly. The result - more charges will have to be stayed or plead away to get them out of the courts. Is this the justice that Fantino claims the Harper Government is delivering to victims who wait months or years for their day in court and take time off work only to be told the case has been dropped or pleaded away?

Even Fantino has to know that the billions that will be spent on the Harper crime agenda won’t do anything for most victims who do not report, like the mother fleeing her abuser with her children but is forced to stay in a hotel room, away from supports or family, because the shelters are full. Nor will it do much for the little girl who finally finds the courage to tell someone what daddy is doing but whose case it thrown out of court because of so many delays. It probably won’t register for the 14 year old boy living on the street selling sex for a hot meal and warm bed. Maybe these aren't "victims who want justice" that the government says it is on the side of.

It would be one thing if the tough on crime agenda, while doing little to prevent more victims, was neutral to those who have already been victimized (and who report). The fact that it offers little practical help to the daily challenges many victims face is made worse because it has the potential to actually erode victims’ rights. The Harper crime agenda will be expensive – money being spent on prison cells, court costs and more trials can’t also be spent on programs to help victims. Does anyone think provincial governments are going to put more tax dollars into victim services when cases are being tossed for lengthy delays?

The Harper crime agenda may also harm victims in a more subtle way. If the workload of police and Crowns continue to increase, the less time they have to spend with victims. Harper may actually being erode the few “rights” victims have and it’s not like Crowns spend a lot of time with victims now.
The third way is the potential increase in plea bargaining. The truth is Crowns can only go to trial in about 10% of cases so they have to find a way to deal with the other 90%. But who is going to plead guilty if they are going to get a mandatory minimum sentence (which Harper seems to think is the solution for every crime)? Unless Crowns let them plead to another crime which does not have an MMP, there will be more trials. And the Crowns can’t handle the workload they have now. The President of the Ontario Crown Attorney’s Association said, “Without financial support for the system, most new laws on criminal matters are little more than show.”
It would be unfair to say the entire Tory crime agenda is bad, but much of it will have little or no impact on public safety and may make things more difficult for victims of crime.

More plea bargains, more stays and less time for Crowns to spend with victims compared to more resources for Child Advocacy Centres, shelters for exploited youths and a national affordable housing strategy to address the issues of violence against women…which approach will deliver real justice to victims?

18 years ago...

2011-09-04T17:00:00.001-07:00

Eighteen years ago, a young man I never met was murdered in a town I had never heard of. Somehow his death would change my life in so many ways.

Dennis Fichtenberg was in his mid-twenties when Paul Butler, a federal parolee on the run, murdered him in Prince George, BC. Dennis' mother, Marjean, began a long, hard search for the truth and uncovered screw-ups by Corrections Canada and the National Parole Board and the RCMP.

I had only been out of university a few months when Dennis was killed. I was working for Victims of Violence and cannot even remember if I heard about Dennis' murder at the time. In 1995, I began working with the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and my boss walked into my office, handed me a large file and said Marjean Ficthenberg is on the phone.

That was the first of many long conversations we had. Marjean and I began working together to find out the truth about her son's murder and we targeted all three agencies. We had newspaper articles written, documentaries made, radio show hosts talking about it, MPs asking questions at committee hearings and finally, we managed to get a coroner's inquest in Prince George.

I remember that week in Prine George. It started out with the RCMP finally coming clean on their relationship with Butler on the eve of the inquest and it ended with a recommendation by the jury for the creation of an independent victim complaint office. Most importantly, Marjean's hard work was validated.

Looking back, the impact of her efforts on behalf of her son are still being felt today. There may not be a federal ombudsman for victims if not for Marjean. CSC and the Parole Board may not have come as far in responding to the needs of victims if not for Marjean. There probably would not be CSC-PBO Victim Advisory Committees in every region of the country if not for Marjean.

Then there are the people she touched...me being one of them. I have never met a stronger, more intelligent and stubborn woman in my life. I was always glad I was on her side because I would hate to go against her. I learned so much on my journey with her and so much from her. Marjean has also touched the lives of offenders and those who work with offenders. She now works closely with LINC in BC.

I continue to learn from her. I shamefully steal one of her most powerful statements - justice is just about how we treat the offender, but how we treat the victim.

I never knew Dennis but from what I know of his Mom and from what I know of his sister, Lisa, I bet her was a kind, caring and funny guy. I hope he knows how hard his Mother fought for him.

I never knew when I picked up the phone that day how my life would change. It was the first big case I worked on and I used that knowledge and experience to help victims over the last 18 years. It made my appointment as Canada's first victim ombudsman so important because I knew what it meant - it wasn't just an appointment made because of a political favour or a reward for loyalty. I was there in Prince George - I know what that office means and what it has the potential to do. I am not sure anyone else besides Marjean and I feel as strongly about it. I hope the work I did in my short time there honoured Dennis and Marjean in some small way. It pained me to realize how little the government really cared about the office stood for beyond a press release and soundbite.

Paul Butler is still in prison. As far as I know, he has never really expressed any remorse for Dennis' death.

Dennis Ficthenberg may not be as household name. His murder may not have been the thin of television movies. Maybe the media would have cared more if he had been a she and had blond hair and blue eyes. But the impact of his death has been felt by many and legacy of his mother's work cannot be denied.

When we would talk on the phone, at the end of the conversation, one of us would always say, "Are we done yet?" Sadly, there is still a lot of work to do. We have a government that defines justice solely by how we treat the offender and only pays lip service to most victims. So much progress has been made, a lot of it due to Marjean Fichtenberg.

Has the time come?

2011-08-17T17:29:00.000-07:00

For most of my life, I have loved to write...hence this blog. And I have always wanted to write a book. I have started many books and even had some interest from a publisher once on a non-fiction book but ife got in the way so that never worked out. I have lots of ideas for fiction books to but as of late, I have been thinking a lot about writing a book about the failed potential of the Harper Government to really deliver for victims of crime.

They started out well - a new CSC victim service unit, the Ombudsman's office (not to mention appointing a really handsome and truly gifted young man whose name escapes me right now), expanded the fund for victims attending parole hearings and creating the emergency fund for Canadians victimized abroad (a recommendation from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime I might add). They passed some decent criminal justice legislation too - raised the age of consent, drug impaired driving, some (minor) improvements to the Dangerous Offender legislation and enhanced the DNA databank.

But from then on, victim issues somehow morphed into tougher sentences for people who steal cars, people who do drugs, people who jaywalk - it is not all about tougher sentencing. And with the exception of a small $1 million a year for 5 year bump for Child Advocacy Centres, there has been no increase in spending on victims since 2007.

There has probably never been a government that talks more about victims but does less. The Liberals never pretended to be the party of crime victims although they actually did some really important stuff like create the DNA Databank, create the victims fund and the policy centre for victim issues, make victim impact statements mandatory, put victims into the sentencing principles, let victims speak at parole hearings, etc. I would even go so far as to say that the Liberal record on victims is better than that than the Tories.

The Tories, right or wrong, are seen as the party of crime victims right now and I think it is based on lies. That doesn't mean that everything they had done is bad but they say everything they do (justice wise) is for victims but no one can show me how most of these measures make a difference in the lives of victims I work with.

I think I have enough information to show that not only will most of the government's crime agenda not help most victims but may actually end up hurting those that go through the criminal justice system. I also want to show that the Tories are not the party of victims as they pretend to be and that the Liberals did some incredibly important things. IN fact, some of what the Tories have done is simply build on these things and re-introduce legislation the Liberals first introduced. And I have an idea or two about what actually needs to be done (and yes, there will be a chapter on CACs).

I have several friends who have written books and I know it is a lot of work...and they all had the advantage of actually being great writers. But it's time to put finally get serious about this little dream of mine.

I wonder if the minister will agree to an interview - why bother? I can save some time and just have him fax me his speaking notes because if it ain't written down, this guy ain't going to say it.

The prostitution dilemna

2011-08-16T18:04:00.001-07:00

In one of my victimology course, I posted a question about the recent court decision over the prostitution laws. As most of you know, prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada but laws surrounding prostitution are - solicitation, living off the avails and keeping a bawdy house. In Ontario, those three laws were struck down because the court found that the laws themselves put sex trade workers at risk. Everyone accepts that there is a certain risk involved in this kind of work, but the court heard evidence that the law makes it more dangerous for some workers (mainly those working the street, who are the most vulnerable).

There are no shortages of opinions. Some right wing commentators argue about the immorality of selling sex and how it must be kept illegal although they fail to address the escort ads in the back pages of their newspapers. Here is a tip guys - those women don't really just "escort" clients. Most of them are sex trade workers and actually, most sex trade work is done via these ads, the Internet, etc. and what we see on the streets is only a small part of the sex trade. And reseach suggests those who work "inside" are safer than those who work on the streets.

But its the part we see and therefore the part that is enforced by the police. The escort services, by and large, are left alone. Hypocritical of society, police and politicians you say? I think so - if the selling of sex, or the activities surrounding it, are so bad that workers must be criminalized, why do we only enforce those laws against the most vulnerable of those workers? Those who are selling themselves for enough money to feed their drug habit, for example.

There are also the contrasting feminist points of view (as I understand them and I am by no means an expert) - one side saying prostitution exploits all women and the other side saying that feminism means choices for women and if a woman chooses this profession, more power to her. I have to admit, I find that argument tough to counter. Granted, I don't think most women (or men) involved in the sex trade make that choice - many get involved at a young age running away from an abusive home and are manipulated or exploited into the trade and then they get trapped. Those are the no brainer cases.

But what about a woman (and since we are talking about feminism, I am going to stick to females workers) who makes an informed choice and decides being a sex trade worker works for her? Maybe it gives her flexibility in her hours. Maybe it pays better than a "legitimate" job she could get or has. Whatever the reason, if an adult woman makes a conscious decision to do this, should she be criminalized?

Maybe she doesn't have as many options as you and I and she decides this one is going to feed and clothes her kids better than the others. We can pretend she should not have to make this choice, and maybe she shouldn't, but that may be her reality. She can't put food on the table with what should be - she has to deal with what is.

One of the women who brought the case forward has acknowledged publicly that she was abused as a child. I heard a friend of mine, who is a strong advocate for victims, use her as an example to suggest that she never made a choice because she was abused as a child. She was a victim.

I struggle with this one. I don't know the woman's story so there may be more to it, but is it not possible that she was abused as a child...but as an adult still chose to be a sex trade worker? I mean, does the fact that she was once a victim mean she can never make a decision that the rest of us may not agree with? Working in the victims' field means supporting people and giving them information, not making decisions for them. Abused women return to abusers everyday and their support workers may hate that they are making that decision but they support her anyway.

Who are we to tell this woman that she cannot possibly make a choice to be a sex trade worker because she was victimized as a child? Did that experience impact her life? Ya. Has it played a part in her decision? Probably. But does that mean she does not have the right or the capacity to make the decision for herself? I hope not.

Of course if you express any concern with the current law, which is selectively applied and usually targets workers as opposed to johns, then you must support legalizing it and regulating it. I am not convinced this is the right way either because the most vulnerable workers (addict, HIV positive, etc.) will not be permitted to work in these places and will be pushed into even more dangerous situations.

I actually don't have the answer. Sweden has an interesting model that a lot of people say is working although there is a smaller group that say it is not working as well as everyone says. In Sweden, they criminalize the john but not the worker. Critics say it has driven women into darker places because men have to be more careful that they do not get caught. But it is a model worth looking at.

My view is this - the current law is not working. We need to rethink it and if we had a government that was not so limited in its thinking (I keep waiting for the minister to announce mandatory minimum penalties as a solution to the entire problem), they might see this as an opportunity to rethink our approach - one that recognizes that many, if not most, workers want to get out of the trade, that some may choose to do this work and should not be penalized and targets predatory pimps.

I should add there is no debate about children - it has and must remain a crime. It is child abuse and men who rape children and think its okay because they pay them are skumbags. It would be nice if the government spent some money on building shelters for these kids, including males, to get off the streets. That $77 million that Peter MacKay is spending on a new cafeteria would be a good start and I remember a time when Peter would have agreed with me.

The problem with this debate, as it is with so many, is that the sides are polarized - leave the law the way it is, do nothing or legalize/regulate it. There really hasn't been any public debate and I am not sure such a thing is possible anymore but the Committee on the Status of Women did some good work on this and their report might actually be a good starting point.

But with 4 more years of Stephen Harper, don't hold your breath waiting for a creative or imaginative approach to a complex problem. It's not his strong suit. Maybe we should build some more prisons and lock all the workers up. It solves every other problem, right Minister Nicholson? Why not this one?

Setting priorities

2011-08-12T11:58:00.000-07:00

Ottawa Victim Services recently submitted a brief to the Finance Committee as part of its 2012 pre-budget consultations. They do this every year to get ideas for the budget. I remember testifying years ago and asking for a dedicated victim service unit at CSC and now there is one. It took a while but good things come to those who wait, right?

There will be lots of experts making recommendations about taxes and infrastructure and incentives for businesses but one economic policy that seems to escape too many people is dealing with violence against women and children. I won`t get into how important I think Child Advocacy Centres are - you can read past posts - except to say that they are economically sound. Child abuse costs us billions every year and CACs can help reduce those costs - of the justice system, the health care system, the personal costs to victims, etc.

The other priority should be providing safe and affordable housing to women trying to escape abusive relationships. I have, in recent months, learned more about the barriers to women trying to escape abuse - the shortages of affordable housing, poverty, the lack of legal aid, etc.

Forcing women (many with kids) to choose between living in hotels or shelters (if there is space) or on the streets (or a combination of all three) and staying with an abuser is no choice at all. It is wrong from a moral stand point but also an economic one. If she is living in fear or on the streets, odds are she will not be contributing to the economy or paying taxes.

It will require significant investments but let`s not pretend that it does not cost us anything now if she (and her kids) stay in that home. The cost of violence against women is in the billions of dollars annually. We pay one way or another although not as much as she pays. And if there are children, we may be paying for a long time to come.

There was an article in the TO Star this week about legal aid - even the American lawyers are looking at Canada and shaking their heads. It is almost impossible to get legal aid and in Ontario, 75% of legal aid costs are criminal so getting help with family law is even harder.

Why do we maintain these barriers to women and their children to live violence free? Status quo is easier than change and politicians see little political advantage and get little credit for long term strategies. Right wing commentators often talk about choices - some of these women don't have any good ones.

It's never a good time to go and ask the government to spend lots of money (unless you happen to be a company that builds prisons), but we cannot keep doing the same thing. This won't be the first call for a national housing strategy and it won't be the last. But it is our money and the government should spend it, or at least some of it, the way we want them to (which does not include more gazebos and outhouses in Tony Clement's riding). This should be a priority for anyone concerned about victims women and the economy.

BC's problem only going to get worse

2011-07-27T18:42:00.000-07:00

The BC criminal justice system is, to quote some observers, in a crisis. Cases are being thrown out because of serious backlogs and limited resources for Crowns and police. In one case, a judge stayed the charges against an alleged child rapist in Coquitlam because police could not translate the victims' statements quickly enough so the accused could understand them. Police requests for funding for the translations were denied and the trial was repeatedly delayed over a two year period.

BC has fewer provincial court judges than it did five years ago and they cut funding for Crowns by 5% this year and the court services budget by 8%. They appointed five more judges but the Attorney General admits the province can not afford what it would cost to deal with the backlog. Don't worry Minister, you aren't alone in that problem. The Crowns in Quebec went on strike because of the workload.

As bad as it is now, wait until the Harper crime agenda fully takes hold. More accused will be demanding more trials more quickly. The result - more charges will have to be stayed or plead away to get them out of the courts.

A lot of attention is being spent on how many billions the feds are going to waste on their popular but ineffective response to crime, but the provinces will be even harder hit.

And who will end up paying for this? A child who may have been raped or a man who may have been falsely accused. The President of the BC Crown Counsel Association says, “Police officers (are) stacked deep in the courthouse halls, civilians, victims (are) stacked tall in the courthouse halls, taking time off work, only to hear the case has been thrown out of court.” (http://ipolitics.ca/2011/07/25/critics-say-b-c-courts-are-in-crisis-five-new-judges-wont-help/)

Yet the federal government claims it is doing this for victims. With such an overwhelming committment to victims of crime, it is confusin why all the domestic violenc shelters in Ottawa are at capacity...again. Some women who flee with their children are being turned away and left to sit in hotel rooms with no supports and away from their friends and families. And Ottawa is not along either.

But Stephen Harper is doing this for victims...just not the women fleeing abusive relationships or the child who finds the courage to tell someone. Maybe they aren't "victims who want justice" that Minister Toews says the government is on the side of (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2010/10/06/toews-prison-construction.html).

In the words of the great George Kostanza, "Serenity NOW."

Feds crime strategy remains a gut feeling

2011-07-22T08:28:00.001-07:00

Every year, Statistics Canada releases its report on police reported crime but one has to wonder why we bother paying for the report when the federal Minister of Justice proudly announces he doesn`t make decisions based on statistics. Actually, I should say the Prime Minister doesn`t make decisions based on stats because Ministers in his cabinet don`t actually make decisions.

One cannot help but wonder what they base their decisions on? It is not based on statistics or research or evidence from other countries. I guess it is just based on their gut feeling. I for one certainly hope that my doctor doesn't make decisions like that...sadly my government does and seems proud of it??

