THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 11, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:20 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims).
Senator Denise Batters (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good afternoon. My name is Denise Batters. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan, and I’m the deputy chair of this committee. Today, I have the pleasure of acting as chair since our colleague Senator Cotter is away for this particular meeting.
I will invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Hello. Claude Carignan, Conservative senator from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar, independent senator for Quebec.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, and I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Hello. Pierre Moreau from the Laurentides division, Quebec.
Senator Audette: Kuei. Michelle Audette from Nitassinan, Quebec.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senators, we are meeting today to begin our study of Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims).
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome someone whom I’ve known for 20 years — since he and my husband Dave Batters were elected to Parliament the same year — Colin Carrie, Member of Parliament for Oshawa and the sponsor of Bill C-320; and Lisa Freeman, victims’ rights activist, author and the inspiration behind this private member’s bill.
Thank you very much to both of you for coming here today. We will begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from senators. The floor is yours for about five minutes each.
When you are ready, we will start with MP Carrie and then have Ms. Freeman conclude.
Colin Carrie, Member of Parliament, Oshawa, Ontario, sponsor of the bill, as an individual: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members and fellow witnesses.
My name is Colin Carrie, and I’ve had the honour of serving the people of Oshawa as a member of Parliament since 2004, and it is always a pleasure to be a witness here at Senate committee. I look forward to your questions.
I’m here before you today to speak on a matter that is not only of significant importance to the safety and security of our communities but also specifically to victims of violent crime.
Colleagues, today I looked at the statistics from Statistics Canada, and violent crime is up over the last few years by 50%, violent gun crime increased 116% and 34% of all homicides were committed by a criminal who was out on bail or another form of release.
In the last four years, homicides have been the highest in number since they started recording data in 1961, and even last week, there were two horrifying murders. One was Harshandeep Singh of Edmonton and the other was Alisha Brooks of Toronto. I think this bill is, indeed, timely so thank you for having us here today.
It is my privilege to discuss Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), which passed unanimously in the House.
I will let senators know that this is actually my first private member’s bill that has ever actually gone this far so I’m quite hopeful and excited at the prospect of it passing.
I first introduced Bill C-320 in the House of Commons on March 28, 2023. The bill would introduce a simple change to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA, but the change would have a lasting beneficial impact for victims’ rights.
The change that Bill C-320 intends to bring to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is to disclose to the victim information regarding eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole. It must include an explanation of how the dates were determined and help victims to understand the reasoning behind the Parole Board of Canada’s decisions.
For too long, this country’s justice system has put the rights of violent offenders ahead of the rights of their victims and survivors, and that’s altogether backwards. The impact of a crime on a victim is profound and can affect every aspect of their life. From emotional trauma to physical harm, the consequences of a crime reverberate long after a sentence is served. While offenders may go through rehabilitation, victims may find themselves forgotten with little or no access to information about the offender’s progress or the circumstances surrounding the release. Bill C-320 seeks to change this.
The goal of Bill C-320 is not to punish offenders further but rather to ensure that victims are properly supported and informed while also maintaining a fair and just process for all parties involved. The process of reintegrating offenders back into society is vital to ensuring public safety. However, this process cannot be blind to the needs of those who have already suffered. Victims have a right to know if an offender is being released into their community. Victims deserve at least equal rights to those given to offenders in regard to the parole process.
I conclude by reaffirming that Bill C-320 represents a significant step forward in recognizing the rights and needs of victims of violent crime within our justice system. By ensuring that victims are informed and empowered, we create a system that is not only fair to offenders but also compassionate and responsive to those who have suffered as a result of the offenders’ crimes. It’s time for us to acknowledge that justice does not end with the justice of an offender. It continues through the support and consideration we give to the victims of their crimes.
Bill C-320 is a testament to that commitment, and I urge all members of this committee to support its passage into law so that, together, we can work toward a more transparent, compassionate and victim-centred approach to our justice system.
I thank you, and I cede my time to Ms. Freeman, who is the inspiration for Bill C-320.
Lisa Freeman, Victims’ Rights Activist, Author, inspiration for Bill C-320, as an individual: Thank you so much, Mr. Carrie.
Good afternoon, everyone. I have prepared a few words here.
The justice system owes a minimal level of decency and dignity to inform victims’ families of decisions it makes and how those decisions are approved. Without doing so, the justice system is adding to the trauma of the families of victims when they are caught off guard by early parole hearings or transfers to low security correctional facilities after they have occurred.
Many Canadians assume that when a sentence is given of life in prison with no parole for 25 years, that the offender will serve 25 years before the parole process begins to unfold. The system uses words to imply severity, to imply punishment. To any passing observer, it does look like that — severe and harsh.
Regarding my father’s murderer, who was out on parole when he killed my father, life in prison with no parole for 25 years should have meant just that — but it didn’t. It’s a falsehood and false comfort to families and false information to the Canadian public. The average person, when they hear of a sentence, does not think in terms of parole; they think in terms of that offender serving the entire sentence.
