Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 6, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-13, to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, and Bill C-220, to amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act (profit from authorship respecting a crime), met this day at 10:35 a.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, I call this meeting to order. The first item of business on our agenda is consideration of Bill C-13, an Act to Amend the Parliament of Canada Act. We are honoured to have the Honourable Don Boudria here as our witness.
Would you like to proceed, Mr. Boudria.
The Honourable Don Boudria, M.P. P.C., Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: Madam Chairman and honourable senators, I am pleased to be here this morning. I have offered to attend this committee of your honourable house to present to you Bill C-13.
Bill C-13 is a direct result of the configuration of the present House of Commons. As honourable senators will know, as a result of the last election there are now five parties in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, there is no measure in the present Parliament of Canada Act by which the Board of Internal Economy can accommodate five parties. As a result, we have to amend the legislation to ensure that all parties in the House of Commons are represented on the Board of Internal Economy which manages the internal affairs of the House of Commons.
One may question why the precise number of members of the Board of Internal Economy is in the act to begin with; however, it is. Given that it is in the act, the only possible forms of recourse are either to have two parties unrepresented on the board, or the course of action I am presenting to you, which is to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to make room for them.
Honourable senators will know that we have had to make a number of amendments to many things we do in the House of Commons in order to accommodate the five-party situation. They involve adjustments to standing committees, procedures for Question Period, changing of the Standing Orders, and so on.
In spite of the "pizza Parliament" predictions by the media prior to the House sitting, I think it has worked very well overall, thanks to the cooperation of all parties represented in the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the bill before you today proposes to increase the number of members on the Board of Internal Economy by two. Therefore, pursuant to this bill, the Board would consist of five government members, the Speaker of the House, the Leader of the Opposition or his nominee and one member representing each party. As there are four opposition parties plus the representative of the Leader of the Opposition, the final tally would be five opposition members, five government members, plus the Speaker of the House of Commons.
As you have undoubtedly noted, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons would no longer be a member of the Board of Internal Economy. As a rule, the Deputy Speaker is a government member. He has been replaced by another government member, still with a view to ensuring balanced party representation on the board.
[English]
Finally, because there is no longer a Deputy Speaker on the board, we have included a provision that in the event of the death or resignation of the Speaker of the House of Commons, where there would not be a Speaker, at least one member of the government would be on the board. Otherwise, under this configuration there could be a situation whereby only opposition members constituted a quorum. We had to make special provision for that given the even number of members from the government and the opposition.
That pretty well describes the bill, honourable senators. It may be important for me to indicate to you that the draft bill received the support of all parties in the House of Commons. It was given unanimous passage through all readings in the House in one day. Therefore, it is the clear will of the House of Commons and all parties who are represented in the House.
I am available to answer any questions that Madam Chair or honourable senators would like to ask.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Boudria.
[Translation]
Senator Cogger: Thank you for these explanations, Mr. Boudria. A question was put to the Honourable Senator Carstairs yesterday in the Senate when she tabled this bill. However, she was not able to answer it. The question was as follows: In view of its composition, does the Board have any intention of opening up its meetings to the public?
Mr. Boudria: Bill C-13 makes no provision for this. As you no doubt already know, the Board of Internal Economy is an administrative body and the duly sworn members may not disclose the nature of the board's deliberations. The board designates two spokespersons to comment on the report of its proceedings tabled to the House of Commons.
[English]
The Chairman: If there are no further questions, I should like to say, Mr. Minister, that you have answered our questions and we will take this matter into consideration immediately.
Mr. Boudria: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and honourable senators, for allowing me to be here for this morning's meeting. I was pleased to make the offer to appear, and I think it is important for us to continue the good cooperation that we have between our two Houses, something I have been personally striving for since I have been in my present position. That is why I offered to come and present the bill before honourable senators this morning. With that, I thank you in advance for the consideration that you will be giving to this bill. I am sure that Members of the House are anxiously awaiting its passage so that those who are effectively disenfranchised right now -- the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party -- will be represented duly on the Board of Internal Economy, and hopefully as soon as possible.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, at this point perhaps someone could move either that the committee proceed to consider the bill and dispense with clause-by-clause study of it or that the bill be reported to the Senate without amendment.
Senator Pearson: I so move, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. I am sure that Mr. Boudria will be very glad to know that this bill will be reported today to the Senate.
We will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-220. I would ask our witnesses to join us at the table. I understand that we have Mr. Steve Sullivan and Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt.
Welcome. Normal procedure in this committee is that we now turn the floor over to you. Please proceed.
Mr. Steve Sullivan, Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is a national advocacy group for victims of crime across the country. We work with every major victims' group across the country, including Victims of Violence. We will keep our opening remarks brief so as to entertain any questions honourable senators may have.
Bill C-220 is based on a very simple principle, that is, criminals should not profit from their crimes. It is a principle that is entrenched in the Canadian criminal justice system. It is also a common sense notion that the public supports wholeheartedly.
Bill C-220 addresses the issue of convicted criminals who attempt to profit from their crimes by writing books, selling their stories to media, making videos, and so on.
In essence, Bill C-220 would amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act to make the copyright of the story of the offence the property of the Crown. It, in essence, becomes part of the sentence. From what I understand and have read about the bill, the advantage of doing that is that it would allow it to be enforceable outside the country. We can all agree that the biggest threat of movies being made or books being written is from our neighbours to the south rather than in Canada. I do not think that the appetite is as strong here as it is there.
Many legitimate concerns have been raised about Bill C-220. We will try to address some of them today.
The most controversial issue is that it may violate section 2(b) of the Charter, which is a right guaranteed to us all, the right of freedom of expression. We do not think that Bill C-220 violates that right in any way. There is nothing in the Charter that says that freedom of expression is based on profit. Nothing in Bill C-220 says that people convicted of any crime cannot tell their story. It simply says they will not be able to profit from the telling of that story.
However, the notion that it does violate that section has continued to be raised. I note that in recent newspaper articles, one of the concerns remains that it will violate section 2(b) of the Charter. It is important to recognize that our Criminal Code already has sections in it which state that freedom of expression is limited. We have obscenity laws and laws dealing with undue exploitation of sex and violence. People cannot write about those things. We have laws about child pornography. We place limits on what people can write when it involves stories about children involved in sex. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded room because it is dangerous. We place those limits on freedom of expression because they are reasonable. We have weighed the interests of both sides -- freedom of expression versus the benefit to society -- and we have decided certain things cannot be said. We also have hate propaganda laws.