I wonder what they would say though, if the stats actually showed there was an increase in crime - that the homicide rate doubled, that attempted murder rates sky rocketed and sexual assault rates went through the roof. Would they still say they don't make decisions based on stats or would they say, "we told you so?" I suspect its the latter but here is their problem - if, and its an big if, their crime agenda actually worked and it reduced crime, they can never take credit for it because they don't believe the stats. How will we ever know what works?

The stats, which are based on crimes reported to the police, indicate the crime rate is dropping. The Victimization Surveys, which include unreported crime, don't show the same trend. But both have their problems and neither, on their own, give us a completely accurate picture.

If many victims don't report many crimes, then the police reported stats are incomplete. But victimization surveys involve phone interviews with Canadians and ask them to decide if they were a victim of crime.

Most victims say they do not report crimes because the crime was not serious enough. If I was, for example, shoved in a bar, that is an assault by law but most people would not report it and even if they did, not much would happen.

Sexual assault is seriously under-reported and many of these assaults are very serious but most victims say they don't report because it was not serious enough. Sexual assault ranges from inappropriate touching to forced penetration. If someone grabbed my ass in a bar, it is a sexual assault...but again, most people won't report that and not much would happen if they did. I am not saying this is the case for the majority of cases, but it is for some so the victimization surveys have to be considered in context.

Also, we don't know how much reported crime there was in the 1960s for example - is it possible that the reporting of sexual assault and domestic violence were even lower back then? It is tough to compare today's victimization surveys with 1960 police reported stats as some have tried to do.

The homicide rate is one of the purest ways to measure violent crime because it does not rely on victims to report. The homicide rates is down to its lowest since 1966...hard not to say that is a good thing but rates vary from year to year. In general, the homicide rate has been stable for the past decade. Homicides are interesting because unlike what we see on television, most homicides are not planned and deliberate. People are not necessarily thinking about the penalties when they act so the effect of the criminal justice system to deter them is questionable.

Sexual assaults rates are up for the first time since 2005 but this may indicate more victims reported than more actual victims of sexual assault. Child pornography offences are up but this is not surprising - lots more attention and resources go into these investigations (which are almost all the result of proactive policing) than before so we would expect to see an increase.

So, assuming there is an actual drop in crime, what is responsible? The government is not even pretending to take credit because (a) even they know it would be a tough sell and (b) they don't believe in stats. Others say it is an aging population, fewer young people, etc. No one seems to put much weight on the ability of the justice system to impact crime rates.

Two things come to mind for me - why are fewer victims reporting crimes (which we know from victimization surveys)? Some decisions are obvious - higher deductibles may deter people from reporting property damage. But beyond simple answers like its not serious enough, why do so few sexual assault victims report and why did more report this year than last? The government would have us believe victims don't report because they are upset about sentencing but again, there is no evidence of that. More likely is that women do not want anyone to know.

Second, how can the government justify spending billions on prisons when there is some evidence violent crime is going down or at least not going up? I mean, an alien coming down from the galaxy would have to assume, based on their agenda, that crime is out of control...and that they must have evidence that their solutions will change that. Neither is in fact the case yet they continue to spend like Tony Clement's blank cheque for the G8.

But Harper's gut tells him it is the right thing to do...and by gut, I mean polls.

Shades of grey

2011-07-15T07:26:00.000-07:00

I find the older I get, the less I know. Or maybe it is just that I have more questions. Whatever "it" is, things seem to be less black and white than they used to be. This shapes my thinking as a father, member of society and as a victim advocate.

When I started working with victims in 1993, things seemed pretty clear to me. The bad guys wore the bad guys and the victims wore the white hats. Eighteen years later, some bad guys and victims wear hats with various shades of grey.

Take the Casey Anthony case. I have not followed it very closely, did not watch any of the court and those Nancy Grace type shows drive me insane. But the verdict interested me as did people's reactions on Facebook and in the media.

First, whatever happened to that little girl is a tragedy, as is the deliberate or accidental death of any child. If there are still black hats in my world, it is for people who intentionally harm kids.

A little girl died and no one has been held criminally responsible for it. People are understandably outraged. They blame the defence lawyer and the jury and the list goes on. They blame the justice system which they believe did not work - but what if it did?

I don't know what happened to that poor little girl. I don't know if her mother's story about her accidental death is true or somewhat true. I don't know if the prosecution's theory about murder was true either. But isn't that the point - the jury did not know either. Their verdict does not mean they believed the accused (although it might for some of them) but it might just mean that the prosecution did not convince them of her guilt to the point of convicting her and sending her to her death. The stakes were high and it this jury or another jury is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we ask them to acquit.

Is that something we want to change? I read the FB posts about the case and wonder what people would have wanted the jury to do if they were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Is anyone suggesting we lower that standard?

But then I think about the little girl. Eighteen years ago, I think I might have felt different. I might have been on the side of those screaming about the injustice of this case.

Does that make me a less effective victim advocate? I used to be scoff at people who worked with offenders, who promoted restorative justice, who supported treatment for criminals. Today, I know many people who have dedicated their lives to working with offenders (some of them who have been victimized) and understand that they do this kind of work, in part, to prevent more victims. I am not among the people who promote RJ because I have seen what it can do for a victim who chooses that path. And I support programs for offenders and am on the steering committee of the Ottawa chapter of Circles of Support and Accountability because their work may help prevent a high risk sex offender from victimizing another child.

None of that means I don't believe that some people still must go to prison, sometimes for life or that i am any less passionate about advocating for victims. In fact, it is another way of doing that - programs for offenders is, for me, not about offenders at all...it is about preventing more victimization.

The shades of grey trickle into other areas as well...the sex trade, for example. Is a women who is recruiting young women into the trade a criminal if she herself was recruited into the trade as a 14 year old and exploited? Maybe, but is the same kind of criminal as a gang member who pimps girls out to feed his expensive habits?

I always tell my students that I like to see them struggle with questions - when we discuss rape shield in class, they are almost all 100% behind the law and some want it strengthened. Until you ask give them a scenario where the accused is their brother and he is telling you he is innocent. I don't argue against rape shield, which I support, but rather challenge them to really consider all sides of an argument. I think that will make them, and me, better advocates for victims.

Context is more important to me now. I have met families whose children have been abducted and it remains among my greatest fears but when I watch the kids walk to school, I am more worried about parents driving their kids to school, talking on a cell phone than I am an old man lurking in the parking waiting to grab my kids.

Choices become harder - in the past, I supported stiffer penalties for child sex offenders. My feelings about that have not changed much but when you consider that most kids don't report and most offenders are not a high risk to re-offend (despite what people think), i wonder if simply increasing sentences for everyone makes sense...when we could use those scarce resources for keeping the truly dangerous sex offenders in prison and spend more on helping victims. Sometimes, it is an either - or scenario and unless someone can show me how locking up sex offenders for a few extra months (which is what the government's approach is) is going to reduce the victimization of children, then I am not going to support spending money on prison sentences over children. The former might make me feel good, but the latter makes me feel a hell of a lot better.

The old me might be more supportive of the Stephen Harper crime agenda (although I know I would still detest his contempt of democracy which is my biggest issue with his leadership). It would certainly be easier if I still held that view...but its the responsibility I feel to the many victimized people I have met in my career that causes me to struggle with these issues and not take the easier path.

I hope my internal struggles are worth it...

Manitoba's first Child Advocacy Centre

2011-06-30T14:00:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, Minister Gord McIntosh announced that Manitoba will open its first Child Advocacy Centre (CACs) in the province this fall. Regular readers of this blog (hi Mom) will know how big a fan I am of the CAC model and how I promoted the model when I was the Ombudsman for Victims.

Manitoba's CAC is possible because of help from fund that the federal government announced last summer (which was based on a recommendation I made while Ombudsman but the Minister didn't even have the class to recognize the role of the office...not that I am bitter).

I remember meeting with an official from the Manitoba government and another meeting with Minister McIntosh (who is one of the most victim friendly government ministers in any province in any party) and speaking with Justice Minister Andrew Swan about their desire to build a CAC. They said at the time that they needed federal support...and they got it.

This is such great news and I hope it is the first of many CACs made possible by the federal fund. I told a reporter during the election that the CAC fund was one of the things I was most proud of in my entire career...these centres make a real difference in the lives of abused kids.

Congratulations to Minister McIntosh and the folks in Manitoba who worked so hard to make this dream a reality. And to Minister Nicholson - you did a good thing when you created that small fund...imagine how much more good you could do if you made the fund bigger and made child victims of offenders as much a priority as you have made mega-trials and drug laws and auto theft and the list goes on.

When you make it about the kids...good things happen!

PC promise to make the Ontario sex offender registry public

2011-06-27T10:54:00.000-07:00

I don`t usually say too much about provincial politics but we in Ontario are facing an October election and the parties are beginning to make promises. If the polls released today are accurate and they hold true, we will have a new Premier. If that is the case, there is one promise I hope he won`t keep.

Tim Hudak has promised the make the Ontario sex offender registry public. The registry, called Christopher`s Law, after the murder of 11 year old Christopher Stephenson by repeat sex offender Joseph Fredericks, requires sex offenders in Ontario to register their address with police. The registry is a law enforcement tool only and is not currently available to the public.

Registries have their critics, but if we accept they can help police, then it is important that sex offenders actually comply with the law and register. Ontario boasts a 95% plus compliance rate which is among the highest in the world. One of the main reasons, according to the OPP, is because offenders know the registry is not public. So...if a successful registry relies on offenders actually registering, making it public is counter-intuitive because the rates of registration in the US (where many states put their registries online) are much lower.

There are those who say the public needs to know where sex offenders live so they can protect their kids. I understand that feeling because I have 2 kids...but I also know that most of the sex offenders that live in my community are not on the registry because they have never been convicted of any crime. Most sex offences are not reported so even the most effective registry only deals with a small percentage of all sex offenders. Relying on the registry to know what sex offenders live in your community is like playing Russian Roulette with your kids`safety.

Police can, and do, release the names of specific high risk sex offenders who are released into the community. While not perfect, it makes much more sense than releasing the names of all sex offenders. Contrary to what most people think, most sex offenders are not a high risk to re-offend..let me repeat that, most sex offenders are not a high risk to re-offend. Furthermore, most sex offenders are known to their victims and are not the predators that most of us imagine when we think of sex offenders. Those predators do exist and they should be dealt with accordingly, but they are the minority of sex offenders.

One of the problems in the US is that many sex offenders do not register because they know their names will be released publicly. They may still be in your community, but neither you nor the police know where they are. Or they leave your backyard but go to someone else`s who does not know who they are.

Also, publicly identifying sex offenders can make it much more difficult for them to find work, find a place to live and find supports in the community. Now if you are like me, you probably don`t care much for any of those things BUT we should because they are all risk factors. If sex offenders cannot do those things, they may be more likely to abuse another child. Letting them live peaceful lives in the community is not about them...its about our kids, and they come first right?

I could go on. I respect that Tim Hudak truly wants to protect kids, but his plan won`t work. In fact, it might do the opposite. The federal Tories held committee hearings on the national registry and rejected calls to make the national registry public. Not exactly a soft on crime gang, even Harper and company understood that a public registry had nothing to do with public safety.

The other thing that many people don`t think about is the victims - most sex offenders know their victims and many are related. When you make his (and most of them are men) name public, you run the risk of identifying his victim(s)...and they have suffered enough.

If you think I am wrong, please let me know.

The next RCMP Commish

2011-06-20T09:28:00.001-07:00

In consultation with a small group of national crime victim advocates, I drafted and sent a letter to the Prime Minister about the selection on the next RCMP Commissioner. We believe that he/she should have a solid track record of enhancing and promoting services for victims which extends beyond strategic plans and mission statements. Coincidentally, the Public Safety Committee is meeting tomorrow to discuss the selection criteria for the Commish. I would say our timing was pretty good.

Here is the letter:

June 16, 2011

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON

Dear Prime Minister:

We are writing to you today regarding the next Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). As long time national advocates for crime victims, many of us have had personal experience interacting with police in the direst of circumstances and all of us have had close contact with victims of extreme violence over many years.

As Canada’s national police service, the RCMP is a symbol of Canadian pride. Despite the challenges the service has seen of late, the RCMP remains an example of professional policing across the world. The selection of the Commissioner is among the most important appointments any Prime Minister can make and it is a decision we are sure you do not take lightly. The Commissioner must reflect the prevailing values and priorities of Canadians. We believe the next Commissioner must be committed to the rights and needs of victims of crime and that commitment should be among the criteria on which you base your decision.

Despite the emergence of victim assistance programs in Canada, police officers are still the first and often the only agency with which victims who report crimes have contact. Therefore, police response to victims may be their most significant post-crime experience.

We know from research and our own collective experiences that many victims experience a need to be reassured by the police. Victims may experience a secondary victimization when they perceive officers to be indifferent or unsympathetic. The support provided, or not provided, by police can facilitate or impede the ability of the victim to overcome the impact of the crime.

An Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police study found that a key role police play, “…is in the dissemination of information including: crime prevention information, information related to the criminal justice system, information on how to access supportive services, and information about the victim’s specific occurrence. In fact, providing information was rated by victims as the second most helpful service police provided (next to investigating the crime and demonstrating a caring, professional attitude).”

There is a correlation between police offering victim services and victims accessing those services yet, victim services providers across Canada are virtually unanimous in their concerns that police officers are not routinely offering services to victims of crime. Time and time again, when asked why they did not access victim services, victims say that they were never advised to do so.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police strongly emphasized the importance of the leadership of the executive of police services in their report Enhancing Law Enforcement Response to Victims to change a police service’s culture and openness to responding to the needs of victims. Dr. Irvin Waller, in his recent book, The Rights of Crime Victims: Rebalancing Justice, devoted an entire chapter to the important role of law enforcement regarding victims’ rights and services.

As Prime Minister, you have stated repeatedly that your government is concerned with victims of crime. Therefore, we are confident you will agree with us that the next RCMP Commissioner should be someone with a history of championing services for victims in his/her own police service or field of expertise. We would respectfully ask that you not only consider the candidates’ vision for addressing the needs and concerns of victims as Commissioner, but also examine what he/she has accomplished in the past and how he/she has shown that victims of crime are a priority, not just a phrase in a mission statement or strategic plan. In other words, what has the candidate done to address the needs of crime victims and enhance services?

We appreciate the difficult choice you have before you and that each of the candidates will bring their own strengths and experience. There will be, however, some values and priorities that you, as Prime Minister, will want reflected in our choice of Commissioner and we urge you to make victims of crime one of them.

Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely,

Steve Sullivan Arlène Gaudreault
Priscilla de Villiers Sharon Rosenfeldt
Marjean Fichtenberg Irvin Waller
Heidi Illingworth Art Lepp
Rosalie Turcotte

Same old same old

2011-06-12T07:10:00.000-07:00

In case anyone thought that the new stable, conservative majority government would take a more victim focused approach to criminal justice issues, or at least a more balanced one, the budget and throne speech don't give much hope. The Throne Speech talked about their tough on crime agenda and made reference to increasing sentences for the victimization of the elderly (which may be appropriate in some cases but won't have any impact on reporting rates or may seniors safer) and a very vague reference to addressing the problem of violence against women and girls (but still committed to killing the long gun registry). Nothing about the victim fine surcharge (which was in their last throne speech and election platform) or the enhancements to victims right in the CCRA which have been before Parliament in one form or another since 2005.

It is more evidence of how this government views victims' rights - punishing offenders. Want to address the victimization of seniors - simply increase the sentences. Want to protect kids from sex offenders - increase the sentences. Some of these offenders do deserve long, tough sentences but we should not mistake that with protecting victims or meeting the needs of victims. Building a Child Advocacy Centre in every community in this country will do more to heal victims than putting bad guys in jail for longer. Enhancing community services for seniors will do more to protect seniors than longer sentences - most offenders are family members and victims may not report because they don't want them to go to jail.

The budget had $26 million over two years for the victim initiative...which works out to $13 million a year which is the same amount since 2007. Funny with the increasing budget of CSC that CSC's own victim services (which has almost doubled the number of registered victims since 2007) gets a 0% increase in its budget.

Are we doomed for the next 4 years of the government saying they are doing things for victims but actually ignoring some fundamental needs? I looked at a couple of old press releases and they refer to acting for "victims who want justice." What does that mean - that victims who would prefer more money into services than prisons don't want justice? That victims who do not report do not want justice? Have we reached a point where if you are a victim who does not agree with the government's definition of victim than you are not worthy of their attention and assistance?

I have little hope for any opposition to their agenda or for the NDP or Liberals to really stand up for victims. They did not do so in a minority government so why would they in a majority?

So where is the voice in Ottawa for victims? I think the answer lies outside of Ottawa and is in our communities where the needs of victims are understood and where the services that actually make a difference are. I have spoken at some events lately in Edmonton, Vancouver and North Bay and some people have said they will communicate with their local politicians - not as victim service workers because agencies have to remain non-political but as individual taxpayers.

It is tempting to just give up for the next four years - trust me, I know. I get tired of banging my head against a wall too. But years ago they told us we would never get a fund to help victims attend parole hearings, and we did. They told us victims would never be allowed to speak at parole hearings, and they can. They told me as Ombudsman that the federal government would never create a fund for Child Advocacy Centres, but it did.

There is some hope that with many voices, we can influence Stephen Harper's agenda and convince him to do something for all victims, not just the ones who want his version of justice.