The reality is, of course, far from the expectation of victims and their families. Instead, we are re-traumatized in this manner by being kept in the dark about the rationale for decisions in the parole system. Bill C-320 would be vital in ensuring that victims are able to feel safe and protected. Knowledge is power and knowledge is preparation.
If my family had been informed before the transfer occurred, one that saw my father’s murderer being moved to a facility just 10 kilometres from my sister’s home, we would have been better prepared emotionally and mentally. Instead, we were left afraid, confused and undermined. I personally felt demoralized and as though I did not matter, and that the only person who did matter was the offender.
Victims’ families do not deserve to be re-victimized by the parole system. One would think that someone who axed to death an innocent man would be forever incarcerated in a maximum security institution, but that wasn’t the reality. And to learn that the transfer had occurred 24 hours before and that we were not informed because the rights of the offender had to be supported was just as much shocking as it was damaging my family and I.
As I have learned, the level of security in no way matches the severity of the crime. I have met with many families across this country who have been bereaved by homicide or who are victims of other serious crimes, and I can tell you that the effects of trauma and re-traumatization to those who are impacted after years of involvement with the criminal justice system are severe.
It is a trend in this country that the rights of murderers supersede the rights of victims of violent crimes. Knowledge for most Canadians is garnered from the headlines of the day about infamous known murderers who are entrenched in the minds of Canadians as evil. One example is Paul Bernardo; the latest infraction of his victims’ rights enraged Canadians from coast to coast.
I am here to tell you that many more victims have experienced the same thing, but their voices are not heard. Actions should not be reserved for those who have the ability to amplify their voices. Actions should be equitable and equal for every victim of crime in this country.
The parole process for my father’s killer began to unfold in 2011. I have been present at every stage of it. I have seen the programs available to him, the offender, and the opportunities offered to the offender to rehabilitate himself. I have asked myself, “Where is my place in all of this?” as I was plunged into a never-ending nightmare, one that began with the murder of my father in Oshawa all those years ago. That nightmare continues to this day as parole unfolds.
Every opportunity given to any offender in this country means victims will be traumatized again but with limited supports in place. At every intersection with the system, victims are reminded of the violence experienced. As I often have said, if you’re still standing after the initial crime, the system will bring you to your knees. I know because I’ve been there multiple times.
The latest thing I’m dealing with is a notice I received from the Parole Board of Canada to tell me that the man who axed my father to death would not be having a hearing for his day parole extension nor would he be having a hearing for his full parole. Instead, it was an in-office decision, and they were keeping me out of it. I had to beg the Parole Board, like I did last year, to have a hearing where I could go to present my impact statement. That is the only way, I feel, that I can properly represent my family and honour my father. I’m still waiting for their answer.
That letter from the Parole Board notified me that any conditions I have on the parole can be lifted at any time, even conditions I have to protect my family and myself. This is simply not right. This is what I mean by the Parole Board bringing you to your knees if you’re still standing after the most horrific thing that’s ever happened to you.
Victims of crime have enough to carry just by the weight of the crime alone. Our weight is heavy enough. The system is broken. Because it is broken, it gives us more to handle, more to carry, more to navigate and more to struggle with. With all that comes the potential to break us.
This simple bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to give some level of security, dignity and respect back to families of victims. Bill C-320 is a common-sense bill and legislation that would increase transparency from the government and justice system. The system needs to be rebalanced, beginning with greater transparency and greater respect for the needs of Canada’s crime victims. Only then can our load be lessened and only then can we put down some of what we have to carry.
In our current system, I, like other victims of crime, am downgraded to the role of a passive observer, someone very much on the periphery. Bill C-320 would help us move out of that role and at least put us closer to the role of valued participant, which is all I have ever wanted for my family and I and for those in similar situations — to be treated with the respect we deserve. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to both of you for your remarks. We will now proceed to questions from senators.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to you both for coming here and bringing forward and helping to create this bill.
Ms. Freeman, I really appreciate your very passionate testimony here. I can only imagine what this means for you and your family, and, obviously, not just for yourselves but for all victims of crime.
Near the end of your testimony, you said this legislation will help shift victims of these crimes, such as yourself, from being a passive observer to being a valued participant. With that, you mentioned that knowledge is power.
Can you expand upon that and draw a comparison between a passive observer and a valued participant?
Ms. Freeman: Yes, certainly. Thank you for your question.
I feel like in the moment — and as the parole process has unfolded — I’ve been on the sidelines. I’ve not been informed; I’ve been informed a full day after things have happened. I’ve not been notified. The letter I referred to for the day parole extension and the full parole extension — even the in-office decision, I don’t have the courtesy of knowing the date. It said that I will be notified of the outcome sometime in December. So I’m very much on the side.