It is important to keep in mind that we have already limits on freedom of expression, and they are reasonable limits. We argue that if the committee finds that this in any way violates section 2(b), then it is a reasonable violation. We argue that it is not a violation because it does not prevent people from expressing themselves.
Another concern is whether the proceeds of crime sections of the Criminal Code are limited to being directly or indirectly from the commission of a crime. The profits sought under Bill C-220 are derived from a legitimate act, which is writing a book, telling a story or selling movie rights. We argue, however, that you cannot write the book about a crime if you have not committed the crime. Therefore, there is a direct or indirect connection to the commission of the crime and the writing of the book or the telling of the story.
Others have raised concerns that this bill goes too far in that it extends beyond a person's sentence. It is, in essence, a life-time prohibition on profiting. That is true, but if we accept the principle that people cannot profit from their crimes, then that means they cannot profit whether they are in prison, whether their sentence has expired or 50 years after. If you accept that basic principle, then I hope you would agree that people should not ever profit from their crimes.
Mr. Rosenfeldt will probably address the issue of the protection that this bill would offer to victims of crime. He can do so more eloquently than I can. For those of you who do not know, his son was one of the 11 children murdered by Clifford Olson. I will leave that part of our discussion to him.
I know that this committee has raised particular concerns about people who have been convicted of very serious crimes who are innocent and who, later, have found out that our system has failed them. The names of Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin and David Milgaard come to mind.
I would argue that those individuals would not have been prevented from writing a book or profiting from it. If Guy Paul Morin had written a book while in jail still under the assumption he was guilty, he would have written, I assume, a book about what it felt like to be wrongly convicted. He would have written a book about his trial and the atrocities that he felt took place. He would have written a book about what it was like to be in prison and to be an innocent man. He could not have written a book about what it felt like to kill Christine Jessop, for example, because he did not do it. His book would not have been based substantially on the murder of Christine Jessop because he had not taken part in it.
People who are serving sentences or who have been convicted of crimes of which they are not guilty could write a book about their experiences yet not be captured by this bill. The same could be said for a convicted robber, for example, who writes a book about his life. Perhaps he had a bad childhood which led to certain things that he did in his life. If he had mentioned or made passing reference to his crimes, it would not be picked up by this bill because it has to be substantially based on the offence for which he was convicted. If, for example, a convicted armed robber writes a book about his life, his experience in prison, how he has changed his behaviour and how he has rehabilitated himself, he would not be captured by this bill.
What we have to remember when we are talking about Bill C-220 is that it takes aim at works based substantially on an actual crime. There have been recent articles in the paper, ones which I think have been rather misleading, about legitimate authors who write books about high profile criminal cases. Kirk Makin wrote an excellent book about Guy Paul Morin. I have read it a couple of times. Michael Harris recently wrote an article about this issue. I do not think the intent of the bill is to prevent people from telling the stories of crimes such as those. I argue that it does not.
However, if you find the bill is too broad in the sense that it might prevent people like Kirk Makin from writing a book about a Guy Paul Morin case, then amendments can be made to allow for that. I think he probably could write the book any way.
The other issue which was raised is the issue of collaboration. Could Kirk Makin have collaborated with Guy Paul Morin? I think he could have done that and made money from it. I do not think Guy Paul Morin could have done so. I probably should not use Guy Paul Morin because we addressed the issue of him being innocent. If Kirk Makin collaborated with Paul Bernardo to write a book, for example, I do not think Mr. Bernardo would be able to benefit under this bill.
Keep in mind what "collaboration" means. It does not mean going into a prison and interviewing someone and saying, "Tell me what happened." As I understand it, collaborating is two people working together on a project. That does not mean you read transcripts from a trial and then talk to someone for a couple of hours. Collaboration is a very complete partnership. None of the people to whom Mr. Harris, and others, refer in their articles have collaborated with any of the offenders about whom they have written about.
The other serious concern that this committee had was with family members. We testified on this bill when it was numbered C-205. At that time, we raised concerns because we thought the bill was somewhat broad in that it might prevent someone who was an incest survivor, for example, who was related to the offender but who was also the victim from telling about such crimes. Before the bill was amended, that person would not have been able to write a book and profit from her legitimate experiences as an incest survivor because she was related to the offender. That issue was addressed appropriately at the committee stage.
I have read the transcript of your committee's proceedings when Mr. Wappel appeared here before you. The issue still seems to be how we can prevent family members from writing books. They are not the offenders. If the son of a man who killed his wife wanted to write a book and had talked to his father about it, that is not collaboration. Mr. Wappel's bill attempts to prevent offenders from simply using the names of family members as authors of the book to get around the bill and profit that way. That provision could be tightened up to ensure that legitimate people who want to write books about their father, for example, who killed their mother should not be stopped from doing so. Mr. Wappel's bill is aimed at the actual offender.
This process is a healthy one in that you can look at this bill and hear witnesses like myself, Mr. Rosenfeldt and others from the writers' organizations and, hopefully, make it better. I say that assuming we all agree -- and I hope we do -- about the basic principle behind the bill. If you start at the principle that criminals should not profit from crime, you can work within the bill itself and make it better. If there are provisions about which you have concerns and if it is too broad, then you can simply narrow them. For example, an offender who is serving a sentence and who has written a book with particularly strong artistic merit could apply to a court to be exempted from the provisions of Mr. Wappel's bill.
Perhaps the Criminal Code definition of the word "obscenity" could be tightened to read, "the dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of...." Perhaps those words or something similar could be used.
The point I am trying to make with the members of the committee is that the principle is sound. If you find it is too broad, if you have particular concerns about the way the bill might affect family members, then those issues can be addressed. This is a principle that is supported by Canadians. It is one that at least in principle representatives of the Department of Justice supported. They were working, and I think they still are, with the provinces to enact legislation like this.
Once you accept the fact that the principle is a simple one, that is, criminals should not profit from their crimes, we can begin to work together to make this bill even better, if that is possible.
I would like to turn the floor over to Mr. Rosenfeldt who will address issues with which he has a lot of experience, that is, being the father of a boy who has murdered by Clifford Olson. He can tell you in a particularly poignant way what it feels like to be, at times, exploited by offenders.
Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt, Executive Director, Victims of Violence/Canadian Centre for Missing Children: Honourable senators, I wish to thank you for your time and for your concern with regard to this issue and for the speed in which this committee has decided to look at it.
It is very much a pleasure to be here today. I am the Executive Director of the Victims of Violence, which is a national organization dedicated to the improvement of the situation of crime victims in Canada. Some 16 years ago I began working with Victims of Violence and victims of violent crime throughout all of Canada. This issue of criminals profiting from crime and Tom Wappel's bill is something that Victims of Violence as a national organization has supported since its inception.
Mr. Sullivan presented the arguments in support of the bill on behalf of the Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. We are here to support those arguments. As Mr. Sullivan mentioned, I am here today to speak as the parent of a murdered child. I would like to relay to you, if I can, the difficulty that we as parents of one of Olson's victims have had to deal with throughout the last 16 years. I will not take much of your time.
I am sure many of you are familiar with what happened. Shortly after our son and the other 10 children were murdered, there were rumours in Canada throughout the media that the killer had also been paid $100,000 for revealing the locations of the bodies of his victims. It horrified most Canadians to believe that the RCMP and the Attorney General of British Columbia at the time had actually paid a killer. As a result, we found out later that we had to sue civilly to try to recover the money. It was a long, drawn-out process that took years.
The case went to court. We hired a team of lawyers. We received tremendous cooperation from the RCMP and from individuals involved in the payment of the money to Olson. Their concern, too, was that this killer was actually profiting from the deaths of our children. There has been a lot of misunderstanding with regard to the payment of the money over the years and it has been discussed many times whether or not he should have been given the money. There are arguments both for and against. The biggest problem we had is that no one discussed the issue with us and we found out about it from the media. As parents we were concerned, along with the other families of Olson's victims, that the bodies of those children who had not been found should be found. The bottom line is that we were concerned that this man be convicted of his crimes. It aided in the conviction of Clifford Olson because he did point out the locations of the bodies. He could not argue that he had not killed the children.
Our complaint was never with the RCMP in handing him the money or with the attorney general. It became a problem when the Attorney General of British Columbia lied to the media and told them that no money had been given to Clifford Olson. That ended his political career. It was a lie that incensed the Canadian public. Basically, from the time this horror began, we, as parents, were told that it is public policy in Canada that criminals do not profit from crime.
Over the last 15 years, we found out that public policy is different from what actually happens in Canada. This is the horrific part because we have had to deal not only with the loss of a child, along with other parents, but also with the fact that Clifford Olson profited from his crimes. He actually benefited from the deaths of our children! It has been horrific for us, as parents and as family members, first, to have to deal with the murder of our child, the loss and grieving for the loss of our child and, second, to turn around and have to cope with the fact that the murderer profited and continues to profit from his crimes.
We then sued civilly. The case went to court and we won. The money was to be taken from him but we did not want any part of it -- I should make that very clear. There was talk at the time that it should go into victims' programs but I do not know of a victims' program in Canada that would want that blood money. Victims of Violence would not want that blood money. Our intention from the very beginning was to turn the money back to the government with a notation that in the future we did not want to see criminals profiting from their crimes.
We won our case. It then went to appeal. Olson won on appeal and then it went to the Supreme Court of Canada. My wife and I are still paying off the legal expenses incurred from that lawsuit. We have not fully paid them at this point. This is what it has cost us as parents of one of his victims.
It is worse than that and it has become worse than that over the years. At that point, had Olson been put into a cell and remained quiet throughout all these years, we might have been able to cope with the loss of our child and to grieve our loss properly. However, we have had to deal with this man continuously over the last number of years inflicting further pain and punishment upon us as his victims.
To give you a few examples, we have known for years that he has been writing books. Parts of his manuscript have surfaced at different times. I have not made an effort to track down those manuscripts, but we have heard all sorts of rumours and stories about them.
A number of years ago the warden of Prince Albert Penitentiary, Jim O'Sullivan, signed a contract with Clifford Olson. The two agreed to produce a series of 12 two-hour videos in which he would read his book. We are told that the warden took part because he wanted to provide these videos to the RCMP for research on serial killers. If that is so we would ask: Why does a warden sign a contract with a convicted killer and copyright it? It has been copyrighted in both the warden's name and Clifford Olson's name.
What has transpired over the years since we found out about this is that five of the videotapes have been taken out of the prison by Olson's lawyer, Robert Shantz, in Mapleridge, B.C. This man has five, two-hour videos. Over the last few years, Clifford Olson has been offering these videos for sale to the public. John Nunziata, Member of Parliament, has promotional material that has been mailed to him by Clifford Olson. In the bottom of one letter he sent to John Nunziata he said, "Send me $300 and I will send you five of the videotapes in which I describe the sex acts and the murders."
We have fought for the last number of years, along with the assistance of the Canadian Police Association and the Victims Resource Centre, to obtain copies of these videotapes but we have had a difficult time obtaining them other than by paying the killer the $300 which he asks. They are still for sale. We have simply refused to purchase them because we would be allowing him, once again, to profit from the murder of our children.
Please remember that Clifford Olson's only claim to fame in this world is that he committed 11 murders. Without that, no one would be interested in videotaping him and/or trying to sell copies of the videotapes that he has made.
Last August, during Olson's section 745 hearing in Vancouver, the RCMP historical division came to us. They have copies of these videotapes. They offered us an opportunity to view any parts of the videotapes that we wanted to see. We went with a number of RCMP officers and viewed portions of the videotapes that related to the murder of our son. It was a very difficult and traumatic experience. Mr. Sullivan was also there. We sat through this video. It is extremely difficult to describe these videotapes that this man is selling. In the videotapes, he calmly sits in front of a video camera and gives instructions to people. He says, "If you want to abduct and murder a child, this is the way I did it and these are the mistakes I made." It is a how-to manual on how to abduct and murder children. It is for sale in Canada today. You can send $300 to Robert Shantz, Olson's lawyer, and you will receive five videotapes in the mail.
I have a serious problem with that. We have gone through the provisions of privacy legislation and through every possible means imaginable to have those videotapes taken away from Olson and/or his lawyer, but Olson is protected. He has the right to produce these manuals on how to kill children and promote, advertise and sell them with the profits going to him.