See - it`s not just me!!

2011-06-02T07:35:00.000-07:00

My good friend Randy McCall posted an article on his facebook page today - Crime Victims Urge: Services Not Sentences (http://www.ktvz.com/news/28090363/detail.html).

Victims services in Oregon are asking lawmakers to shift money designated for more prison beds into programs that prevent crime and support survivors' services.
They say public safety dollars could be more effective if spent on preventing domestic violence, and stepping up counseling for drug and alcohol addiction and sexual abuse but Oregon's prison spending has grown in the past 15 years, as more people are locked up. They say longer prison stays are costing the state more, without making Oregonians any safer.

This is my point (and i know I sound like a broken record) but if you spend billions of dollars on prisons, you are not spending it elsewhere. The government actually doesn`t have any billions of dollars since we have a huge deficit yet there seems to be no cap on how much they are willing to spend on their get tough on crime image. People who say you can spend billions here and still enhance services for victims, do more crime prevention, address the victimization rates in aboriginal communities, build CACs, etc. are fooling themselves. Think of the good that can be done with those billions.

There was also an article in the National Post about some Hell`s Angels who had their charges stayed in Quebec because the cases were taking too long. I hope I am wrong, but I predict we will see more and more of those kinds of article as Harper`s agenda takes effect because it is going to overburden an already overburdened system.

And there is no evidence that locking people up for the sake of locking people up makes us safer.

Why bother?

2011-05-31T08:48:00.000-07:00

The other day, someone asked me why I bother to keep criticizing the Harper government's tough on crime agenda. Was it, they asked, because I was still pissed about not being re-appointed? What does the tough on crime stuff have to do with victims anyway? And why bother - he has a majority???

Reporters have asked me the same question, although they put it differently. I was pissed about not being re-appointed because I thought we were doing some good work. We did 3 annual reports, 2 special reports, helped a number of victims resolve some serious cases, made a bunch of recommendations (some of which the government acted on) and staffed a brand new office...all in 3 years. Do I wish I had done more? Yup. Are there things, knowing what I know now, that I would do differently? Double yup.

But that's not why I keep criticizing. I didn't take the Ombudsman's job for my ego or because it was a good way to promote myself. I took it because I sat in a small,crowded room with Marjean Ficthenberg in Prince George, BC at the Inquest into the murder of her son Dennis when the jury recommended the creation of this office. I took it because I worked with Carolyn Solomon, whose son Kevin was murdered, and her MP who introduced a bill to create the office. I took it because I believed then, as I do now, that the office can make a real difference for victims.

But I never did and don't now need the office to continue to work for positive change. The office provided a platform for that, but I didn't have it for the 15 years plus I worked in the victims' movement before I was Ombudsman and I somehow manage to still be a pain in the ass without it.

Yes, Harper won a majority government. Yes, he will pass whatever boneheaded legislation he wants (which he pretty much did before anyway). Yes, he has the right to continue to ignore all the evidence against his agenda. But we spoke out against Liberal majorities back in the day and it got us stronger victim impact legislation, DNA databanks, a fund for victims to go to parole hearings, etc.

I continue to speak out because I continue to care about victims. I want all governments to do better for victims and this government, since 2007, has done very little....but, and here is the kicker, they say have. They say their tough on crime agenda is for "victims who want justice" which I guess excludes all those victims who don't want Harper's definition of justice.

But this has become the Harper victim's agenda- it's not just a tough on crime agenda; its his answer to the needs of victims. To suggest, as my colleague did, that the Harper crime agenda is not related to victims is short sighted.

First, Harper himself says it is for victims even though it will do nothing to better the lives of most victims.

Second, it has a hefty price tag and as my MP informed me recently, the hallmark 2-for-1 credit bill (which will cost BILLIONS) is not about preventing crime!!! But if they spend those billions on prisons, they can't spend those billions on crime prevention, or child advocacy centres, or shelters for exploited youth, or treatment for male victims, or a healing centre for families of homicide victims or more housing for abused women. If they are spending it on prisons, which they claim is for victims, they are not spending it on CACS and shelters which actually help victims. They cannot have it both ways. And if no one challenges them when they say they are doing this for victims, then the public is going to believe victims' needs are being met.

Third is the impact of this agenda. I believe it will put more pressure on Crowns who will accept more plea bargains, lead to more trials which put more pressure on Crown, lead to calls for speedier trials which puts more pressure on Crown, etc. This will mean more pleas and more stays - how can anyone who knows about victim issues say that is an agenda that benefits victims? Or that it won't impact them. It will make the dream of a more inclusive system for victims harder to achieve.

I guess I keep doing this because I have looked in the eye of too many victims to not speak out when I think this government, or any government, is doing the wrong thing. Sometimes that means the victims I work with disagree with me. Being a victim advocate doesn't mean agreeing with everything victims say or want. It would be impossible because they say and want different things which is to be expected. Being a victims advocate (to me anyway), means listening to victims, looking at research and walking with victims so you can see the big picture. I hope they know me well enough to know that, even when they think I am wrong, I am doing what I believe is right for the majority of victims - including those that don't report. Too many times in my career, I have not spoken up loudly enough for these victims and if the government keeps focusing on the system, nothing will change for them.

I believe we need more services and more people who understand the needs and concerns for victims and that costs money...spending billions on prisons (that as my MP said is not about preventing crime) means we are not spending billions on victims, or on education, or poverty and a host of other, more important and effective things that will have a positive impact on society.

There will be those who think I am just whining about not being reappointed, like the Minister of Justice suggested during the election. I hope those who know me understand my ego is not that fragile (although I do miss that sweet office). I speak out because the opposition parties can't be bothered, the number of grassroots victims groups is dropping and (allow me to step on my soapbox) democracy requires an exchange of ideas. This is a government that only wants to exchange ideas with people who agree with them. I speak out because the issues that face victims are too important to leave them to be defined by Stephen Harper.

I recently wrote to Harper and asked him to introduce a bill within 100 days that provides for mandatory victim fine surcharges and increased rights for victims within the CCRA. Do I think he will do it? No...his omnibus crime bill (which, in fairness, will have some positive elements) is more important and he says this is for victims. But if he proves me wrong, I will write him a very nice letter and thank him and send it to the press. It's not about me, it's about getting things done and if no one says he is doing the wrong thing for victims, he won't do anything differently. He probably won't do anything differently anyway...but at least I know when I look a victim in the eye, I will have known that I tried.

Excerpt from recent speech

2011-05-20T09:21:00.000-07:00

I have not blogged since the election...I think my depression is under control so it is time to re-emerge. Actually, I have been quite buys and recently attend the Edmonton Victims of Homicide Conference and the BC Police Victim Services conference. And they let me speak at both...so here is an excerpt from my speech. Basically, I think we have lost control of the victim agenda and we need to find strong federal voices to get it back. It is not the entire speech so it may not read completely normal...but I am interested in feedback:

The numbers of grassroots victims groups and outspoken advocates are dwindling. CAVEAT is gone, FACT recently closed its doors, Victims of Violence has become less active and CUSJ is a thing of the past.

The victims` movement has in many ways been incredibly successful and in other ways a failure. I want to take a critical look at where is started, where it went, where it is now and where it might be going. I am afraid I don’t have much hope for the immediate future because I think we have lost control of the agenda.

This will not be a complete analysis of the movement but initially, Canada was influenced by the us which was dealing with racial tensions and the demand for equality. That impacted their victim movement, as did the feminist movement.
In the 1960s, governments around the world began introducing compensation schemes for victims. This began with Margaret Fry and New Zealand was first. Canadian provinces followed suit and most still have schemes today although they vary widely.
The 1970s saw a growth in discussion about sexual assault and the treatment of victims. Sexual assault centres and domestic violence shelters were created, often with the help of volunteers and NGOs. Some system based victim services began to emerge but they were focused on getting victims to cooperate with the justice system and not the needs of the victim.

The 1980s saw reforms to the Criminal Code – the elimination of rape to be replaced with sexual assault, a husband could be charged with raping his wife, etc. the late 80s also say some amendments for victims more generally include victim impact statements, victim fine surcharges and restitution. The 80s also saw the emergence of grassroots victims groups like the two Victims of Violence and Citizens United for Safety and Justice (CUSJ). These groups were formed by parents of murdered children, often involving parolees.

In the 1990, we saw enhancements to protections for sexual assault victims – no means no, rape shield, O’Connor, etc. We saw strengthening of victim impact statement provisions and victims were included in the sentencing principles. The CCRA was passed and for the first time included victims in the federal corrections and parole system. Provinces were passing their own victims bills of rights. More victims groups, like CAVEAT and CRY emerged and groups began talking about public safety issues like DNA, Sex Offender Registries, the Young Offender`s Act and Section 745. The Policy Centre for Victim Issues was created

From 2000 to 2006, victims were given the chance to present victim impact statements at parole hearings, a fund was created to help victims get to hearings and protections for vulnerable witnesses were enhanced.

Since 2007, the federal government announced $52 over four years for the Ombudsman`s Office, CSC victim services, funds for northern communities and enhancements to the victim fund. Legislatively, the age of consent was raised, the faint hope clause was repealed and serial killers are now eligible for consecutive parole ineligibility periods.

But there is not much else – there is lots of crime legislation (2-for-1, mmps, auto theft, white collar crime, drug bill, etc.) but the focus is on how we treat offenders, not how we treat victims.

In April 2010, the Prime Minister spoke at the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week symposium. He began by saying the justice system focused too much on offenders and not enough on victims. The he proceeded to devote 75% of his speech to offenders, including Clifford Olson and Karla Homolka.

He did not mention Leslie or Kristen.

He did not mention Daryn or Ray or Judy or Colleen or Sandra or Ada or Simon or Sigrun or Terri Lynn or Louise or Christine.

On that day, he talked about Canada’s more despised criminals and did not mention their victims.

This is, in my opinion (and that is all it is), where the movement lies today. This government defines victims’ rights and needs by how we treat offenders.
In the most recent election platform, they promised to make Victim Fine Surcharges mandatory and make reforms to EI system to help victims. Great, people said…but didn’t get around to actually doing anything. But when we heard that Clifford Olson was getting pension cheques, they moved within weeks. When we heard that Graham James got a pardon, they moved in weeks.

I don’t want to pay Olson a pension and I don’t think James should have got a pardon, but I would expect that the government would move with the same speed for a promise they made in the throne speech which gets money to front line victim services that can make a difference in the lives of some victims.

We are at risk of losing control of the victim’s agenda. I remember lobbying in the Liberal days…when they had 3 back to back majorities. We pushed them on issues and with the help of the opposition, they moved on victims’ rights and public safety.
We never worried about criticizing them. Today, many community agencies, including victims groups, are scared to speak out against the Harper government. Opposition parties are scared to stand up to them for fear of being labelled soft on crime. If you look at most of the things they have done, much of it has not come from victims groups.

In 2007, the government committed to $13 million for the victim initiative over 4 years. In the 2011 budget, they proposed $13 million for the next two years. The CSC Victim Service Program, which began in 2007, has doubled the number of victims registered and its budget stayed the same – at the same time that CSC’s budget keeps rising.

I remember when the Justice Minister announced $5 million over 5 years for Child Advocacy Centres (and I was really excited because I had championed this as Ombudsman) but my joy was dampened when they announced $160 million in money for prisons the next day. Centres to heal the hearts and minds of abused children is only worth $1 million a year to the government that is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on punishing offenders…with no evidence it will make any of us safer.

DOJ recently estimated the cost of crime to victims is $80 billion a year. We spend $15 billion on prisons and police and courts….and less than $ 1 billion on victim services and shelters.

And what has changed? Are victims any more satisfied today than they were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? Is sexual assault victims better treated in courts…are they more willing to report? Are families of homicide better treated…some, yes, but overall? We have victims in the Criminal Code, CCRA, policies, Provincial Bills of Rights but what has really changed?

There is talk again about national standards and a victim’s charter. Will it help when the legal culture has not changed? The justice system has not changed – it is still about the accused. It is not about the victim.

And let’s not forget, as I believe the victim’s movement has done for far too long - those victims who do not report. Let’s not forget those victims for whom their offender is never charged, or never prosecuted or never even found. I am afraid that we have, to some extent, left these victims behind. By focusing on the system, national standards and a charter, we leave these victims out.

I worry that we have put too much emphasis on the justice system as a way to help victims heal – that if we get justice, everything will be okay. What is justice – it might mean something different to me than you? It might mean something different to me if my child was murdered.

We need to be honest with victims – the system is not about you. It may interfere with your healing, but it is not likely to contribute to it. Sometimes, the best we can do is not making it worse.

I believe we would be better off investing in people than charters and prisons. We need better services, we need more services, we need accessible services and we need better training for those who interact with victims. None of those things get votes and none of them make headlines. Research tells us the process is more important than the outcome – that if we treat victims better, they will focus less on the outcome, or the sentence. But we don’t do a great job, by and large so victims put all their focus on the sentence and it will never be enough. It can never be enough.

Most of the victims I have met who have had positive experienced have done so because of people they have met – a caring crown, a detective who always checked in, a reporter who called to give information, not just get it and often, a victim service worker who went above and beyond.

The system won’t change…much …but the people in the system can make it a better place for victims. At the same time, these services can reach out to victims not going through the system – the young person on the street selling themselves for a hot meal and warm bed; the woman who is fleeing an abusive relationship but is scared to lock up her child’s father; the teenage girl who was given a roofie and gang raped at a party she was not supposed to be at; the young boy whose uncle came into his room at nights and then took him to the ball games the next day.

We also have to be more accepting of Restorative Justice – for too long, we have left this to the offender focused groups and turned out back on them and the victims who participated. We must embrace RJ and those victims and we can help make it better for those victims who choose this path.

The government is spending billions in the name of victims but that agenda will do nothing for most victims. We need to take that agenda back – it is clear that no federal party right now can claim to speak for victims. We need those scarce resources in our communities to have an impact on the lives of more of those touched by crime.

We have had our ups and downs but never have we lost control of the agenda like this before…and we need to find the voices to take it back.

Toronto Star Exclusive

2011-04-27T06:15:00.000-07:00

I have been getting a lot of feedback on an "exclusive" interview I did with the Toronto Star recently. The story ran yesterday although we did the interview a week ago. I stand behind what I said but want to clarify a few things, the first of which is that I did not call the Star; they called me. I did not go out in the middle of an election looking to damage the government...but I have not made my views about their tough on crime agenda secret either.

The reporter was looking at the Tory promises on victims and was trying to find out information about the Ombudsman's Office. She could only find one Annual Report and was wondering why. I could not answer that for her because the Minister had them - his excuse that they were going to introduce them during victims week but the "coalition called this unnecessary election" is a load of crap - he had them for over a year and I doubt he wanted to call attention to my time in the office during victims' week.

My comments, about the government being more interested in the press release about the office rather than the office itself, is actually something I have said before. I did two special reports (with 20 or so recommendations combined) and never received a response from either the Minister of Justice or Minister of Public Safety. You tell me how seriously the government takes the office if they don't bother to table annual reports, do not respond to recommendations made in 2 special reports and I think I might have had 2, maybe 3 meetings with Nicholson during my term.

I also said to the Star and in a number of interviews that I did yesterday that I believe the office can do a lot of good work. Regardless of what the government did or did not intend, the office itself can still be a strong voice for crime victims. It can help victims resolve serious federal issues they may be having and some of the cases I worked on when I was there are a testament to that. I still have victims I worked with as Ombudsman contacting me...some of their cases are ongoing and they want my help (even though I work with Ottawa Victim Services and they don't live in Ottawa)and some continue to express appreciation that I continue to be outspoken on issues that matter to crime victims.

Because of the mandate of the office, it can only deal with federal issues. A lot of victims that called (and I assume still do) had provincial or local issues. The Office can make appropriate referrals but cannot get involved in those issues...although it can identify emerging and systemic issues that may require attention in a more general way.

My criticism was aimed entirely at the government which almost exclusively defines victims needs by how long we punish an offender. That was not my personal vision of the office.

I was part of the movement to create the Ombudsman's office - starting with Marjean Ficthenberg and a small courtroom in Prince George BC in 1995 to working with Peter MacKay and then Carolyn Solomon and her MP, Ray Bonin. I was proud to the Ombudsman and I am proud of the work we did. We put Child Advocacy Centres on the federal agenda, we made the recommendation on victim fine surcharges, we told the government it was wrong when it said it would not allow police to get information from ISPs, etc. I am proud that we helped facilitate the first ever video-conferencing parole hearing with victims and we helped families and individuals who had serious safety concerns and needed help. I have said it many times - one of the things this government did right was create the office...even if their intentions were not what they should have been.

And I still believe that the government is more interested in being able to say they were the ones who created the office than they are in what the office has to say to them about victims.

Here is the article - http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/980068--exclusive-federal-agency-for-victims-called-a-tory-pr-stunt?bn=1.

Confusion about the election

2011-04-24T05:10:00.000-07:00

I have to admit, I am somewhat confused about the most recent polls. Not the NDP surge, although I never saw that one coming...but the continued support for the Tories. They are close to majority territory although I hope and predict that will not happen.

But I don't understand why more people are not upset by the growing, long list of issues. Remember, these guys came to power in the wake of the Liberal sponsorship scandal promising to do things differently.

This is just a partial list, off the top of my head - $1 billion on the G8/G20, millions dropped into Tony Clement's riding which had nothing to do with the G8, hundreds of thousands on a fake lake, the Bev Oda affair, the Afghan documents, the failure to provide costs for the prison agenda, the contempt ruling, the Auditor General's draft report, the most recent Dimitri Soudas affair (how does this guy keep his job), the Helena Guergis affair, the muzzling of critics, the 2008 federal election call which broke their own law, the questions about Bruce Carlson, etc. That is not even a complete list...and so little of it seems to matter.

I am sick of hearing people say, "But all politicians lie." Actually, no they don't. There is a difference between changing one's mind (which the Tories did when they reversed position on the income trust...which I believe was done because they legitimately felt it was the right thing to do) and being dishonest or withholding the truth (which I believe this government has done on a number of fronts, including the G8/G20 spending). And if they lie, why would anyone reward them with their vote? If our kids keep misbehaving, do we reward them because they are just going to keep misbehaving anyway? You want politicians to stop lying...then stop voting for those that do.

Should Helena Guergis have been in cabinet? I don't know, but the PM said she was a great Minister right up until the time he removed her from cabinet and from his party!! Look at some of the members of his party and what they did but they go to stay - Maxime Bernier (removed from Cabinet but not the party), Bev Oda (got to keep her job), Pierre Polievre (after he made those bonehead remarks about aboriginal people on the heals of the historic apology for the residential schools) and let's not forget letting a convicted criminal work in the PM's office. This is hypocrisy...but it seems to be ok with many people.

Conservative voters are a funny bunch. For the record, I have voted both Liberal and Conservative but I don't go into the polls and check one regardless of what the party stands for or has done. That never made much sense to me but I understand people who are loyal to their brand. In the wake of the sponsorship scandal, I don't recall hearing a lot of liberals defend things...maybe my memory has faded, but I think the disgust ran party lines. Yet the same Conservative voters who blasted the Libs seem to be blind to anything and everything Harper does. Some conservative commentators, like those on CFRA here in Ottawa, are swallowing themselves whole to excuse or ignore the long list of Tory problems. I think some of them should have to run a "This is an unpaid) Tory ad" before their shows.

Take the coalition issue that has dogged Iggy. The media has let Stephen Harper get away with the most ridiculous of explanations for his 2004 letter. While he might not have been looking for form a coalition, the only other option he talked about in the letter was he (the #2 guy) be the PM. That he now says different, that he was only putting pressure on Martin, is complete nonsense. His 1997 remarks about the issue show his position is a new one and a hypocritical one. But few people seem to care that he has changed his mind...and if he admitted that and explained why, that would be one thing. But he is counting on us being stupid or not caring...and he might be right on the later.

For me, the biggest issue is this party's contempt of Parliament. Far from the nuisance the PM seems to think it is, I actually think Parliament is important. It is my house...and yours. Sounds corny, but its true. When he disrespects it, he disrespects us.

I could go on and on about why I won't vote for Stephen Harper's Conservatives (although I may in the future when they get a different leader who respects Parliament).

My final point is this...when was the last time you saw a Tory MP differ from his/her party on a serious issue? It may be messy politics, but I actually like the fact that Lib and NDP MPs sometimes go against their parties (although issues of confidence and budgets are unique). It speaks to a healthy, democratic party. But dissent in the Tories is unheard of and that worries me...140+ people always agreeing on everything is not healthy. And I know some of the folks in that party - they are bright, creative people who have opinions and got into politics to make a difference. A conservative candidate who is a retired police officer who in the past always supported the long gun registry has now decided he doesn't support it - I guess its possible that changed his mind when he signed up, but I doubt it. It is that kind of mentality that scares me about Stephen Harper's government. Why attract intelligent, successful people with varied backgrounds if they have to trade in their long held views for Harper's?

I am not a political pundit or political scientist, but I am a voter who wants a government that respects Parliament and tells the truth...and won't vote for a party that doesn't. If you think I am wrong (or right), love to hear from you.

Correcting the Record

2011-04-22T06:07:00.000-07:00

Last night, I was part of a studio audience for CBC's Power and Politics where they had a "debate" on crime - punishment vs. prevention. There was a candidate from each of the three national parties who each gave a statement and then some of us from the audience got to ask questions. I was first to go and asked the Tory candidate, Ed Fast, how he could justify his party's claim that victims were their priority if the spending on victims remained the same ($13 million a year) but the budget for corrections was sky-rocketing. He said I was wrong...that the Tories put an extra $6 million in the 2010 budget for victims. He also touted the creation of the Ombudsman and host Evan Solomon had to point out to him that I had been the Ombudsman...that got a laugh from the audience.

I did not get a chance to go back at him, which I would have loved to do (on a host of issues because like many of his colleagues, he talks in sound bites about justice rather than facts). But here are the facts - you decide who is right.

In 2007, the Tories announced $52 million for the victim initiative which included some good stuff - the Ombudsman's office, the CSC victim services program, money to help northern communities, etc. This was for 4 years...so $13 million a year. In the most recent budget, which was not passed, the Tories proposed $26 million over 2 years...which is $13 million a year.

In the 2010 budget, the Tories did include $6 million over two years for victim initiatives. Half of that was for "reforms" to the Employment Insurance Act to help families of deceased crime victims. The proposed reforms are VERY modest but if this promise sounds familiar, check out the Tory's election platform because they are making the same promise. They did not do this in 2010 so my silly assumption is they did not spend the money they set aside for it.

They did announce, however, funding for Child Advocacy Centres, last summer - $5 million dollars over 5 years. This was based on a recommendation I made when I was Ombudsman and although I was thrilled to see the feds endorse the CAC model, $1 million a year won't break the bank...and the day before, they announced $160 million going into prisons. But they did announce the money and some communities across the country are a step closer to having a CAC.

So Ed Fast was right...some additional money was announced in the 2010 budget (on top of the $13 million per year) but the EI reforms were never actually implemented so I am not sure how he would justify that. AND the Justice Department did not spent $3.9 million of the victim initiative in 2010 because of limited ability to deliver funding!!! So they did not even spend the money they committed to victims. Did you factor that in Ed?

Maybe Ed and I are both right...but he failed to address the bigger question (big surprise...a Tory MP not wanting to talk about how they spend our tax dollars). If victims are THE priority of the government, why is the victim budget staying basically the same, maybe with a little bump here or there, but the corrections budget is going through the roof?

My old boss Scott Newark, who was an expert on the show, said this was a complicated issue because the provinces have jurisdiction over victims and the touted the Tory promise to make Victim Fine Surcharges mandatory. He failed to mention the Prime Mnister made this promise A YEAR AGO and Scott also failed to mention that many victim serving agencies depend on the federal funding to deliver services, enhance their services, do research and for some it means survival. Scott also failed to mention that while CSC's dedicated victim service, which is federal jurisdiction, has almost doubled the number of victims it is serving since 2007 and it is not getting any more money. There are lots of areas the Tories could be helping victims, which don't involve spending on prison cells, and they have chosen not to do that .

So you decide...did Ed Fast answer my question?

Tory crime agenda

2011-04-10T05:35:00.000-07:00

No real surprises in the Tory crime platform...a mix of things left undone, other things that should have been done and the usual lock em up rhetoric. Before I start, let me say this - on paper, the Tory platform re: victims is more fullsome than the Liberals or the Greens (which was silent on victims and NDP platform is out later today). But my problem with it is that these are not new promises so how much can we trust Harper to actually make them priorities this time?

So, on victim issues, they promise (again) to make Victim Fine Surcharges mandatory. I recommended this when I was the Ombudsman and they promised to do this last January in the Throne Speech - it is a one page bill at best and they would have wide spread support in the House (which may be why they don't want to do it...no one to point the finger at). They also promised (again) to enhance EI benefits for parents of murdered children (they also promised this in the Throne Speech) - these "enhancements" are about as little as you can do and still say you are doing something.

They also promise amending the Criminal Code to add vulnerability due to age an aggravating factor in sentencing and after repeated calls by one of their own MPs (Joy Smith, one of the hardest working MPs in any party), they promise a national action plan re: human trafficking and support organizations that assist victims. These are both positive steps.

They have the usual rhetoric about drug free prisons (making us possibly the only country in the free world with drug free prisons). They will end concurrent sentences for child pornography and sex offences (which I support in principle but will only lead to more plea bargaining in reality which is not in the interests of victims) and the big promise is to wrap up a dozen or so pieces of their existing crime legislation and passing it in 100 days if he has a majority.

This one is curious to me...they can't afford give us all the tax breaks and other goodies they are promising for 4 to 5 years because of the deficit but they can afford to pass all this expensive legislation without a price tag. With a couple of exceptions (i.e. Internet legislation), how about we delay the tough on crime rhetoric and use that money for other priorities because most of it, as I have said before, won't make us any safer. In fairness, some of the bills may not cost us much such as allowing terrorism victims to sue terrorists and their supporters - I don't pretend to understand the complexities of this process but support it in principle.

I did not see, and I may have missed it, any reference to the bill to amend the CCRA which has a lot of positive reforms for victims.

If victims are a priority, how about this, Mr. Harper - take the VFS promise, the EI promise, the elder abuse promise, the CCRA reforms re: victims and the human trafficking-victim stuff (if legislation is required) and wrap it all up in one omnibus bill and pass that in 100 days - because I bet you could do that even without a majority (excuse me while I shudder with the thought). I bet the Libs and Dippers would support these initiatives in a heart beat...they might even challenge you to go further.

Overall, the Tory crime victim platform sounds good...but we have heard much of it before and despite the rhetoric, Harper has not done a lot (except for faint hope and multiple murderers bills which affect a very small minority of victims) since 2007 to really help victims of crime. Odds are he will be back in power, hopefully with a minority, so time will tell if victims or tough on crime rhetoric, will be his priority.

The NDP is supposed to announce their platform later today. So far, Jack has committed to more cops (what a novel idea) and more money for youth crime prevention (how about some of that to prevent multiple victimization).

On a side note, Shelly Glover (Tory MP) said Iggy should get rid of the Alberta candidate/former judge for making a bonehead comment about sexual assault (actually, from what I heard, the comment about there being different degree of sexual assault was logical but his example was offensive) because he did not stand on the side of victims. Fair enough, Shelly, but I have been searching all morning for your similar call for the PM to can Pierre Poillievre (my very own MP) who made some pretty offensive remarks on the heels of the PM's historic apology to First Nations people for the residential schools. One could argue, and quite effectively, that PP was "not on the side of victims" yet I can't find any similar comments from Ms. Glover criticizing him. Must be that I am just not using the right search terms or that would be a big case of hypocrisy, no?

Liberal election platform

2011-04-07T09:29:00.000-07:00

I consider myself a bit of a political junkie but I guess I don't know as much as I think I do (I was, after all, the last person in Ottawa to think we would NOT be having a spring election).

The Tories crime platform probably won't be too hard to predict - tough on crime=longer sentences=victims rights. Their approach to crime is not exactly nuanced or complex (not to mention evidence based).

So I was a little surprised to see the Liberal Party's platform on safer streets. It was a little, uhhh, brief. Don't get me wrong - I agree with them on fighting poverty which is a crime (and victim) related issue; I support keeping the gun registry and although I am not sure what a task force on the missing and murdered aboriginal women will look like, I agree the issue deserves attention.

So good stuff...as far as it goes. But that's it? They criticize the Harper approach to crime (prisons, prisons and you guess it...more prisons) but don't commit to repealing one bill.

The truth, which may be too complicated for an election campaign fought on twitter and behind chain link fences, is that the changes the Tories have made may make our system weaker. Mandatory minimum sentences mean more offenders will (a) go to trial which puts a greater burden on Crowns who are already over-burdened or (b) plead guilt to a lesser offence to avoid the MMP which Crowns will accept because they are already over-burdened or (c) will get off because Crowns are overburdened and are at greater risk of violating an accused's right to a speedy trial because more offenders want to go to trial to avoid MMPs.

And, since offenders don't get 2-for-1 credit anymore, they are going to demand speedier trials which the Crown can't do because they are over-burdened which means offenders will (a) plead guilty to a lesser offence or (b) get off because their Charter rights were violated. And ultimately, judges may amend their overall sentences to be consistent with what they used to give when there was 2-for-1 credit.

Now, what part of all of that is (a) tough on crime or (b) good for victims?

Yet the Libs, apparently, are not going to do anything different.

Nor does it appear they will amend the Victim Fine Surcharge which would have allowed them to criticize Harper for a failed promise. No apparent thought to expanding the crime prevention fund to begin to develp programs that focus on multiple victimization. Nothing about passing the amendments to the CCRA to enhance victims rights which the Tories introduced but ignored...same for the changes to facilitate Internet investigations into child exploitation. Or what about a study into why fewer victims are reporting crimes? Human trafficking? Shelters for young people being sexual exploited on the streets?

The possibilities are endless...and they barely filled a page. C'mon folks!!

I will say this, however, as someone with some advocacy experience - we were always more successful when the Libs were in power because they would listen and we could move them from their positions. Its harder with Harper (I won't even say the party since no other opinions matters but Harper's). It was suggested to me when I was not re-appointed that if I ever thought of applying to another appointment (i.e. parole board), it was in my best interest to stop being so critical of the government.

In my opinion, Libs missed a chance - crime/victims are never top of mind issues for the voting public (which I fear is a shrinking population) but it would have allowed them to distinguish themselves. Waiting to see what the NDP says...

A Victim of Crime Election Platform

2011-03-31T19:47:00.001-07:00

Crime issues, let alone crime victim issues, rarely get much attention during elections. Crime usually rates pretty low on the priority list of Canadians during elections. But its what I do so I thought I would help out any of the major political parties looking to develop a crime victim agenda. I am only going to list a couple of emerging priority items that may not be top of mind for most parties. This is not an exhaustive list and does not take into account the ongoing struggles re: violence against women, violence against aboriginals, more services for male victims, etc.

Here are a few items I would like to see a party talk about:

1. a national strategy re: victims of human trafficking - MP Joy Smith and Professor Ben Perrin have done a lot of work on this and it should pay particular attention to domestic trafficking of young aboriginal girls;

2. multiple victimization - a small percentage of Canadians experience a large percentage of violence;

3. reporting rates - why do they keep dropping; what are the trends; what do we know about these victims;

4. a strategy regarding the victimization of people with disabilities;

5. a commitment that the next RCMP Commissioner is someone with a proven track record of being active and successful regarding victim services and rights within policing (and not just lip service - actual results);

Those are a couple of things that come to mind for me. Not exhaustive by far. Anxious to hear some of your ideas....because this may be the only place you will find an intelligent discussion during an election on victims of crime!!

How can Harper claim victims are a priority?

2011-03-30T18:55:00.000-07:00

In 2007, the Harper government announced $52 million over 4 years for the Victim Initiative and it had a lot of good stuff - the Ombudsman's office, new CSC victim services, help for northern communities, etc.

In the last budget, Flaherty gave $26 million over 2 years to the Victim Initiative (which expired this year). That is $13 million a year...which if my math is correct is the same they gave in 2007 (52/4 = 13).

In other words, no additional money for victims...which is not the case for how much the government is spending on offenders because CSC's budget is going up, up and away.

And that number 26 stuck in my mind because that is what Harper spent over a 3 month period to promote the Economic Action Plan - does that sound right...26 million over 2 years for victims of crime compared to 26 million over 3 months to promote his own government? But victims are a priority? Tough pill to swallow when he spent more on his 3 day fake lake photo op than many community agencies have for their annual budgets.

Sadly, like the fake lake, victims have become a prop for this government...and yet the Libs and NDP say and do nothing to call them on it. While far from perfect, the Libs strengthened victim impact statements and victim fine surcharges, included victims in sentencing principles, brought in Canada's human trafficking law, created Internet luring offence, created the Policy Centre for Victim Issues, let victims read statements at parole hearings, created the Victims Fund for victims to travel to parole hearing, created NCECC, etc.

Not only do they not take credit for any of that, they let the Tories own the victim agenda which means the Tories don't actually have to spend more on victims...because it seems no one at the federal level has noticed...or cares

Does the government only support "good" victims?

2011-03-12T12:28:00.000-08:00

I am really disturbed by the media reports that the federal government is arguing that it does not have an obligation to protect sex trade workers because they have no expectation of being safe because they choose to work in a dangerous and illegal trade. This is reportedly the basis of the government's argument in the Bedford decision in which the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down several sections of the Criminal Code that deal with the sex trade (prostitution itself is not illegal).

Before I begin my rant, let me say that I have not read the government's factum (an email to the Justice Minister's office informed us we had to go to the Court where the factum was filed to get a copy...I guess they don't have one in Ottawa they could just email. This is the kind of bureaucratic bullshit that drives me crazy!!!). I should also say that I am on the fence about what to do about the sex trade - many people feel the decision is wrong and should be overturned; others feel we should legalize and tax the industry; and some friends of mine promote the Swedish model which criminalizes customers but not the workers (although there is some disagreement about this approach as well). I am not convinced regulating it will help the most vulnerable but I don't think the status quo is working either. Perhaps it is better to say I don't know what the "least bad answer is."

As difficult as it may be for me to understand, I believe there are some workers who chose this profession because it is good money, has flexible hours, etc. I know some front line service workers who tell me this and I have no reason to doubt them. But I also believe that most workers would rather be doing something else and that many of them have been victimized in some way prior to becoming involved in the trade. Ideally, we would design our law to allow those that chose it to do it safely and get those who don't want to do it out of it. But this is not an ideal world so maybe the best we can do is provide opportunities for those who want to get out BUT maximize protection for anyone involved in the trade.