Another thing Olson has done over the last few years, something which he publicly promotes, is publish serial killer trading cards. This was discussed before this committee a few years ago.
These are trading cards with pictures of people such as Clifford Olson, John Wayne Gacy and Paul Bernardo. These are trading cards similar to those of hockey players which used to come with bubble gum. There were 100,000 of these serial killer trading cards with Olson's picture and information about him that were printed and distributed in the United States and Canada. A number of other groups, including ours, attempted to try to stop these things from coming into Canada a few years ago.
Olson's promotional material outlines that if you send him one of the cards he will sign it for $8 U.S. or $10 Canadian. It is a promotional package that he offers. His signature on the card supposedly increases the card's value.
Senator Gigantès: That is sick.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: I agree, senator. From our point of view, as a victim of one of his heinous crimes, we know that he has continued from the time he has been put in prison to promote and sell these materials. I do not know how much money Clifford Olson makes in these endeavours. However, whether he makes $8 U.S., $10 Canadian or if he is selling a package of videotapes for $300 I find it abhorrent that this man can continue to profit from the murder of our son.
This issue has meant so much to us over the years. In 1985, we wrote to the Government of Canada expressing that our concern was with the payment of the money to Olson. My wife and myself felt so strongly about this issue that we went to the United Nations with the assistance of the Government of Canada at our own expense to discuss this issue.
In 1985, the Honourable Joe Clark made arrangements for us to meet with the committee of social and economic affairs of the United Nations in New York. We travelled from Edmonton, Alberta and we made a presentation to the committee.
We told them our personal experience. We asked the United Nations to direct their member states to embark upon legislation which would prevent criminals profiting from their crimes. Nothing really came of it. We were told we had to go to Europe and speak before the whole committee. However, we did not have the resources to do that.
The fact that this committee is having this discussion today means a great deal to me. As parents of a murdered child, it has been very difficult to deal with this issue all of these years. We have attempted for the last 15 years to have this issue brought before the House of Commons.
I am here today to ask you to give serious consideration to this bill, not because of what it has done to me or what it might prevent from doing to myself and my family in the future. My concern is with other victims of crime. There will be other Clifford Olsons. We know the families of Bernardo's victims.
There are two murders a day in this country. We deal with hundreds of these people regularly on a continuing basis. My concern as a parent is that I do not want to see another family endure the torture that we have endured since our son was taken from us 16 years ago.
Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan: Honourable senators, I should like to read a brief statement from Mrs. Mahaffy who was unable to be here this morning. She states:
Criminals or their families and friends should not be able to enjoy the financial benefits which arise solely from their criminal behaviour. At the risk of sounding trite, Crime Should Not Pay.
By allowing the criminals to tell or write their stories for profit, who is benefited and who is harmed?
The offenders are being benefiting and the victims are harmed again and again. However, even though victims are revictimized, victims are not asking for the offenders' freedom of expression to be denied in this Bill. This Bill is clearly only affecting the criminals' ability to make money from their criminal acts, not their freedom of expression or the public's interest in the story.
Victims are sadly revictimized either way.
Victims are abhorred to think criminals could make money when as a result of the same crimes many many victims have become financially unstable.
Surely you will not grant offenders the right to commit further atrocities by profiting from their crimes, whether it be in or outside of Canada.
My daughter, Leslie Mahaffy, was murdered for the entertainment of her killers only. I do not want her murderers, or any murderers to be able to profit from their horrendous crimes.
Please stop the exploitation of Canadians by criminals, by supporting this principled and necessary Bill brought before you by Tom Wappel and the House of Commons. Thank you.
We would be pleased at this time to respond to any questions honourable senators may have.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Before I ask for questions from the floor, I wish to tell you, Mr. Rosenfeldt, that I found your presentation very moving. One of the things of which I want to make absolutely sure when this hearing is adjourned today is that we do not leave you with any false hopes that Mr. Wappel's bill will apply to Clifford Olson.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: I am aware of that.
The Chairman: Unfortunately, this bill will not and could not be made retroactive. Unfortunately, the Bernardos of this world and the Olsons of this world will carry on as they are now doing.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: I am aware of that Madam Chair, and I appreciate that.
People have often asked me why we do this. We have been through a significant amount of pain as a result of the murder of our child. We may not be able to prevent that from happening in the future. However, our concern is that other people do not have to go through the same horrific pain that we have had to endure as a result of this man attempting to profit from his crimes.
Before we get to questions, one thing I neglected to mention is that this thing has become so absurd that Clifford Olson now promotes himself as "The Beast of British Columbia" in all of his promotional material in an attempt to make himself more notorious so that he can make more profit as a result.
Clifford Olson is resolved to the fact that he will spend the rest of his life in prison. If, today, he can personally profit and benefit from his crimes, he is willing to call himself "The Beast of British Columbia" when he writes letters.
Senator Gigantès: There is no way we can dispute the principle that criminals should not benefit from their crimes. We are in full agreement with you on that.
The problem with principles is that there are aspects of their application which are clear-cut, such as Mr. Olson. However, I then have concern with two other aspects. One is that if you have not committed the crime you cannot write about it.
In the case of Donald Marshall, he actually saw the crime committed although he did not commit it. This bill would prevent him from writing a book, talking about the crime, describing it and saying that he was innocent. Why should he want to write such a book? To have money to pay for the Clayton Rubys of this world to prove his innocence. That is not an insignificant point.
Another point is that the bill would kick in the minute someone is charged, not convicted. There are many instances of people having been wrongly charged and the charges being later dropped. There are also those who were wrongly convicted, such as Guy Paul Morin, David Milgaard and Donald Marshall. They should not have been charged in the first place. We should cure that. I do not believe that, if I am wrongly charged, I should be considered guilty until I have been convicted.
In terms of being retroactive for Mr. Olson, perhaps we can curb his future activities by saying he does not have access to cards that come in for him to sign.
The two points I mentioned concern me because they go against the presumption of innocence. We must punish the guilty, but we cannot punish the innocent, even temporarily.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: I agree fully, Senator Gigantès. My concern is the whole issue of profit. My response would be that I do not think there is anything in this bill that stops anyone from writing a book.