The government is correct in one aspect - the job brings with it some inherent dangers. Whether working out of your home, working on the street or working for a service where you go to hotel rooms, it has the potential to be dangerous and the statistics bear this out. Some of it is less dangerous (i.e. escort services are considered safer than street work) but it all carries some level of risk (although so do some "legitimate" professions).

So, I don't have all the answers and honestly, I wish the government would stop pretending it did either. I don't know what the best approach is but I do believe the status quo is broken because, as the Court pointed out, the law itself make the trade more dangerous. This is where the government missed the point, in my opinion, because it is blinded by morality and ideology.

But the point of this rant, which I apologize took so long to get to, is this suggestion that sex trade workers are less worthy of protection than police officers, taxi cab drivers or leaders of countries...all of whom accept risks that go with the job. I mean, am I mistaken or did you and I not pay billions of dollars for security at the G7-G20 meetings last summer? Each one of those leaders asked to be their countries leaders and each one knew the risks - according to Stephen Harper's Government, is their safety their problem? I could think of a few things Canada could have spent that money on (and don't even get me started about the fake lakes and gazebos in Uncle Tony's neighbourhood).

The government talks a lot about victims but looking at this case and their agenda, are they concerned with all victims or just some of them? The bill to repeal 745 and to have consecutive sentences for mass murderers only helps a small percentage of victims. The white collar crime bill only helps victims who have enough money for the Bernie Madhoffs of the world to steal.

They have ignored the calls by their own MP, Joy Smith, to develop a national action plan on human trafficking - most human trafficking in Canada is domestic and involves some of the same sex trade workers the government is arguing it is not obligated to protect. If you accept my belief (and I put it that way because some will not agree with me, not because I have discovered this position) that many sex trade workers were victimized prior to becoming involved in the trade (i.e. sexually abused at home as children), then one has to question this notion of voluntarily entering the sex trade.

Many (I would say most) young men and women currently being exploited in the sex trade left home because they were being abused and ended up in the trade. For women, they may have met someone who began pimping them. Or a young male may need money to survive because he is living on the streets. They may need to feed a drug habit.

Either way, the Government of Canada's argument that it does not have an obligation to protect these people makes me sick to my stomach. Some of these people are the most vulnerable in society and are a hell of a lot more in need of protection that Stephen Harper but who also lack the voice to speak up. It's up to us folks...unless you think I am wrong.

I am writing to my MP Pierre Poillievre...will you?

Government has some explaining to do

2011-03-10T07:03:00.001-08:00

I have made no secret of what I think of the Government's crime agenda - it is, for the most part, an expensive shell game that will do very little to enhance public safety. It may look good in slick platforms and makes great sound bites, but even the government has given up trying to give any evidence it will do what they say it will do.

But let's put aside our opinions of the agenda (good or bad) and focus on why the government is close to being held in contempt of Parliament for refusing to provide the costs of all this legislation. They obviously think it is the right thing to do - and they believe that Canadians support them (and some polls tend to support that view)...so why the refusal to tell Parliamentarians and Canadians what this is all going to cost us?

I don't belong to any political party and don't vote for the same party every time I go to the polls so I say this with sincerity - I am disgusted that this government, or any government, would plan to spend this kind of money (we are talking billions and billions) and not tell me what the price tag will be. It is nothing short of contemptuous and I don't care which party you belong to, this is indefensible.

But so is the government's failure to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code to make Victim Fine Surcharges mandatory...which they promised to do OVER 1 YEAR AGO. Given their alleged concern for victims of crime, one would have thought that a one page bill that would easily garner the support of the other parties and pass quickly would be something the Minister of Justice would have done right away. The money raised through surcharges goes to fund services for victims in their communities.

And while I am on the topic, why have the Liberals and NDP not called them on it? The Tories claim to be the party for victims yet they refuse to make a change that could actually make a difference in the lives of victims (unlike most of the legislation they pass off as being about victims) and the Liberals and NDP do nothing. If the Tories won't stand up for the majority of victims and the Liberals and NDP can't be bothered, who will?

On a final note, a big kudos to the Policy Centre for Victims of Crime for showing such leadership on the Child Advocacy Centre issue. I recently attended a Knowledge Exchange they hosted with child abuse experts across the country and although I did not have much knowledge to exchange with anyone, I was amazed at the good work being done. Halifax, Winnipeg, Victoria and other communities are closer today to having a CAC than they were a year ago.

The fund the government set up last year is way too small ($5 million over 5 years for the entire country) when compared to the money the government is spending on prisons....BUT it is making a difference in communities. Progress is being made and Canada has a lot of ground to cover. Cuba has 3 CACs and the province of Ontario only has 1...which leads nicely into the fact that Ontario is having an election this year and I am already scheming with some colleaugues to make this an issue. Evidence from the US shows that CACs are not only the right thing to do for children, but they make sense economically as well.

I need to post more often so my rants are not so long...but would love some feedback. An early Happy St. Patty's Day to all, Irish or not!!!

Have we lost control of the victim agenda?

2011-02-07T14:06:00.000-08:00

I rememebr advocating when the Liberals were in power and it struck me that victims groups were fairly successful to influence their agenda. We pushed them on DNA Databanks, victims rights, sex offender registries, etc. They did not always go as far as we wanted and they certainly did not do everything we asked, but we had a role in influencing them.

Things feel different with this government. I look at their crime agenda and I don't see much that victims groups have asked for. The bill to eliminate the faint hope clause and for consecutive sentencing bill for mutliple killers are exceptions. But the bill on pardons goes far beyond what any victims groups asked for. I don't recall the elimination of two-for-one credit bill being at the top of anyone's agenda. Same for the auto theft bill, the drug bill, etc.

I look at the website of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and compare their list of priorities to the government's list of bills and there is little overlap. One area where there is overlap is with an expansion of the rights of victims in the corrections and parole system. Bill C-39 has many of these elements yet this week, the media reported that the Tories are going work with the Bloc to half that bill and fastrack the provisions on accelerated parole...BUT NOT THE PROVISIONS ON VICTIMS RIGHTS.

Some of the legislation on the ability of police to investigate the online exploitation of children is still sitting in the House with no indication of the government that this is a priority issue. They let the original bill die and have not moved on the new bill since reintroducing it.

They promised to introduce legislation to make victmi fine surcharges mandatory and a year later, the Minister of Justice has introduced legislation let alone try to work with other parties to fast track it.

I guess my concern is that the government is now defining the victim movemenet's agenda and inviting victims groups to support the government...instead of victims groups raising priority issues and asking the government to support victims.

Please tell me if I am wrong.

Right on Crime - The Conservative Case for Reform

2011-01-12T08:02:00.000-08:00

In Canada, anyone accused on not supporting the tough on crime agenda of the government is accused of being soft on crime, a bleeding heart liberal or part of the hug-a-thug crowd. Its complete nonsense but since when was politics about the truth.

However, there is a movement in the US led by conservatives...and I mean Newt Gingrich style conservatives - that is concerned about the cost of prisons in the US. They are arguing against the very direction Canada is heading in and promoting alternatives to prison, evidence based policies, inclusion of victims and Restorative Justice solutions!!!

While I don't necessarily agree with everything they promote(i.e. private prisons), I do think it can and should raise the level of discussion about crime related issues beyond simplistic solutions, name calling and sound bites.

Check it our and let me know what you think: http://www.rightoncrime.com.

Moving forward

2010-12-07T06:14:00.000-08:00

I recently did an interview on the future of the victim's movement. Around the same time, I heard rumblings that the idea of a national victims bill of rights or even an amendment to the Charter was being floated again.

In an ideal world, victims' rights would be in the Charter but the victims movement was in its infancy when the Charter was created. The reality is no government is going to re-open the Charter to include victims rights. Right or wrong, I just can't see if happening in my lifetime so I am not sure the "movement" should waste a lot of time on it.

The idea of a national victims' bill of rights is one that I used to support but my thinking has evolved somewhat. Because of the structure of our country, a national victims bill of rights would have no more meaning than the current Canadian Basic Statement of Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime. The federal government cannot tell the provinces how to treat victims because services for victims (with few exceptions) are the jurisdiction of the provinces. If the provinces are not willing to make their own provincial victims bills of rights binding, they are not likely to allow the federal government to make a national bill binding. So again, I am not this is worth wasting time on.

The role of the federal government in delivering services to victims is limited to specific areas like federal corrections and parole related issues, Canadians abroad, immigration and the military. There are problems with some of those issues, like deportation and services offered to victims within a military setting, and they need to be dealt with.

But for most other victims, the feds are not the main players. It is the provinces and municipalities - compensation, housing, hospitals, policing, prosecutions, etc. And most victims do not even report the crimes and often turn to NGO's like rape crisis centres.

The feds do have a role in helping to share the cost of services and to do/facilitate research. But the idea of national bills of rights, legislation, frameworks and action plans when it comes to meeting the needs of crime victims detracts from where the real focus needs to be - on the ground, providing the services, educating others in the system to be more sensitive and reactive to victims, funding NGOs so they do not have to spend half their time raising money and do project proposals, making sure victims are safe, etc.

There are specific areas where the feds could be more involved, like Joy Smith's call for a national action plan to combat human trafficking - a large part of the plan is assisting victims. The feds could, perhaps as part of the National Crime Prevention, develop a fund to help shelters like the Little Sisters in Winnipeg which helps girls leave the sex trade, which is crime prevention at its most basic level.

I understand the call for these national plans. In spirit, I agree, and I used to be one of those who called for them. But when I see how many laws have been changed and the limited impact we have made, I have come to believe victims needs are about more than how the justice system treats them. Susan Herman calls it Parallel Justice. I don't have a cool name for it, but my good friend Marjean Fichtenberg says we cannot keep defining justice by how we treat offenders.

Lets get back to basics, and lets focus on what makes a real difference in victims lives.

Credit where credit is due

2010-11-03T16:14:00.000-07:00

I always like to give credit where credit is due and the feds have done some good things in the last week.

First, Minister Ambrose announced measures to address the high number of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and to make our communities safer. The Government will invest $10 million over two years to create a new National Police Support Centre for Missing Persons to help police forces across Canada by providing coordination and specialized support in missing persons investigations; create a national “tip” Web site for missing persons and provide funding for culturally appropriate victim services through provinces and territories as well as funding for Aboriginal groups to help the families of missing and murdered Aboriginal women.

Second, they FINALLY re-introduced the Internet legislation they introduced last year which died when the PM prorogued (formerly Bills C-46 and 47). Law enforcement have been calling for these reforms for YEARS. Among the most important amendments is the requirement of ISPs to provide basic subscriber information to cops without a warrant, which I recommended when I was Ombudsman.

And third, the Minister sent a letter to Craigslist and called on them to remove erotic sites in Canada (like they did in the US) where young girls may be sexually exploited and trafficked. Canadian expert Ben Perrin and MP Joy Smith met with Nicholson last week and asked him to do this.

And not long ago it was Child Advocacy Centres. It feels good to acknowledge positive steps governments take...let's hope they keep it up. Maybe we will see somehting on victim fine surcharges, or funding for shelters to help get exploited kids off the street, or funding for victim advocacy groups comparable to offender advocacy groups. Maybe the obsession with tougher penalties and longer prison sentences, which do none of the above, has ended!

Restorative justice

2010-10-10T12:47:00.000-07:00

Its not for everyone, but when someone chooses it, and it works, it can really work. Restorative justice is often confused with a program, but its really a way of thinking about crime...as harm done between the offender and the victim, which is contrary to our criminal justice system. One of the programs that applies RJ principles if victim-offender dialogues or mediation.

Here is an article about one such experience. It involves Jodi Cadman, whose brother Jesse was murdered. Jodi's dad, as many of you will know, was Chuck Cadman who became a national victim advocate before becoming an MP. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Forgiveness+Daughter+late+Chuck+Cadman+connects+with+brother+killer/3651816/story.html

This also shows that the Conservative view of victims is far too simplistic.

Child Advocacy Centre Announcement

2010-10-07T17:23:00.000-07:00

I remember sitting in the Toronto Police Service Child Exploitation Unit speaking to Kim Scanlan and Janet Sullivan about internet crimes against kids when Janet asked me what I was going to do to help these children once they entered the system (I was Ombudsman at the time). I gave some bullshit answer about that being out of the federal jurisdiction but she would not let me off the hook. She sent me information about Child Advocacy Centres (CACs). I was somewhat familiar with them and I when began to read more, I know immediately that if I did anything with this office and title, it had to be something to get more CACs in Canada.

Over the next three years, I read as much as I could. I met with folks in the US, folks in Toronto and Victoria who were trying to get CACs in their communities. But it was the trip to the Zebra Centre in Edmonton that made my heart swell and break at the same time...break for the awful pain these children endured but swell for the amazing people who were supporting them. And then I went to Niagara and saw the same thing, and again in Montreal.

I spoke directly to the Ministers of Justice and Public Safety, I wrote to the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister. I talked about it everywhere I went and every chance I got. And I have continued to do so when my term as Ombudsman ended.

And this morning, the top news item on the radio was the Minister of Justice was going to make an announcement about services for child victims...and it was $5.25 over 5 years to help communities build or enhance CACs.

I can't begin to explain the pride I felt, first pride in my former staff at the Ombudsman's office who worked alongside of me and listened to me go on and on and on about these CACs. And also overwhelming pride in the people who work in CACs or who are working to build CACs or who work with child victims.

This was a good day because more child victims will be supported because of this announcement. Its not enough money...but that's for another post. This is a happy post so no complaining allowed.

Thanks Janet.

Do MPs read our emails?

2010-09-30T09:36:00.000-07:00

I know we are all sick of the gun debate, but I had to share this with you. I sent my MP an email a while ago taking an issue with some things he said on the radio about the registry. He emailed me back and gave me the Tory speaking notes on the registry. So against my better judgement, I emailed him back and challenged the points he made. This was his response:

Steve,

Thank you for your note following the vote on Bill C-391.

As you know, in the House of Commons, the Coalition has voted to keep the long-gun registry. Twenty Coalition MPs originally supported the simple and straightforward bill to scrap the long-gun registry, but under pressure from their Ottawa bosses they turned their backs on their constituents and voted to keep the registry. The Conservative Party does not believe in treating law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sports shooters as criminals. This is the furthest we have come to dismantling the $2billion wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. We will continue to work to scrap it. Sincerely, Pierre Poilievre, M.P. Nepean-Carleton

Now, I did not expect him to agree with me because I was using facts and evidence, the stuff the Tories seem to ignore. But it would have been nice to know he (or whoever emailed me back) read my email. This is probably the same email they would send to someone who emailed about their opposition to the registry.

Is it any wonder politicians tune so many people out?

New Criminal Victimization Survey released

2010-09-28T06:30:00.000-07:00

Here are some highlights from the the 2009 General Social Survey (GSS). These surveys are done every 4 or 5 years...the last one was in 2004. There does not seem to be any indication of a rise in crime but the number of victims reporting has dropped. Nothing here justifies the government's crime agenda but it should focus our attention on victims who do not report crimes (why, services, safety, etc.):

- 27% of Canadians aged 15 and older said they had been a victim of a criminal incident in the 12 months before the survey (unchanged from 2004). Rates of victimization resulting from violent crimes, namely sexual assault, physical assault and robbery, remained stable between 2004 and 2009.

- rates of victimization resulting from household crimes also remained stable between 2004 and 2009 but break-ins increased by 21%.

- just under one-third (31%) of all incidents were reported to the police, down from 34% in 2004. In the case of violent crime, 29% of incidents were reported to police (essentially the same as 2004), while about 36% of household incidents were brought to their attention.

- 9 in 10 Canadians (93%) said they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their personal safety from crime, similar to 2004 (94%).

The good news first

2010-09-27T09:59:00.000-07:00

There was a story in the Ottawa Citizen today about the government's fall agenda and some crime bills they are considering bringing forward...I know, you're shocked. Because I have been so critical of the government's crime agenda, I thought I would start with the good stuff first (it won't take long).

First, the government is expected to re-introduce legislation to enhance police powers to investigate crimes re: the Internet. Two bills were introduced in the summer of June 2009 but died when the PM prorogued in December. Law enforcement have been asking for some of the powers for years and the Liberal government introduced legislation in 2005 (which died when the election was called). One of the main planks is the amendment to require Internet Service Providers to give police basic subscriber information (name, address) about customers. This is key in investigations regarding online child sexual exploitation and originally the government said they would not to do this. One of the first recommendations I made as Ombudsman was on this issue so it will be nice to see the government re-introduce it and hopefully stick around long enough to pass it.

They may also do something to reduce time of mega-trials which often involve gangs and organized crime. Not sure of the details but it sounds good because they have become way too long and far too expensive. It might be time to look at the system more generally because even "ordinary" murder trials are becoming way to complicated. I believe this is an issue the CACP has raised a number of times.

And of course, the Tories are expected to introduce tougher penalties...this time on child sex offenders. This will no doubt be a popular measure...I mean who is going to stand up for these guys? While it may be popular and it may provide some great sounds bites, it won't necessarily make much of a difference since most kids don't report in the first place. Judges already have the option of some tough sentences so unless they are talking about mandatory minimums, sentences probably won't change much.

And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, wouldn't it be nice if the government put the same effort into caring for the child victims that it does scoring political points on the backs of those that abuse them? The Tories will make this debate about those who want to get tough on child sex offenders and those who want to coddle criminals/don't care about kids. Like most of their policies, the real world is more complicated than that and most of us want to stop the abuse and support the kids...their proposal (if reports are true) will do neither.

Oh yeah, Minister Toews is expected to do something on human smuggling (not the same as human trafficking) but beyond tougher penalties, there are few details. It is a complex issue and I hope they get it right but kind of wish they would take a bit more time to consult with experts. What am I saying...they have all the answers so there is no need to consult those elites.

Hill Times Op-Ed (September 20, 2010)

2010-09-26T14:23:00.000-07:00

NOTE TO PM – WHILE YOU’RE UP…

It’s not often that you see our Prime Minister get excited so I was surprised to see a clip of him on the news oozing speaking, almost shouting, with such fervor and passion in his voice. I stopped flipping through the channels to see what national priority had him so worked up. I knew it had to be big….maybe more problems with the economy, an environmental disaster or a new terrorist threat.

It was none of those things. It was the long gun registry. In light of the news that the registry might survive (thank you Joe Comartin), the PM vowed that his party would not rest until the long gun registry was dead. It was such a powerful moment that it invoked memories of Charleton Heston’s famous speech about prying his gun from his cold dead hands.

It is more than a little ironic that the bill that is going to be voted on isn’t even a government bill, especially given the Prime Minister’s commitment to the issue. Or that many observers believe he and his party would be just as happy if the registry survived.

I support the registry but I know some good, decent folk who disagree with me. I believe that even most of them would find it more than a little strange that the only time in recent memory that the Prime Minister has been so passionate about an issue is about whether or not a gun owner has to register his/her gun. I mean, he is never going to rest until the registry is killed? Really? Never rest…over registering a gun? Are there not bigger issues that should be occupying his time? I think there so I have proposed a (very) short list of some things he can work on while he is not getting any rest.

Instead of worrying about the $4 million long gun registry, how about vowing not to rest until Canada’s multi-billion dollar deficit is eliminated? If it’s the money he is worried about, maybe we should not have spent a billion dollars on a 3 day meeting in downtown Toronto or maybe we should have seen if we could have got a better deal on those fancy new jets (assuming we needed them in the first place). We can apparently afford another $30 million on the voluntary census that experts say won’t provide the same quality of information but not $4 million for a gun registry that every national police association supports.

How about developing a vision and a plan for Canada’s health care system in the face of an aging population that will add to the already strained, and some say broken, system we have today? Health care is the number one issue for Canadians and I for one would like to know that the system will be there to support my parents and my children. Why is the health of Canadians not occupying more of my country’s leaders time than a tool that our national police service says contributes to public safety?

Since he is going to be awake so much, maybe the Prime Minister could send an email to the Ministers of Justice and Public Safety and remind them to reintroduce the bills they proposed in the summer of 2009 which would give law enforcement greater tools to track child predators who prey on children via the Internet (and lots of other bad guys too). The bills died when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, to errr, get some rest? There are some in his caucus who probably think the cops are going to be way too busy confiscating guns if the registry survives but I am sure the Chiefs will spare some officers to rescue children being sexually abused.

And while we are on the subject of abused children, how about working to help provinces and communities to develop a network of Child Advocacy Centres to support child victims and their families? Granted, the idea doesn’t lend itself as well to creating catchy slogans and he won’t be able to vilify the opposition on it, but I think children who have suffered horrific abuse are slightly more important than whether a duck hunter has to fill register a rifle. I probably sound like a nag on this issue since I asked his government repeatedly to support child victims in this way but this is an issue that keeps me up at night.

It’s nice to see the Prime Minster get worked up over something; I just wish it was something that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

Partisanship (is that a word?)

2010-09-24T05:59:00.000-07:00

I did not start this blog to be one long rant against Stephen Harper but lately it has felt like that.

I have never belonged to a political party. I have voted for both Liberals and Conservatives, depending on the politics and leaders of the day (traditionally, there is little practical difference between the two parties). I am proud to say I was always able to work with MPs from the Tories, Liberals, NDP and even the Bloc on issues that I felt promoted public safety and victims' rights. And I have been critical of various governments, despite their politic stripes.

But things have changed - Stephen Harper has taken partisanship to a whole new level. While dirty politics and cheap shots are not new, I believe Harper has stopped to new lows. I was recently interviewed by W5 on the need for a DNA Missing Persons Index, which all the parties support. I was asked, if there was all this support, why there was no MPI. Later on, I reflected on that question and it dawned on me that the Harper government is not pushing this because there are no boogie men. This government likes to have a bad guy - on the gun registry, its Toronto elites who want to punish duckhunters. On the census, its more elites who want to put Canadians in jail for not answering person questions. If you don't like their prison policy, you are a bleeding heart liberal who hates victims.

Harper's politics is about fear...don't vote for him because he will do all these good things but vote against the other guys because they want to lock up duck hunters and Canadians concerned about their privacy and let murderers and rapists out to prey on your children. Like no other government in history, Harper seeks to divide Canadians...regular folks vs. elites; Tim Horton's vs. Starbucks; country folk vs. academics. Here is the problem with that strategy...most of us are more complicated than polls might suggest. I love Tim Horton's but I also like Starbucks once in a while and lots of my friends prefer Starbucks. My highschool had 400 students but I have lectured in univeristy classrooms with that many students. I think I am a regular guy but other people less fortunate than I might look at me as an elite because I wear a suit to work...and I might look at John Baird as an elite because he eats at Hy's Steakhouse on a regular basis.

I know there are lots of good people in the Conservative Party. It is full of decent, intelligent, diverse people with different backgrounds, experiences and education. I count a few of them as my friends. Yes, there are some partisan hacks (my own MP is one of the worst). But Stephen Harper values their opinions about as much as he does government watchdogs and experts.

When the Libs were in power, I remember we pushed them on all sorts of issues...DNA Databanks, faint hope clause, sex offender registry, etc. They did not always want to do those things and they didn't always go as far as we liked, but they were open to changing their minds. I cannot think of 1 major intitiative any victim or public safety group has proposed to this government that they have done. I don't mean things like the age of consent, which was good, but which the party had already committed to. I mean things that were not in the Tory election platforms. If its not on their agenda, good luck getting it there. If I am forgetting something (I am almost 40 so its bound to happen), let me know.

And part of this is due to the sad state of the opposition. The Libs finally got their act together on the long gun registry but they are usually so busy playing defense on the justice file or just nodding their heads so they are see as soft on crime that they are not proposing anything. I think the Tories are vulnerable on the cost of their get tough on crime agenda but it is going to require more than just throwing the numbers around...Ignatieff needs to provide concrete examples of what he would spend those billions on...things that would make a real difference in the lives of victims and Canadians.

Sorry for the rant...but there is a disturbing and growing silence on the national level and its one of Harper's making. More and more groups, including victims groups, are afraid to speak out because of what it might mean for their future. And if the rumours about Tory plans to take revenge on groups that supported the gun registry are true, the silence may get louder.

Public safety wins the day

2010-09-23T08:51:00.000-07:00

The long gun registry survived the vote...so why don't I feel relieved? Because my Prime Minister has vowed not to rest until he has eliminated a public safety took every major public safety group in the country endorses.

Yesterday, I sat in the Charles Lynch press theatre as police, a mental health expert and two mothers who lost their children to gun violence pleaded with Parliament to save the registry. Thank you to Michael Ignatieff (and Mark Holland) who showed leadership on this issue and a shout out to NDP Joe Comartin who I suspect played a larger role in convincing 6 of his colleagues to listen to public safety experts...even at the risk of losing their seats. That took real courage...it would be nice to see that once in a while from the Tory benches where even their Quebec MPs towed the party line.

What is sad about this debate is that the two mothers who spoke yesterday and the families of the Montreal Massacre and the many other victims of gun violence who have fought so hard to maintain the status quo will once again be dragged into this fight by the Tory Government somewhere down the road. A government that stands up for victims would not keep dragging them through this painful debate time and time again.

Tomorrow I will post an Op-ed I wrote that the Hill Times ran about the PM's vow not to rest and why I think he has his priorities all wrong.

Gun vote today...then lets move on

2010-09-22T06:23:00.001-07:00

It is being called a historic vote...but that may be overstating things just a little. But it is a big vote for both sides and it looks the bill long gun registry will survive, but it will be a close one. The Tories are in attack mode, but then again, when are they not? They criticize NDP members for changing their votes at 3rd reading but forget the Stephen Harper did the same thing when he voted FOR the registry on 1st and 2nd reading back in his Reform days. They demand MPs do what their constituents wants, but when they do (like Peter Stoffer who is opposed to the registry but doing what the majority of his constituents want), they attack. They also seem to forget promises they made and then flip-flopped on (remember income trusts, no deficits, etc.).

The Tories will be just as happy to see the bill die so they can keep hammering the "coalition" and raising money. And does anyone believe they have not whipped this vote...are we to believe that not one of the 100 plus Tory MPs, who have diverse backgrounds and come from rural and urban ridings, does not disagree with their party's position? I am not buying it. Tory MPs know what happens when you embarrass the boss...just ask Helena Guergis.

The Tories claim its about wasted money...funny how they didn't mind spending $1 billion on a 3 day meeting in downtown Toronto. But wait...they said they were only following the advice of the experts, like Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair and the RCMP. I wonder what those experts think of the long gun registry...oh wait, they both say it is an important public safety tool. Guess their advice is only valid when it supports the PM's thinking.

I support the registry and hope the bill is defeated. I also hope that the Prime Minister, who said he will not rest until the long gun registry is gone, will reassess his priorities and focus on initiatives that will make a difference in people's lives. I would love to see him express the same commitment to healing the hearts and souls of abused kids (Child Advocacy Centres), not resting until there is not one young person trading sex for a place to sleep at night and to promising to reduce the staggering rates of multiple victimization in Canada (2% of experience 60%of violence). Not to mention reducing the biggest deficit in Canadian history, making sure the health care system is strong enough to help both my parents and my children, etc.

Baird dismisses victims as elites

2010-09-17T04:41:00.000-07:00

Minister John Baird has dismissed those fighting to save the long gun registry as Toronto elites days after a group of Toronto victims whose lives have forever been changed by gun violence. Minister Baird is free to disagree with them, but to dismiss their pain and suffering in such a way is reprehensible especially for a Minister whose government claims to stand up for victims.

I am honoured to know some of the folks who spoke out and I know what they have lost. Some have lost children, others have been left physically disabled and they all carry the emotional scars every day of their lives. No one expects them to change Minister Baird's mind (don't let them fool you - the Tories have whipped this vote too) but we do expect him to show them the respect they deserve.

Th richness (excuse the pun) of John Baird calling anyone an elite is not lost on anyone who has seen him regularly dining at Ottawa's finest restaurants.

He should apologize immediately for his insensitive remarks and if he doesn't, the Prime Minister should stand up for these victims and kick him out of cabinet.

RCMP Human Trafficking Report

2010-09-14T10:11:00.001-07:00

The RCMP released a new report yesterday called, "Human Trafficking in Canada: A Threat Assessment." This insidious crime continues to get much needed attention including the federal government's new public campaign to edcuate Canadians about this issue and Ben Perrin's upcoming book. Some of the highlights of the report include:

•Human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation has been mostly associated with organized prostitution occurring discreetly behind fronts, like escort agencies and residential brothels. Such establishments are extremely difficult for law enforcement to detect without proactive investigations.

•Human trafficking investigations have found that foreign national sex workers who engage illegally in the sex trade are vulnerable to being exploited and trafficked.

•Some convicted offenders of domestic human trafficking were found to be affiliated to street gangs known to law enforcement for their pimping culture. It is unknown if human trafficking is an organized gang activity or motivated independently by financial gain.

•Domestic human trafficking victims have mostly been recruited through the Internet or by an acquaintance. The victims were groomed, manipulated, and coerced to enter the sex trade.

•Some victims of domestic human trafficking have been underage girls exploited through prostitution in exotic dance clubs and/or escort services. Control tactics employed by traffickers to retain victims in exploitative situations include social isolation, forcible confinement, withholding identification documents, imposing strict rules, limitation of movement, as well as threats and violence.

•Many victims or potential victims in human trafficking investigations believed that if they did not comply to exploitation, their employers would have been capable of inflicting harm on family members in Canada or overseas, while those engaged in sex work feared that their employers would disclose to their families that they were prostituting in Canada.

•Technological advances allowed individuals or criminal networks involved in human trafficking for sexual exploitation to recruit and advertise victims, particularly underage girls, remotely and discreetly via the Internet.

Invisible Chains

2010-09-08T09:34:00.001-07:00

On October 5th, Ben Perrin's long awaited book, Invisible Chains, will be released. Perrin is one of Canada's leading experts on the subject and the book, he shares heartrending cases of human trafficking, reveals the tactics used by traffickers, and passionately advocates for what we as a responsible society can do to stop it.

I had the chance to read an advance copy and it is a hard hitting, thought provoking book. I encourage everyone to read it.

To learn more about the book and to check out the dates for his book tour, go to
http://www.endmoderndayslavery.ca/invisible-chains-2/overview/.

Op-ed

2010-08-31T13:27:00.000-07:00

The National Post did ran an op-ed I did I wrote about the problem with the Government's approach to victims. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/31/steve-sullivan-victim-rights-still-get-short-shrift/#more-10297.

Doesn't look good for the long gun registry

2010-08-30T11:14:00.000-07:00

Jack Layton, the leader of the NDP, is not going to whip this members into voting against the Private Member's Bill that would kill the long gun registry. While this almost guarantees the bill will pass the House, it still have to get through the Senate before it becomes law. Will Jack pay a price for letting the long gun registry die?

But its a recent editorial by Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz that had me shaking my head. He takes Canada’s police to task for their support of the registration system when he says, “While police can and should be consulted on the efficacy of current policies, police chiefs should not be lobbying to tell the government which laws it should adopt.”

I guess the police were wrong when they lobbied for a DNA Databank or High Risk Offender legislation or a Sex Offender Registry. Oops...I forgot, those were things the Conservatives agreed with so the cops were allowed to speak on those things. Its just the laws that the Tories don't like that the cops should keep their mouths shut on...hmmm, is there a pattern developing?

But this part has me laughing out loud. He said the CACP “..won’t admit it, but it appears they don’t want Canadians to own guns. To that end, they need a database that will help them locate and seize those firearms as soon as a licence or registration expires. It’s about public control.” I assume he has some proof of this because to say otherwise seems like irresponsible speculation on behalf of a member of the governing party. Its a baseless accusation.

The Mosque at Ground Zero

2010-08-30T06:24:00.000-07:00

This is a different topic for me, but I am curious to see what people think about the debate in the US about the "Ground Zero Mosque" which may be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero.

I fully appreciate the views of those affected by 911 who do not want to Mosque built, just as I understand those who support the building of the Mosque. There is not, as I understand it, unanimity among the families on the issue.

I do have a problem with a lot of the debate in the US media which starts out as supporting those family members who do not support the building of the Mosque so close to the 911 site and argue it should be moved 5 blocks, or 10 blocks or 15 blocks away (there is a Mosque 4 blocks away and many more in the area). But some of these commentators then go on to ask where the money to build the Mosque is coming from, who is behind it and what are the links to extremists and terrorists.

It seems to me that if there are legitimate concerns about what the purpose of the Mosque is (i.e. related to terrorism or extremism), it shouldn't be built 2 blocks or 200 blocks away.

But if there is no evidence of that and it is just speculation on the part of some commentators who are using Ground Zero to create fear, then the issue is back to whether the Mosque should be built so close.

On that question, it seems to me they have the right to build it. That doesn't seem to be much of a question...so it becomes one of whether they should or not. I am not sure there is a right answer, but I feel like they should. It seems to me that the terrorists attacked America and the West because of what we (I use the collective we because Canada lost citizens that day as well and we share so many of these values with the US) stand for, which is freedom and tolerance, which is what they stand against. They attacked for the very reasons why this Mosque should be built...because we in the West believe in freedom...of religion, of speech, of our people. We believe in those principles so much that we guarantee them to our citizens. That is why they hate us, why the attack us and if the Mosque is not built, it seems to me that they have won. This is a decision that should be made based on our values, not theirs.

I respect the views of those most affected and I wish the debate was more respectful of both sides of the argument. I don't think it helps that this debate is taking place in the middle of elections in the US...this is not a new plan and has been known for a year but only became an issue recently.

And again, if there is real evidence that terrorists or extremists are involved or behind this, then the debate has to change from where they build it to whether they should be able to build it.

Long gun battle heats up

2010-08-26T05:08:00.000-07:00

The never ending battle over the long gun registry is heating up...again. Third reading for Candace Hoeppner's Private Member's Bill takes place a couple days after the gang returns to Ottawa late September. The fate of the bill rests with Jack Layton and a handful of his MPs. Unlike the Liberal leader, Layton does not appear willing to whip the vote...so it looks like the bill will pass and head to the Senate. The Bloc will vote against the bill, as will the Liberals and of course, the Tories will vote for it (no one in that party is likely to ruin his/her career by actually voting against it).

At the same time, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and now emergency room doctors have all come out to reaffirm their support for the bill. And a new RCMP report...well, new might be a strong word since it is six months old...speaks to the efficiency and value of the registry. Apparently the report can't be released because it is being translated (insert guffaws and laughter here).