Senator Gigantès: Steven Truscott was innocent, and the profits from a book written with his collaboration helped free him. Milgaard did not commit the crime, so in that case we have someone who could not write about the crime, as you pointed out, because he did not commit it. However, we have the case of Donald Marshall who was actually present and saw the crime committed. Being convicted, he would not have been allowed to get money from a book to pay for the services of Clayton Ruby.
Mr. Sullivan: It depends on how much of the book is about the murder that he witnessed. If he is writing about the trial, how he felt it was unfair and about what it was like to be in prison as an innocent man wrongly convicted, and as part of that he makes reference to what he witnessed and the murder, I guess a court would have to decide whether the book is based substantially on the crime. How much of the book is about the actual murder? If Mr. Marshall writes about what he saw and it takes one chapter in a 20-chapter book, is that based substantially on the crime? Those are issues the courts will have to interpret if and when this legislation comes before them.
Senator Gigantès: Have you answered the point about the bill kicking in when you are charged?
Mr. Sullivan: That is a strong argument. The argument on the other side would be that, for those people who are charged and are guilty, it would be a window for them to write a quick book and make a lot of money before this law kicked in.
Senator Gigantès: That is what I was saying. An excellent principle often presents problems. Do we have the right to restrict in any way the freedom of a person who has not been convicted in order to restrict the freedom of someone who will surely be convicted?
Mr. Sullivan: It is difficult to determine if anyone will be convicted when charged because everyone is presumed innocent. I do not think it is a question of whether we know someone will be convicted. It is a question for those people who know that they are guilty. Hopefully, they will be convicted. They have that opportunity to make money by selling their story before a conviction. With the person who is charged and who is found not guilty or the charges are dropped any money obtained from such a book could be put into a trust. I guess he could go back when the charges are dropped or after he is found innocent and say, "This money is mine because I am not the guilty party."
Senator Gigantès: In the Truscott case, the money was used to help to pay for lawyers.
Mr. Sullivan: I read one book on Mr. Truscott's case. I do not know if it is the only one. Again, it would go back to the same issue as Mr. Guy Paul Morin. Mr. Truscott was not there when Lynn Harper was killed, so he did not write about her murder. He wrote about that night when he was on the bicycle and when he saw her and talked to her. Obviously, he says he did not kill her, so he could not have written about that. The book could still have been written about his claims of innocence.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: This is the most important issue here. If any of these people did not commit the crime, how can they write a book describing the crime?
Senator Gigantès: How do you get around the Donald Marshall case? It gets complicated. Suppose a guilty person says "I am innocent. I witnessed the crime, but I didn't commit it," whereas in fact he did. It is a complicated issue. I cannot vote for a provision of a bill which would allow someone to be at all constrained from the moment that he or she is charged. Being convicted is another matter.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: Do we continue to allow the Clifford Olsons of this world to profit from the deaths of their victims?
Senator Gigantès: On the one side is the terrible thing represented by Clifford Olson. On the other side, you have the terrible thing that is represented by all these people who went to jail for a long time when they were totally innocent and who might have used the proceeds from a book to prove their innocence.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: However, they could not write about the crime if they did not commit it, except possibly Donald Marshall, the one case with which I am familiar.
Senator Gigantès: The Parliament of Canada does not vote in the death penalty because there might be one case in which an innocent man would be killed. I know Clifford Olson has killed 11 innocent children, but can the state kill one innocent man by mistake? We would have killed Donald Marshall, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, Steven Truscott, and many others. I am asking for your help. Suggest something to get us out of that situation.
Mr. Sullivan: You raise difficult questions, senator. Much of it is speculation. I am not an expert on the Donald Marshall case, but I believe there was a book written about him when he was in prison. Is that not correct?
Senator Gigantès: Yes, there was.
Mr. Sullivan: Did he collaborate with the author?
Senator Gigantès: The money did not go to pay for his lawyers.
Mr. Sullivan: If I as an author choose to write a book about someone in prison who I think is innocent, I can write that book and I can do with my share of the money whatever I want. I could set up a trust fund.
Senator Gigantès: That is what happened in the Truscott case, but the fellow who wrote the book about Marshall kept the money in his own bank account. Do we say to the authors, "If you write a book about a convicted criminal, you also cannot profit from that book"?
Mr. Sullivan: Not at all. I am saying that if I am an author and I believe someone is innocent and I write a book, I have the choice of doing with the money what I wish.
Senator Gigantès: Yes, you do. Many authors will say they have a family to keep and this work is their bread and butter; that they have written the book and they will not pay someone like Mr. Clayton Ruby to liberate Mr. Marshall.
Senator Cogger: Senator Hébert wrote a book entitled, J'accuse les assassins de Coffin, but I do not think he ever gave a penny back to the Coffin family. The man was dead 20 years before Senator Hébert wrote that book.
Senator Gigantès: That is irrelevant. What an author does is not touched by this bill, we were told, if they are not family.
Therefore, an innocent person wrongly convicted cannot use proceeds from a book that this innocent person may write to pay for a lawyer to prove his innocence.
Senator Cogger: I want to preface my comments by saying that the jails are full of people who claim they are wrongly convicted. Indeed, it happens in our system of justice that sometimes people are wrongly convicted, but we have no better system. You are innocent until proven guilty. Once you are guilty, you are guilty.
Senator Gigantès: Even if you are innocent?
Senator Cogger: Even if you are innocent, says the failing justice system. Sometimes that happens. However, for the time being, in our system, a guilty party is a guilty party. That is why we have prisons and that is why Clifford Olson is behind bars.
Could you describe briefly both your organizations? I am not clear. Mr. Sullivan represents the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and Mr. Rosenfeldt is Executive Director of Victims of Violence. Do you have overlapping memberships?
Mr. Rosenfeldt: No. Victims of Violence is a national organization which has been around since March of 1984. Many families of murder victims and victims of violent crime throughout Canada turn to and become members of our organization.
We are a charitable organization. We do a lot of research work with regard to victims of crime. We have offices here in Ottawa. We have a small staff. We have many students who work with us, such as law graduates. The young lady behind me here has worked for us for the last year. She is a law graduate of Carleton University.
We have a number of programs that we operate in Canada. We have a Canada-wide, toll-free victim's hot line. We have a Canada-wide, toll-free fax information service for victims of crime.
Senator Cogger: Do you offer therapy and counselling and things of that nature?