Of course, if the bill passes the House, it still must go to the Senate where there are no guarantees. Senators don't have to worry about getting re-elected so they can actually consider the facts and evidence.

Funny, though, if this was such a priority of the government, that its a Private Member Bill that we are talking and not a government bill.

Rehabilitation vs. Public Safety

2010-08-16T07:21:00.001-07:00

A little while ago I heard a politician say that his government was putting public safety ahead of the rehabilitation of offenders. Is it just me, or does that sound really backwards?

He is saying is that rehabilitation and public safety are competing interests; that one has nothing to do with the other; like rehabilitation of offenders is an end in itself and anyone who believes in it is soft on cons, cuddles criminals, hugs-a-thug, etc. You know, all that stuff that makes the debates about criminal justice issues so in depth and meaningful.

I see it differently. Public safety is and always should be the end goal...and rehabilitation is one means to that end. If we can change an offender's future behaviour so he is not going to commit more crimes, that's a good thing. And that means the public is safer.

In case you think I am naive, I understand that not every offender can or wants to be rehabilitated. Some of them are simply too dangerous and will always be. Others don't want to change their behaviour and until they do, rehabilitation efforts won't work. Keeping really dangerous people in prison, for life if necessary, is always another means to the end...public safety.

But if we can and when we can, rehabilitation contributes to public safety. I don't particularly care if rehabilitation programs make offenders feel better about themselves, increase their self-worth, teach them new skills, etc. unless they make us safer. For me, its not about them...its about us. IF we can give a violent offender the tools to control his urges, give him supports in the community and access to programs, I support it because its safer than simply locking him up for a couple years and then letting him go. Because most of them will come out one day...

Again, I don't mean to pretend we can magically rehabilitate every offender, but to pretend that rehabilitation of offenders is somehow is a bad thing, that it means you are not tough on crime, that you don't care about victims or public safety is dishonest. And possibly dangerous...

Playing with Fire

2010-08-12T16:35:00.000-07:00

I just finished Theo Fleury's book, Playing With Fire. It was a good read, especially if you are a hockey fan. Fleury writes like he played the game though...brutal and honest. If he didn't like a coach or another player, he doesn't hold back. He shows rather than tells what the abuse he suffered at the hands of Graham James did to him, how it fueled his anger, ruined relationships, led him to drugs and booze to escape his feelings.

I have also read Sheldon Kennedy's book, Why I Didn't Say Anything. Sheldon was also abused by James and he went public years ago. There are lots of similarities in their stories but they are also individuals and copes differently.

I recommend both books. I have met Sheldon a couple of times and he is truly one of the nicest people you could imagine and he is a phenomenal speaker.

Both men are tremendously courageous and have done a lot to highlight the abuse that males suffer and no doubt have given permission to other men to talk about their own abuse.

Stats, stats and more stats

2010-08-05T07:22:00.000-07:00

Its been the summer of the stats in Canada...who would have thunk it? Stats are too often manipulated to justify positions rather than inform them. But Minister Day's recent attempt to explain the government's spending on its crime agenda was a stretch by any standard.

The Minister tried to link the government's get tough on crime agenda, which is admittedly popular with the public, to the levels of unreported crime. He is right that unreported crime is a serious issue, but it makes no sense to say the government's long list of sentencing bills will address the issue...tough to lock up a bad guy if the victim does not tell the police he is a bad guy who did a bad thing.

However, Day did raise a legitimate public policy question...not one the government wants to answer but one they should (and this is where I get to say I told you so because I did tell them so before I left the Ombudsman's office).

Most victims do not report crimes to police. Actually, fewer victims reported crimes to police in 2004 (34%) than in 1999 (37%)...but the reporting rate for violent crimes actually went up from 31% in 1999 to 33% in 2004. The next survey is due out later this year so it will give us some further insight into the problem.

Given all the progress that has been made in Canada over the last two decades regarding crime victims, we should be asking why the majority of victims choose not to call the police. Why, after all the work done to make the justice system less hostile to sexual assault victims and to raise awareness of the problems, do only 10%of sexual assault victims report? As someone who has advocated for some of these reforms, I am asking myself these difficult questions. Canada is not alone in this problem – it exists in most jurisdictions in the world.

One of the main reasons victims do not report is because the crime was not important enough. If your car is vandalized and you decide not to go through your insurance because your deductible is too high or it might raise your rates, there isn’t much point in reporting the crime. Other victims are scared the offender might retaliate. Some do not believe the police can or will do anything. Victims may not want to report the crime if the offender is a family member.

Day raised the issue and the government could be asking some important questions. For example, what is the risk to victims who do not report (statistics tell us that 2% of Canadians experience 60% of all violent crimes)?

Do governments really want more victims to come forward? The reality is the justice system survives because the majority of victims do not come forward. What would happen if all victims reported all crimes? We would have to double or triple our police officers, prosecutors, judges, legal aid budget and our prisons (even beyond what the government plans to do now). The justice system would buckle under the weight of all these victims.

These are all important questions that should guide public policy decisions and how and where we spend money to assist all victims, not just those that report, and how we can reduce victimization beyond trying to deter people with tougher sentences.

If most victims will never come to the justice system for help, we need to look outside the system to ensure they have access to the kinds of services they need. Victims who do not report will go to domestic violence shelters, sexual assault centres and NGO’s. Governments should be supporting their work more to reach more victims. And we should also be looking at other places victims go to for help, such as emergency rooms, insurance companies, banks, family doctors, municipal housing, etc. We need to better educate these caring professionals to identify crime victims and give them the additional help and support they need.

Minister Day may have inadvertently raised a serious public policy issue, but to really address it the government is going to have to ask itself some tough questions about its approach to victims and crime.

Crime rate down

2010-07-22T06:15:00.000-07:00

According to the most recent Stats Canada report, the crime rate has fallen again in Canada. There were 2.2 million crimes reported to police in 2009 which was over 40,000 less than in 2008. The crime rate fell 3% and is down 17% from a decade ago.

The violent crime rate fell as well but to a lesser extent than overall crime. Still better than a rise. One in 5 reported crimes is a violent offence and 40% of those are minor assaults. While rates for serious assault, sexual assault and robbery fell, attempted murders were up as was criminal harassment. The homicide rate remained stable, which it has been for the last few decades.

Impaired driving was up for the third year in a row, which is concerning. Prior to 2007, there had been a 25 year decline.

Remember, these are crimes that are reported to the police. Later this fall, Stats Canada is expected to release the victimization survey which includes crimes not reported to police. Most crime, including violent crimes, are not reported to police.

The survey will show a higher overall crime rate and it will be interesting to see how it compares to the last survey done in 2004 (it is done every 5 years). In 2009, it showed a slight increase in crime over the 1999 results but not violent crime.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the opposition parties have to say about the new crime stats in the face of the government's crime agenda.

High risk offender absurdity

2010-07-18T15:24:00.000-07:00

I am doing some research and came across this story that I just had to share with you. I cannot believe it did not get more attention because it shows how absurd our justice system is.

In July 2006, Steven Mewhort was released from a prison in BC after completing his full two-year prison term on two convictions of sexual interference. Police issued a public warning, stating Mewhort targets male and female children between the ages of 3 and 18. Less than a week later, Mewhort was arrested for molesting a child at a Surrey, B.C. retail store. He was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference and breach of probation.

If that's not bad enough, according to the sketchy media stories I could find, the Crown applied for a Dangerous Offender designation and the judge was going to sentence Mewhort in July. But Mewhort asked for a delay in case the judge labelled him a long term offender instead and released him...because it was July and kids were out of school and because it was hot they may have their feet exposed and this would make him vulnerable to re-offend!! The judge granted the adjournment. Let's hope the judge is going to declare him a Dangerous Offender and hand him an indefinite sentence.

Is it just me, or is this outrageous? We release the guy once knowing he is a high risk to re-offend...and he attacked a child...and then he has to warn the court not to release him because he might do it again!!

Sadly, nothing the government has done or has on their agenda would do anything to address the problem of high risk offenders being released at the end of their sentences despite being dangerous!

Human trafficking

2010-07-13T10:08:00.001-07:00

I wrote an Op-ed piece for the Hill Times this week about the need for the Prime Minister's leadership on the problem of human trafficking. Despite what you might think about the Prime Minister’s maternal health initiative, he managed got Canadians talking about a serious problem, in many cases for the first time.

It is time he started to show that kind of leadership on issues like human trafficking. Three years ago, Parliament called upon the federal government to develop a national strategy to combat human trafficking, but Canada still does not have a plan. Women are trafficked into Canada from Asian countries and the former Soviet Union. Once they get here, their travel documents are taken. Every aspect of their lives is controlled.

Canadian victims are trafficked within Canada from city to city every day. A new RCMP report calls these the forgotten children and outlines how they are being exploited within and across provincial borders. Young Aboriginal girls are particularly vulnerable to this kind of exploitation.

Young men are also victimized. Research suggests young males get into the sex trade at a younger age than girls and stay in the trade longer than girls.

There is great work being done across the country. For example, the Toronto Police Service has created a Special Victims Unit that focuses on violence against sex trade workers.

It’s easy for us to ignore these victims. Maybe we just don't see our children in them. But if they do not fit our image of what a “victim” looks like, that’s our problem, not theirs. There is no question that these women and children are victimized over and over again.

Canada needs a national strategy to find, support and heal these women and children. And these victims need the Prime Minister's leadership.

Canada's new Victim Ombudsperson

2010-06-23T10:45:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to Sue O'Sullivan who has been appointed the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime. Sue is currently the Deputy Chief for Ottawa Police.

I have known Sue for many years and have tremendous respect for her and all she has done in her career. She is incredibly bright, passionate and articulate and one of the hardest workers I know. She begins her new career in August.

I wish her every success and have offered her any assistance I can give her.

For more information, please check out the Department of Justice website.

Air India Report - A Missed Opportunity

2010-06-19T04:03:00.000-07:00

I admit I have not read the entire Air India report. From what I have read about it and seen on the news, it accomplished a lot in the way of identifying what happened, what the problems were and how some may still exist today. So it may have been successful from that perspective.

However, I think Mr. Justice Major missed an opportunity to address some serious issues with respect to victims of crime. He did observe that the families were not treated well by the government and suggested that the Government create an independent body to examine making an ex gratia payment to the families. But I was unable to find an examination of the response to the families in the immediate aftermath of the bombing and how they were dealt with by DFAIT in those first hours and days, which are so significant for families of victims. I know the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime provided a brief and that at least one of the 911 victims testified on these broader issues.

I was hoping the report would make some recommendations or observations about what DFAIT and the federal government should do if there was another terrorist attack like this that involved Canadians. When I was Ombudsman, we had begun to do some work in this area and were anticipating recommendations from Major regarding the treatment of victims.

There is some work to be done and it is too bad that Major's report did not contribute to that. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime has an excellent report on its website in which made several recommendations in this area (www.crcvc.ca).

That being said, the Prime Minister met with the families after the report was released and indicated that his government would be looking at compensation for the families. Hopefully he will move quickly to set up the independent body Major recommended because this could be a difficult and controversial process that needs to be approached with care and compassion.

Healing Boys and Men

2010-06-16T05:45:00.000-07:00

Last night, I had the opportunity to attend the Canadian premiere of "Healing Boys and Men," a documentary about male sexual victimization. The film told the story of 3 men who had been sexually abused as boys. It was very powerful and if you get the chance, I recommend you see it.

Dr. David Lisak, University of Massachusetts, was one of the men in the film and was there to answer questions from the audience after the film. Dr. Lisak is an expert in child abuse and his comments were very insightful.

To learn more about the film, go to www.bigvoicepictures.com.

The event was also a fundraiser for Ottawa's own Men's Project, one of the few programs for male victims in Canada. Dr. Lisak said the work that the Men's Project is doing and their programs are some of the best in North America and probably the world and training across the US will be based on their work.

Ottawa is fortunate to have the Men's Project but we need more of these programs across the country because male victims are an extremely under served population. To learn more about the Men's Project, check out their website at www.themensproject.ca.

Univeriste de Montreal

2010-06-16T05:42:00.000-07:00

In my post on education, I forgot to mention the excellent work being done at the Universite de Montreal. They have a number of victimology courses with two full time professors and their continuing education program has a certificate in victimology. Sorry for the oversight.

How important is sentencing to victims?

2010-06-15T05:32:00.000-07:00

This is the first in what I hope will be a series of topics that generate some thoughtful discussion. Other questions I plan to pose include whether victim services are effective in helping victims, are victims better off not participating in the justice system, what does victim satisfaction with the justice system really mean, the evolution of grassroots victims' groups, etc. Each topic could be a thesis paper on its own, but I hope to summarize some of the research and popular views out there. I welcome any other suggestions for topics.

Sentencing is a hot topic in Canada right now. There are a number of bills before Parliament that will result in tougher sentences for many offenders. The government says they are doing this, in part, for victims. There are differing opinions on the value of the bills...most of the academic research says the approach will not make the public safer but supporters say tougher sentences are needed to stop dangerous offenders from re-offending. I want to look at sentencing solely from a victim satisfaction level - do tougher sentences result in higher levels of victim satisfaction?

If you read the papers and watch the news, you would think the answer would be yes. Its not hard to find a victim who is upset about what they perceive is a lenient sentence. Victims groups are often standing with the government as they introduce tougher sentencing legislation.

But as is often the case with justice issues, the research tells a different story. Most of the research I have seen (which is admittedly not all of it) suggests that sentencing is not as important to victims as many people assume it is. For many victims, the process seems to be more important than the outcome.

By process, I mean the investigation and prosecution. If victims feel they were engaged in the process (i.e. kept informed by police and victim services, met the Crown, had decisions explained to them, were able to give opinion and were listened to), they say they were satisfied even if the outcome (i.e. sentence) was not what they might have expected going into it. One of the things that affect the satisfaction of victims who do impact statements is whether the judge acknowledges them and their statement in his/her remarks. It is important for some to know the judge understood their statement. (NOTE - I use the term satisfaction carefully because the justice system is not going to make victims happy or heal them. More to come on this later).

On the other hand, if victims are not kept informed, do not have decisions like plea bargains explained, etc., they are more likely to focus to the sentence as the measure of how serious the system considered the crime. And the sentence alone rarely meets the expectations.

This is not to say that sentencing does not matter. Victims expect offenders to be held accountable. One of the problems though is that the criminal justice system is a complex beast that doesn't always make sense to us "outsiders." Decisions are made about a host of issues that without proper explanation seem to defy logic. There are usually explanations for these decisions. They may not not always be good ones or what the victims want to hear, but it helps to at least understand why a decision has been taken.

Sentencing is really complicated. Judges are guided by various principles, including trying to deter the offender from doing this again and deter others from doing this, rehabilitating the offender, punishing the offender, making the offender accountable for the harm caused to the victim, etc. Judges are also bound by sentences given out for similar crimes.

For many crimes, like sexual assault, the maximum sentence is 10 years but there is no minimum. How does a victim, who knows the max is 10 years, come to terms with the fact that the offender only gets 12 months if no one explains it to her. In this situation, the sentence could re-victimize her and make her wonder why she even bothered putting herself through this process. But, if the police had been responsive to her needs, victim services was able to provide information, the Crown took the time to explain what might happen and the judge acknowledged her pain, she might feel quite different. Research shows that victims are not more punitive than non-victims.

I have dealt with victims who were very upset at the sentence, but usually the sentence was part of a long list of complaints they had. I don't recall too many cases where victims, who were treated really well and had all their needs met, complain about a sentence. That is not to say it does not happen or that there are not victims whose satisfaction is directly tied to the sentence.

I think we should be careful putting too much emphasis on the sentence when it comes to victims, both in raising their expectations that if we just gave the offender the magic number, they would be happy, and in letting politicians and those in the system off the hook by not doing all the other things that victims need.

And yes, I realize that the choice of this topic excludes the majority of victims who choose not the report the crime to police and all the cases that are reported but never make it to the prosecution stage or result in an acquittal.

Marjean Fichtenberg - a true victim advocate

2010-06-14T08:22:00.000-07:00

In the coming days, I want to explore some controversial issues about victims, victim services and the justice system to hopefully prompt some thoughtful discussion, but before I do that, I want to tell you about Marjean Fichtenberg.

In the 15+ years I have worked with victims, I have met some amazing people, many of whom have had a tremendous impact on the way those in the system perceive victims of crime. One of those people is Marjean. Marjean's son, Dennis, was murdered in 1993 by a parolee named Paul Butler. Butler was acting as an agent for the RCMP when he was granted parole. He was convicted of second degree murder.

Like many families of murder victims, Marjean needed to know the circumstances that led to her son's murder and she knew right away that the official story she was being given was not the real story. She fought back and eventually forced the RCMP to admit publicly (for the first time, I think) that Butler was an agent and she convinced the BC government to order an inquest into the case.

I attended the inquest in Prince George, BC with Marjean and her family. One of the recommendations was for the creation of a Ombudsman for Victims of Crime...which many of you know led to the creation of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime in 2007.

Marjean's impact went well beyond that and is still evident today. As a result of her case, the NPB-CSC in BC created the first victim advisory committee which is still going strong today and is the most active of its kind in the country.