Mr. Rosenfeldt: No, we offer support. I have gone into homes after murders and cleaned up blood for families of victims. This is the sort of thing that our members do. We go to court with victims. We are simply there to offer support and assistance. We are not affiliated with the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime even though we are very familiar with their work. We support their work and what they do for victims of crime in Canada.
Mr. Sullivan: The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is a national lobby group on behalf of victims. We work with groups like Mr. Rosenfeldt's across the country -- CAVEAT, ACTION, CRY -- groups made up of people who have been directly affected by violence and crimes.
We work with them and try to keep them informed of what is happening in Ottawa as far as legislation goes. We try to keep up on all the provincial legislation that is enacted across the country to deal with victims' rights. We help victims at times to get information from Correctional Service Canada or the National Parole Board.
Our group has the same interests as Mr. Rosenfeldt's but we are probably a little more political. We try to have a say in any legislation that is passed that affects victims or potential victims of crime.
Senator Losier-Cool: Do you specify violent crimes?
Mr. Sullivan: The majority of people who come to us are victims of violent crime. There is no hard and fast rule, though.
Senator Cogger: Who funds your organization?
Mr. Sullivan: We are funded, in part, by the Canadian Police Association.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: We are funded solely by the community. We do not accept government funding.
Senator Cogger: From your earlier exposé, I take it that you were unsuccessful in recovering any of the money from Olson.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: Of the initial $100,000, there was $55,000 left at the end of the civil suit. That was money that Olson and his lawyers had taken to the Bahamas to get it out of Canada in case we should try to access the money. We were unsuccessful. With regard to where the money was being spent, initially the contract said that Olson's family was to benefit and not him directly. It did not refer to him directly but it was a trust fund set up for his wife and child. Supposedly, that is where the money was to go.
Through investigation we found out that Olson himself was spending the money. He was buying subscriptions to newspapers and magazines from all over the country. He was actually offering at one point that friends of his could go to his lawyer and get airline tickets to visit him in Kingston Penitentiary.
Senator Cogger: Do you know who was paying for his lawyer?
Mr. Rosenfeldt: Legal Aid eventually paid for his lawyer. His lawyer initially took $10,000 out of the $100,000 given to Olson via the trust fund. He took the money from the trust fund to pay for his services to Olson.
When we launched the civil suit, his lawyer quickly put the $10,000 back into the trust fund because he felt it may be considered inappropriate that he was defending Olson with money from the murder of the children.
Senator Cogger: If you were unsuccessful in getting any money, is it because the court said: No way? Or is it because the money fled to the Bahamas and was beyond your reach?
Mr. Rosenfeldt: At one point, Justice Trainor awarded the money to us, but the money was beyond our reach. It had been taken to the Bahamas. The appeal court reversed the decision and gave the money back to Olson, but it never really was intended for him. The initial contract said it was for his wife and child.
Senator Cogger: I want to explain something to you, Mr. Rosenfeldt. I do not want to go over the gory details of this lawsuit with Olson. You are aware that people who oppose Mr. Wappel's bill will argue that Olson should keep his copyright under the name of freedom of expression. If he makes a whole pile of money, let the people sue and recover the money by way of a civil lawsuit for damages or whatever.
I am not a great believer in letting people get away with stuff and trying to catch them later. That also places an undue burden on the victims' families. That was the purpose of my question.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: It is a good point. The reality is that we never did recover any of the money. As I mentioned before, we are still paying off the legal costs of carrying our case to the Supreme Court where it ended up.
Senator Cogger: Was that not just you and Mrs. Rosenfeldt, but all of the victims' families?
Mr. Rosenfeldt: Eight of the eleven families contributed to the legal costs.
Mr. Sullivan: It is important to realize that these people have suffered enough. Why should we require them to enforce a principle in which we all believe, which is that the criminals should not profit? Frankly, as Mr. Rosenfeldt mentioned, the victims do not want the money. They just do not want the offender to have it either.
Senator Jessiman: I have one question for Mr. Sullivan. I thought you said that earlier in these proceedings amendments had been made that if a family member or a recipient of a beating writes a book in collaboration with the accused, they would not be caught by the bill. The way I read the bill, they would be caught.
Mr. Sullivan: I do not think this bill is in its original form. It has been changed. The issue we raised at the Commons Justice Committee was that of an incest survivor, for example, who wanted to write a book about what her father had done to her, but not in collaboration with the man. As we read the bill previously, she would not have been allowed to do that because she was a family member. We raised that issue, and I think the committee addressed it.
Senator Jessiman: That would not be covered. She could do that.
What would be wrong with the victim, the wife, getting the information from her husband? If she collaborates with him, why should she not be entitled?
Mr. Sullivan: If she is a victim of the beating, I am not quite sure what information she would have to get from her husband. She experienced the beating.
Senator Jessiman: It depends on what the book says.
Mr. Sullivan: I guess it does. In those circumstances, perhaps he should not profit, but if she is the victim as well, then she should be free to profit. If that is a shortcoming of the bill, then I think it is probably one this committee should address.
I think we all agree that victims should not be caught by the bill. It comes down to collaboration -- what is collaboration?
Senator Jessiman: My problem with the bill is if members of the family collaborate with the husband to get the facts, they are caught by this bill and cannot profit. I have difficulty with that. I do not have difficulty with the actual person who has committed the crime.
Mr. Sullivan: The purpose of the clause is to catch those situations where the offender says, "I will write the book; put your name on it, and then we will share the profit." It is a balancing of sorts.
Senator Jessiman: This is the law, and you cannot profit from your crime. That is true. Common law provides for that, but you cannot steal money and keep it. If they find it, they can take it away from you. If you buy a car with that money, they can take that away from you as well.
This is one step along the way. Not 100 per cent of people agree that this should even be here.
Mr. Sullivan: It is not a black and white issue.
Senator Jessiman: I am sympathetic, though.
Mr. Sullivan: There are legitimate arguments on both sides. However, when you accept the principle, I hope you can work within the bill, address those issues, and still keep the principle of the bill.
Senator Pearson: You said that bills are not retroactive. We know that.
Senator Jessiman: They could be. If Parliament decides they want to make them retroactive, they could do so.
Senator Pearson: In this case, it would immediately apply. Surely we are not talking about whether the crime happened in the past. I want to clarify this because I think in this case it would apply to Clifford Olson, as well as anyone else.
Senator Nolin: For future works.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: I hope it would apply, yes, for future works. That would be a great relief to myself and my family.
Senator Pearson: Aside from the issues you have raised, with which we are all extraordinarily sympathetic, have you any idea of the extent to which this is a problem in the Canadian setting? I have a daughter who is a writer, and she does not make any money.
Mr. Sullivan: I do not think this is a huge problem. One of the most positive aspects of the bill is that it is not waiting for this to be a problem.
Senator Pearson: I understand that. I was merely curious.
Mr. Sullivan: It is not a huge problem now in Canada.
Senator Pearson: I am sympathetic on the issue of the serial killer cards. In my last role on the Coalition of the Rights of Children, we denounced serial killer cards, and I think we stopped their sale in Canada.
Mr. Sullivan: The minister of justice of the day, Mr. Rock, put forward a bill that would prevent the sale to kids under 18. I do not think the bill actually passed. They took it back to study it and perhaps to make it broader.
Senator Pearson: I hope those cards are no longer in circulation.
Mr. Sullivan: I do not know.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: As far as I know, they are.
Mr. Sullivan: People will send Mr. Olson a card, and he will autograph it.
Senator Pearson: There are alternative ways of approaching this issue. You did bring up the current limitations on freedom of expression, such as pornography. Is there any way in which the works or passages of works that describe serious crimes could be considered obscene material? Perhaps we could begin to get at the problem in that way because the material cannot be legally possessed. If it cannot be legally possessed, then clearly it cannot be sold.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: We investigated that aspect with regard to the videotapes that Olson produced. We asked the RCMP to look at them and determine whether they could be declared obscene or if they could even be seized. We went so far as to go to the RCMP in British Columbia and ask them if they could get a search warrant to go in and pick up copies of these videos from Olson's lawyer.
We have been told by experts that even though they talk about the crimes and all the details with regard to the sex acts and the murders -- I have seen them and that is what is on them -- they do not constitute pornographic material in Canada. We were stymied with that and could not go any further.
Senator Gigantès: Legal and pornographic aside, it is obscene.
Mr. Sullivan: I do not have the Criminal Code in front of me, but I think the wording of the definition of "obscenity" is the exploitation of sex and violence. I do not think the police officers felt it met that definition.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: Yet, I could not sit here in this room today and tell you what is in those videos. It is disgusting.
Senator Gigantès: It is obscene.
Mr. Sullivan: In a common sense definition.
Senator Pearson: The current bill puts the Crown in the invidious position of profiting from works by the copyright provision. Are there other ways we can get at this deplorable situation?
Mr. Rosenfeldt: We have tried, with no success at this point.
Mr. Sullivan: With regard to retroactivity, my understanding of the bill is that the copyright becomes the property of the Crown upon sentence. It is part of the sentence, in effect. I do not think you can go back retroactively and change someone's sentence. That may be an issue. What you are saying is that part of a sentence is the copyright. You do not have the copyright any more.
Senator Pearson: You mean that you do not have the right to copyright.
Mr. Sullivan: You do not own it.
Senator Pearson: Many of these people would not have applied for copyright. Is it not something for which you have to apply?
Mr. Sullivan: I am not sure.
Senator Gigantès: You have to apply for copyright to have copyright.
Senator Jessiman: Olson has a certificate indicating he owns it.
Senator Pearson: He owns what?
Senator Jessiman: He has the copyright.
Senator Pearson: To what?
Senator Jessiman: I cannot tell you.
Mr. Sullivan: To the videotapes.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: They are copyrighted.
Senator Jessiman: He had three certificates that were shown to us.
Senator Losier-Cool: My question follows along on Senator Pearson's questions. It relates to killer card collectors.
Clause 1 of the bill refers to the definition of "proceeds of crime" and a work that "recounts or depicts the commission of an actual offence". If on the card there is only the picture of the criminal with a phone number or whatever, there is no offence is there?
Mr. Sullivan: On the back of the cards there is a depiction of the offence. I am not sure whether Mr. Olson informally profiting from the killer cards would be captured by this bill.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: I am not sure either. It is a good point. There is a brief description of the crimes on the back of the cards.
Senator Losier-Cool: Of the presently existing ones. However, people could collect cards without a description of the crime but merely for the picture of the person.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: It probably would not be covered. My point in explaining this to you is that it is only one of the means by which he has been able to profit from the murder of our children. Perhaps it would not stop that particular thing from happening. However, if they do produce a card with only his picture and no description of the murder of my child and other children on it, that would not cause pain for us as victims. The problem we have is with the description of what he did to our children.
Senator Losier-Cool: Could he still make money from the cards?
Mr. Rosenfeldt: Yes, but it would not cause pain and suffering to the victims.
Mr. Sullivan: It is important to realize that the money he is earning from these cards is not paid to him by the company that makes the cards. People who have a fascination with him will send him a card with $10 and ask him to autograph it. The company making the cards does not have a deal with him to give him a share of the profits. Even if the bill incorporated trading cards, I do not know whether it could cover that situation.
Senator Losier-Cool: Perhaps that is a question we could ask a legal advisor.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: Some of these criminals can still profit. For instance, in the Jeffrey Dahmer case in the United States, there was recently an auction of his refrigerators, saws and the things he used to keep the bodies of the victims, including the pots in which he cooked them.
This bill would not prevent a murderer from selling his memorabilia from the crime, but we are not asking for that.
Senator Pearson: Would it capture the father who wrote the book about him?
Mr. Sullivan: Possibly.
Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Acting Chairman) in the Chair.
The Acting Chairman: I recently read in an Ottawa newspaper an open letter by Susan Musgrave. She made two affirmations on which I should like to hear your comments. She said that no publisher will publish a book if the writer is not 100 per cent in control of his or her copyright. What is your comment on that?
Mr. Sullivan: I have never published a book and have no experience in that field. However, if Clifford Olson cannot write a book because he does not have control, so be it.
The Acting Chairman: I ask you that question because, considering section 2(b) of the Charter, we are not saying that he should not write, but that he should not profit from writing. I will get to profit from writing later.
Do you think freedom of expression includes access to the means to disseminate your expression?
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Olson could write his memoirs and donate them to the National Archives or the National Library. I do not think freedom of expression includes the right to have your work published.