I think her true legacy will be the people she touched and educated. I have seen her on panels with some of the people she dealt with after Dennis' murder, some of who did not really have much experience dealing with victims. They speak about the lasting impact she has had on them and their careers..which means they carry that into every aspect of their work that might impact victims, and it filters down to others who work with victims. That if, in my opinion, Marjean's greatest victory.

On Wednesday, Marjean will attend Paul Butler's parole hearing. She has made (or might be making as I write this) the long journey from her home in BC to the prison in Ontario for this hearing. And sadly, like everything else she has had to face, it has been fraught with problems. She applied to the Victims' Fund for financial assistance for her and her support person to attend the hearing but as of Friday, their cheques had not arrived. Both on pensions, neither has the funds to cover this trip on their own. Emergency arrangements have been made but given all that she has done, this lady deserved better. These hearings are stressful enough and she did not need this added stress. I know she has contacted the Ombudsman's office and hopefully they can work with officials to make sure this does not happen again.

As you all go about your busy days this week, please take a moment on Wednesday to think about Marjean as she draws on her seemingly endless reserve of courage to face her son's killer.

Few victim advocates are household names, but Marjean Fichtenberg is one of the best and this country owes her a debt of gratitude. She has made things better for those that have and will come after her and I am proud to say she is a friend of mine.

THE NEXT PHASE IN VICTIM MOVEMENT

2010-06-10T05:36:00.000-07:00

I was having a coffee with one of my favourite people in the world the other day and we were talking about how the the victim movement in Canada is at a critical point in its short history...a crossroads. We can keep doing what we have been doing, which is push for more laws and policies (and some changes to both are necessary). We can watch as politicians of all political stripes do things in the name of victims that really don't help victims very much.

Or we can role up our sleeves and start doing the really hard work. The other stuff is pretty interesting, I have to admit. I used to get a rush when I went before a Parliamentary committee and it can be a boost to the ego to be invited to a press conference or meeting with a Minister. And it was all necessary to get as far as we have. And yes, lets pat ourselves on the back folks...we have come a long way.

But I think the next phase has to have a different focus (and I cannot take credit for the idea because it is not a new one) - education. We have changed so many laws and policies and there are so many victim services now...but the criminal justice system has not changed. The inside of the courtroom looks an awful lot like it did two decades ago. Very few victims do impact statements, many do not know what there rights are, sexual assault victims are still be treated badly and the list goes on.

As others have pointed out, those in the system (lawyers, Crowns, judges) have not changed along with the laws. Many (with some exceptional exceptions) still do not believe victims have a role in the system beyond being witnesses for the prosecution. They are a nuisance. They are more work. And they are so emotional!!!

The next phase of victim advocacy, in my humble opinion, is colleges and universities and law schools and maybe even highschools (I discovered an interest in the law in a highschool law class). Algonquin College is starting a new Victimology Graduate Certificate Program this fall. Irvin Waller has been teaching a victimilogy course at Ottawa University for years. Alan Young is a strong advocate for victims and teaches at Osgoode Hall Law School. But these are the exceptions when they should be the norms.

We need ideas on how to make this a reality. We need to have Canadian content available for teachers to teach. We need to change the system...from the inside this time.

Ideas anyone?

Bill C-391

2010-06-08T07:13:00.001-07:00

There are few issues in Canadian politics as controversial as the gun control debate, more specifically the long gun registry. Although I support it, I have never understood the amount of attention the issue receives.

Its a stretch to call it a debate anymore, it has become so heated. Its sad, really, because there are intelligent, decent people on both sides of the issue. I know MPs who disagree with me on this issue but who care deeply about public safety and victims of crime.

Having said that, it seems to me that if you are going to take part in the debate, like appear before the Committee on Bill C-391, a Private Member's Bill that would kill the long gun registry, then you should be knowledgeable on the issue. Yet when Senator Pierre Boisvenu went before the committee a couple of weeks ago, he admitted he was no expert on the issue but he used to hunt when he was younger.

When asked if he thought that the registry had saved lives because weapons had been removed when firearms registration certificates were revoked because of mental illness, domestic violence, risk of suicide, etc (over 7000 certificates were revoked in 2009), Senator Boisvenu said there was no way of knowing if any lives had been saved. He then proceeded to give an example of a case where a request to revoke a license from a mentally ill man was issued but it was not carried out and he murdered someone two weeks later.

Isn't that the point, Senator? Had his gun(s) been taken away, the victim might not have died. Had the guns not been taken away from in those other 7000 cases, more people might have died. Granted, we can't prove it anymore than we can prove we prevented a sex offence by keeping a dangerous sex offender in prison. But we can use common sense.

This is really an essential part of the debate. Critics of the registry always want proof that a life has been saved. But its ridiculous and they know it. We can never prove we prevented a crime. If we used Senator Boisvenu's logic, we would have to revoke all money from crime prevention programs, let out all Dangerous Offenders, etc. We would probably have to scrap the sex offender registry if part of the aim of it is to prevent crimes...because we will never be a able to prove it did that. But those same critics do not demand the same standards for tools they support.

Having publicly stated my position on this issue before, I will not be surprised if hateful messages start appearing on my blog. It has happened before, although I have been spared much of the filth and vile messages other I know have received.

Every Image, Every Child

2010-06-01T04:07:00.000-07:00

A year ago today, I was in Montreal speaking to an audience of some of Canada's finest police and Crowns who work in the area of Internet child sexual exploitation. It was the official release of Every Image, Every Child (www.victimsfirst.gc.ca), the first special report of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and it made 9 recommendations to the federal government.

And one year later, the federal government has still NOT responded to the report or its recommendations.

The report was pretty hard hitting - people have told me that they could not finish it, or had to read it in chunks. It was supposed to make people uncomfortable - you should not read about child abuse and not feel something.

The recommendations dealt with the need for more research into the long term impacts of images of child sexual abuse being on the Internet (I am not aware that any has been undertaken), the need for Child Advocacy Centres (no announcements of funding), the lack of legislation to help law enforcement get basic customer name and address information quickly without a warrant (a bill was introduced weeks after our report but the Prime Minister let it die when he prorogued and the bill has inexplicably not been reintroduced), the importance of protecting the privacy of children, etc.

I am somewhat bias, but it was a good report and the government's failure to respond to it raises some serious concerns. The report was about rescuing, supporting and protecting children and they are silent on that? They can't respond to the first major report of an office they set up to make recommendations on issues that negatively impact victims? They let a bill that might help cops find kids being abused die but they reintroduce bills on auto theft and conditional sentencing?

Maybe protecting kids doesn't grab the headlines like pardons and pensions for high profile offenders. Personally, as offensive as the later may be, the possibility of leaving a child in a situation where he or she may be abused one more time offends me a whole lot more.

If you agree, email the Minister of Justice and demand he finally act on the recommendations in Every Image, Every Child (Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca).

Freedom

2010-05-31T17:16:00.000-07:00

Some friends recently told me they were glad I was no longer the Ombudsman because it allowed me to speak more freely. In fairness, the government never told me what I could and could not say. But there were issues I remained silent on because I had a narrow mandate and it kept me pretty busy.

So its true that I am more free to speak on a wide range of issues.

It also helps that I no longer am part of a group. When I was with the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, I had to worry about strategy and funding. If I was with a victims' group today that relied in any way on government funding (i.e. projects, grants), I probably would not be saying the things I am now. Victims groups, or any groups dependent on government funding, have to be very careful about what they say about the current government's agenda. Say the wrong thing and funding may disappear.

Sometimes it is best, for the organization, to remain silent rather than speak out. Its easy to be moralistic and principled when you don't have to worry about whether the doors will remain open...but if biting your tongue means being able to serve victims, then that is sometimes what these groups have to do.

I no longer have that problem. I can call it look I see it and I hope you will too. There is a lack of political opposition to most of what the government is doing on the justice front and no one (including the government) is standing up for victims...so we need to fill that void.

I hope you will join me in that. It is what this blog is for.

Cults and boondoggles

2010-05-28T05:32:00.001-07:00

A little while ago, a press release from a Tory MP compared the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) to a "cult" because of their view of the long gun registry. According to the dictionary, a cult refers to "great devotion to a person, idea or movement and a small group of people characterized by such devotion.

The CACP, along with the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards, have always supported the long gun registry. They recently set joined forces to set up a website countering the myths about the registry and illustrating why they believe it is an important public safety tool for law enforcement at www.truthsandmyths.ca.

I support the registry - I figure if the people who are using the tool everyday say it is working for them, that works for me. They are, in my opinion, the real experts about its value.

But I found the reference to a cult somewhat ironic coming from a Tory MP - when was the last time you heard a Tory MP offer an opinion different than the official government position? I understand that on certain issues, MPs may need to fall in line and tow the party line...but on everything? Please, if I am wrong on this correct me, but I just can't remember the last time a Tory backbencher (and there are some really good, smart, hardworking MPs in that caucus) expressed a different opinion than the Prime Minister did on a significant issue.

However, in the policing community, there are officers who disagree with the positions of the CACP and CPA. I observed some of the many debates the CPA had amongst its members and not everyone agreed at the end of the day.

Then there is the tired old reference to the gun registry as a boondoggle. The dictionary doesn't really speak to the way politicians use the word but it does refer to wasteful. The allegation of critics of the registry of course was that the costs were higher than what the Liberal government said they would be. The Tories (successfully) have used this line of attack for years.

So there are no similar howls of protest now that the costs of hosting the G8 and G20 have soared to over $1 billion!! Jeffrey Simpson (Globe) and Don Martin (Post) both have great columsn today and give some examples of what this amount of money could be spent on. And the government says the 2-for-1 credit bill would cost $90 over 2 years and now say it will cost $2 billion over five years (and they don't want to share the anticipated costs of other legislation).

Was I really a stooge?

2010-05-27T07:03:00.001-07:00

I recently connected with an old friend of mine, John Allore who started a blog as part of his investigation into the 1979 murder of his sister, Theresa. John recently posted an encouraging note about my blog on his site under the title, "Harper Stooge No More" although he assures me that he doesn't really think I am a stooge.

I want this blog to be a critical look at the current government's crime and victim agenda (which are not the same thing), but I do not just want to be critical. When positive initiatives are put forward, by the government, the opposition or other groups, I will promote them. And lets be fair, the government has done some good things - the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, the emergency fund to help Canadians victimized abroad and the temporary residency permits for victims of trafficking are a couple of examples.

But there is so much more they should be doing. Last week, a friend who was trying to track significant dates in the victims' movement hit a wall when she got to 2007 (after the government announced its victim strategy which had some of the initiatives mentioned above). Since then, there has been little to celebrate in the victims' movement at the federal level.

And if the issue was that there was no money to go around, that would be one thing. But when billions are being committed to stiffer penalties (and I don't even think they know what these programs will cost), then the $52 million over for 4 years for victims announced in 2007 and another whopping $6 million over 2 years in this budget does not cut it.

But there is lots of criticism to go around. The opposition parties deserve some of the blame here as well because when it comes to justice issues, the government largely goes unchallenged. The Liberals are so scared of being painted as soft on crime that they don't even bother to oppose anything.

They seem to have forgotten what they did in government - the created the DNA Databank, they created the Sex Offender Registry, they created the Policy Centre for Victims Issues, they created the victim fund that helps victims get to parole hearings and let victims give oral impact statements at hearings, they passed laws to create mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes and sexual offences against children, they passed Canada's first human trafficking law, etc. Look at some of the bills the government has introduced - the government's Internet bill to let police get basic subscriber information from ISPs to help in investigations into child sexual exploitation was originally a Liberal bill. The government bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which makes some important changes for victims, was based on a former liberal bill.

The former Liberal government didn't get it all right and they often had to be pushed into doing the right thing, but to suggest they did nothing on the justice-victim front, as this government would have us believe, is nonsense. Still, the Liberals let the Tories own this issue.

Granted, the Tory message is simple (and probably well tested) - people understand tough-on-crime. And it is not easy being in opposition (ask Stephen Harper), but Canadians and victims deserve better from them than what we are getting on the justice file.

My advice to the opposition parties, which is the same advice I tried to give the government, is that justice is about more than how much we punish offenders. That narrow view ignores the majority of victims of violent crime, victims of sexual assault and child victims who never report their crimes. There is lots the opposition parties could be doing to demand action from the government on important justice related issues. They could put forward a series of justice initiatives ( I have some ideas), that focus on victims and crime prevention and high risk offenders, that the current government is not doing because it is spending billions on getting tougher on crime. Give Canadians an alternative vision of justice. To do so will take the courage to challenge the public perceptions of crime and a real commitment because real solutions are not explained in simple soundbites, nor will they be solved with a bill or a press conference - they take time.

Changes to EI re: victims

2010-05-26T07:08:00.000-07:00

In the budget 2010, the government committed a whopping $6 million over 2 years to new victim initiatives (not quite as much as Corrections got), but its it better than nothing, right? Half of the money is going to pay for "reforms" to the Employment Insurance Act to help families of deceased crime victims (and families of deceased military personnel). Like others, I recently submitted some thoughts to HRSD as part of their invitation to get feedback.

Basically, I said that I support any changes that help victims, but that I felt that these amendments were far too limited. Right now, people can apply for up to 15 weeks off if they get medical certificate, if for example they have an illness. Under the proposed reforms, immediate family members of a deceased victim can get the first 6 weeks off without a medical certificate. If they want the additional 9 weeks, they have to get the certificate.

I don't want to say the government is doing nothing, but they are coming as close to possible as doing nothing but while being able to say they are doing something. The initiative is mainly in reaction to a bill passed in Quebec that allows families of deceased victims and victims of violent crime to take up to two years off (depending on the crime) without pay. Again, a nice gesture, but I do not know many victims or families who can afford a year off without pay.

The Quebec bill prompted a Bloc member to introduce a Private Member's Bill that would essentially allow similar rights under federal legislation but also with pay. Given what this might cost, when I was Ombudsman, I was not sure this was the best way to spend scarce resources for victims....however, if the government can afford to spend billions on its crime agenda, then it can afford to more than 6 weeks without a doctor's note for victims. Under the current proposals, immediate family does not even include siblings of deceased victims.

What about the majority of crime victims - rape victims, or parents of children who have been sexually abused? What about the challenges victims face in getting time off to attend preliminary hearings and trials?

Again, I support the measure because it will make it easier for some victims, but it falls far short of what the government should and could be doing with all the money they are going to spend on offenders.

Let me know what you think.

What is the price tag of the crime agenda?

2010-05-24T05:47:00.001-07:00

The Globe had an interesting editorial last week, arguing that the Government should come clean with the tab for its "get-tough-on-crime" agenda. They quote Public Safety Minister as saying he would rather not share that (information), but he has admitted that ONE piece of legislation (eliminating 2 for 1 credit) will cost $2 billion over the next 5 years. Originally, he said $90 million over 2 years.

The Government has made no secret of its commitment to introducing these bills (they have less of a commitment to actually passing them) and they say they have public support, so why not tell us what this is going to cost us? The price tag is a rather important detail given the current fiscal situation and the cuts that other departments are being asked to make.

More importantly, we need the numbers to determine if this is the best way to spend scarce resources. Because if we spend it here, we can't spend it elsewhere...like on Child Advocacy Centres, or shelters for trafficked youth, or programs for male victims, or funding for victim advocacy groups, and the list goes on.

They keep saying its worth the money because it will protect victims...so where is the proof of...or would they rather not share that either? I am all for locking up dangerous offenders for as long as necessary, but the approach of this government goes beyond dangerous offenders.

Perhaps most disturbingly is their continued assertion that they are doing this in the name of victims. If you are going to ask victims and victims groups for support you, at least do something that helps victims meet the everyday challenges that victimization brings...not something that helps the government get more votes.

2010-05-21T13:10:00.000-07:00

From time to time, I will offer some comments on interesting media articles. Today in the National Post, there was an article about a rally for an abused dog and the question was raised as to why crimes against animals seem to get so much more of a reaction from Canadians than crimes against people do. I remember speaking to a former Minister of Justice who told me that she got more mail about cruelty to animals than she did crimes against children.

Is it because we see animals as blameless and deep down, a lot of us still blame victims for their own victimization? Is it because of those heart wrenching commercials and images we see on tv of abused or neglected animals? I know if the public ever saw the images that law enforcement officers come across everyday on the Internet of children being raped and tortured, there would be a massive outcry...or at least I like to think there would be.

I understand people love their pets. I have one too. But let's get our priorities straight. These two crimes, cruetly to animals and child abuse, while both tragic and wrong, are not comparable. We need to get more people outraged about the crimes against children committed everyday in homes and streets across the country. Its only then that our governments will put the resources and attention into solving the problem and helping the victims.

Welcome to my blog

2010-05-21T09:05:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my new blog! I am new to this so bear with me until I figure it all out.

I started this blog to share some of my experience, knowledge and opinions about the realities of crime victims in Canada. What you hear in the media or from politicians is not always accurate, or at least not the entire story.

I have spent almost two decades studying and working with crime victims, most recently as Canada's first Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. The victims' rights movement, in my opinion, is at a crucial stage and we need to have a serious dialogue about what the role of victims are in the system, how we help all victims (including those who do not report) and what needs to be done for the most vulnerable. You will see a recurring focus on children and young people.

There are those that would have us believe that if we just keep punishing offenders more, victims will be happy. I have never been shy about the need to deal with violent, repeat offenders, but I have serious concerns about the cost of the current obsession with sentencing, especially since it it being presented to the public as a way to help victims.

Anyway, more to come later. Have a great long weekend everyone.