The Acting Chairman: So you think that 2(b) does not extend to the means.
Mr. Sullivan: No.
Senator Gigantès: I think the right of expression has been interpreted by the courts as the right to have a copyright, et cetera. The means are included in the right.
The Acting Chairman: The witness is not an expert in that field. I was just seeking his comment on Ms Musgrave's letter.
Another part of her letter says that writing or speaking about a crime is not in itself a crime in Canada and, therefore, advances or royalties are not proceeds of crime, as Mr. Wappel would have it, but proceeds of writing.
What is your comment on that?
Mr. Sullivan: My reaction to that is that there could be no profits if the crime had not been committed. Mr. Wappel has used the example of someone who takes out a life insurance policy on his wife and then kills her. Collecting on a life insurance policy is not a crime, but the murderer cannot do so. He is prohibited from doing so by law. I would apply the same circumstances here. The writing of a book or telling of a story is directly related to the commission of the crime.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: I am not an expert in that area. I have no problem with any convicted murderer writing, although I have a problem with videotapes. The problem is not in the writing; it is in the profit. The criminal can only profit from the description of the crime by dint of the fact that he committed it. This goes back to Senator Gigantès' argument about the innocent people. There may be the odd possible exception, such as Donald Marshall.
My concern is someone writing about the crime that affected the victims, and profiting from that.
The Acting Chairman: Perhaps I should not ask you that question. It is technical and constitutional because it involves a Charter matter.
Your opinion is to the effect that the right to write does not extend to having access to the means to disseminate your writing. It is two different things.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: Yes. It is the profit which is of grave concern to us.
The Acting Chairman: We will probably hear some expert testimony on that, which may contradict you. I have great respect for you. This the first time that we are hearing your difficult story. However, we must take a very surgical approach to it because the court will demolish this law if we pass it without taking the proper approach.
Senator Gigantès: I would like to suggest that if a convicted criminal who claims to be innocent -- and Clifford Olson does not claim to be innocent -- writes a book, the proceeds of that book should go to a fund from which criminals who claim innocence can draw to pay for lawyers to prove their innocence, and for only that purpose.
That would deal with such people as Guy Paul Morin and David Milgaard. They need high-priced lawyers. They have been convicted and they claim wrongly so. They need legal firepower to prove that it was a wrongful conviction.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: Off the top of my head, I probably would not have a serious problem with that. However, it is not my bill and I am not an expert on this. Mr. Wappel has probably looked at those situations. I am here to present with regard to what criminals profiting does to victims.
Mr. Sullivan: As I mentioned in my brief, perhaps if such people could prove to a court that they have a reasonable case, they could be exempt from this bill for the purpose of paying for lawyers.
Senator Gigantès: The court would probably say exactly what Mr. Cogger said, "You have been found guilty in the lower court. You have been found guilty again on appeal. That is it." As far as the law is concerned, you have been found guilty, period.
What I am saying is those who claim they are innocent and who write a book -- and they are numerous -- should be able to dip into a fund into which the proceeds from the book have gone to pay for lawyers to prove their innocence.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: Senator Gigantès, with all due respect, I still have a difficult time with this because I do not understand how Guy Paul Morin could write about the murder of Christine Jessop if he did not murder her. Do you understand what I am saying?
Senator Gigantès: What about Donald Marshall?
Mr. Rosenfeldt: That is possibly the only exception. He was there at the time that Sandy Seale was killed, yes. How could Donald Marshall, in that one particular case, write a book about the crime itself? I can see where, even with this bill, he could have written about life in prison.
Senator Gigantès: The way this bill is written, it could apply to Guy Paul Morin. The bill is too broad. What I am trying to ask you is: Can we amend the bill so that money can be paid to lawyers, not to the criminal, so that he will never see a penny of that money but he might be able to pay lawyers? It might be all for nothing because the lawyers might not be able to help prove his innocence or it may be finally proven that he is lying and not innocent. He has not touched a penny. It is not his money, nor has it gone to his family.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you not think lawyers are making enough moneys these days?
Senator Gigantès: Six members of my immediate family are lawyers and I will not agree with that proposition.
Senator Jessiman: The Chair, before she left, wanted me to ask whether or not you are familiar with the 1994 legislation in Ontario, the Victims Rights to Proceeds of Crime Act.
Mr. Sullivan: I know of it, yes.
Senator Jessiman: Also, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada has developed model legislation called the Criminals Exploitation of Violent Crime Act, which they adopted at their meeting in August 1997.
Under the Ontario legislation, the proceeds are given to a trustee and the trustee then pays it out to the victims. Under the model legislation, it would be paid to a government agency which then would pay it out to the victims. We would like your comments on that kind of legislation. Do you think this legislation should extend what they are doing there? Under Bill C-220, the money goes to the government and they keep it.
Mr. Sullivan: I know Mr. Wappel had reservations about putting in how the money should be spent. I would certainly support the money going to programs to provide assistance to victims, such as rehabilitative programs. We talk about rehabilitating the offender. We should do the same for the victim as well. The money, whether it will be a great sum or a small sum, should go, perhaps not directly to victims because I do not think many of the victims I work with would want the money, but to services to provide help for victims and their families.
Mr. Rosenfeldt: We have always felt that we personally would not want five cents of the money that Olson has been able to accumulate in the manner in which he has been able to benefit from the murder of our child. However, if his money were taken from him, I would have no objection to it going into police-based victims' service programs or some form of victims' service program in Canada.
The Acting Chairman: Could we leave the violent crime that Mr. Olson committed and was convicted for, and move into the field of more technical crimes? If a computer hacker is caught and writes about the way he was using his computer to jump into National Defence's computer system, he could make a fortune. He could probably sell his knowledge to companies who are in the business of protecting those networks. What would be your reaction to that?
Mr. Rosenfeldt: I do not believe that anyone should profit from his crimes.
The Acting Chairman: Even if it is helpful to get some knowledge out of that?
Mr. Sullivan: Even if it is helpful. I do not believe that any criminal should benefit directly as a result of the crime he has committed. If a person is convicted of a crime and goes to prison, does his time, is released from prison, and is hired by some business to educate their staff, that is a whole different story. A direct profit from the crime itself is where I draw the line.
The Acting Chairman: Thank you for your answer. Thank you both for appearing.
The committee adjourned.