I feel that I’m not integral to this part of the system. I’m literally on the sidelines, waiting. Having to beg for hearings for something that is serious enough as homicide is just beyond the pale. You just can’t make it up.
So yes, I do feel that from the years I’ve been active in the parole process and from what I gather from other people with whom I speak and deal almost on a daily basis, they feel they are left out and shut out as well.
This bill is a step forward. We would be recognized and our voices would be heard, and those can only be good. Something good can come from this bill.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Ms. Freeman: You’re welcome.
The Deputy Chair: We actually have Senator Carignan, who is the sponsor of this bill, so if it is all right with Senator Moreau, I will ask Senator Carignan to ask his questions first, to be followed by Senator Moreau. Is that alright? Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Mr. Carrie.
Could you explain to us what motivated you to introduce this bill and do all the work over all those years to steer it to this point, including dialogue with other people or victims who had similar experiences?
[English]
Mr. Carrie: Thank you, senator.
What motivated me is Ms. Freeman. When this murder originally occurred in Oshawa, it was a high-profile murder. Ms. Freeman’s dad was a veteran of the Royal Canadian Navy, as was my father. Her dad actually sold fish in Oshawa, and my dad used to go down and chat with him. They had camaraderie.
When her father died, Oshawa considered him a hero. I don’t know if you had the opportunity to look at the background, but this perpetrator came in looking for his ex-girlfriend. With the awareness of gender-based violence that we are talking about and senators here have done some good work regarding, the father wouldn’t tell him where she was. This guy brutally murdered the father.
So Ms. Freeman walked into my office after experiencing a challenge with the system. It hit me, two and two — oh, my God — and she’s really been my motivation. This is a job she’s been doing for 20 years, and it shouldn’t be her job. She’s not doing it for herself; she’s doing it for future victims.
Ms. Freeman first walked into my office 12 years ago now. Originally, we wanted to make huge changes to the system, but we started to realize what we could pass in the House. There have been different iterations. The first time we brought it through, it was Bill C-466, and it was sponsored in the House by Lisa Raitt. Senator Boisvenu sponsored Bill S-219. She came in, and it was a realization that someone was actually listening to the voices of victims.
Over the years, we have met with victims groups. Senator Batters, I think you were on one of the round tables that we did. We were focusing on listening to the victims.
She inspires me. When I say her dad was seen as a hero, I know he would see her as a hero today. I just have so much respect for her and the selfless work she has done for victims over the years. We worked together, and she’s helped so many of my constituents just to get prepared for the system and what they were going to face. She’s helped them manage and stickhandle things.
She has inspired me and has made me very proud. Like I said, this has been 20 years. I’ve had numerous private member’s bills, and I think this is going to be the closest that I’ve ever had one make a change. It’s 10 words, but it’s going to make a large difference.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Ms. Freeman, I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t be inspired and moved by your account of the tragic circumstances surrounding your father’s death.
My question is for you.
You say that the system lacks compassion. You are as much a victim as the person who lost his life. You say that victims find out after the fact what the correctional system does. You also say that if you had known beforehand, you could have been more prepared.
I would like you to tell us this: How can anyone prepare for such bad news? For a victim, the offender being released can only be bad news. How would you have prepared yourself if the bill had been adopted and you had been notified of his release or of the procedure related to his case that could lead to his potential release?
I’ll have another question for Mr. Carrie.
[English]
Ms. Freeman: To answer your question — thank you for that — when I received the certificate of conviction in 1992 after the trial — my older sister and I attended court every day, and it was handed to us. It clearly said life sentence with no parole for 25 years. We took that 25 years, put it in the future as far as we could and tried to build a life for ourselves. We never forgot what happened; it’s always there. However, you have this date in your head from 1992 plus 25 years.
Then, out of the blue, I get a letter from the Parole Board that even though it’s been 22 years, he’s eligible for escorted temporary absences, a form of release that we had no idea even existed. With all our dealings with the Parole Board, at that time, we had only been told the 25 years.
As impossible as it seems, even today, when I’m on the verge of a probable likely full parole decision, it’s difficult to get your ahead around that. For my entire adult life since I was 21, this has been part of my life.
So to reach the stage of full parole is almost impossible for me to comprehend. To be told there are other kinds of parole — other than full parole — and there’s a hearing in a month’s time in Kingston, and if you want to go and represent your family, here’s what you do. We had nothing to prepare ourselves.
For the other instance when the offender was transferred from another institution to a lesser level of security and we were informed 24 hours later, that threw us into chaos. My youngest sister lived very close to that institution, which was in a different province. How could you even guess that he would be removed three provinces away from Ontario and end up literally down the street from her?
If we had known even X amount of time before, maybe you can’t accept it, but it can certainly give you some time to think about what to do, who you can write to and see if you can get things reversed instead of just being told, literally, the day after in a letter or in a phone call.
I always say that preparation — maybe not for everybody, but for me, so I can think outside the box. What can I do? How can I approach this? How can I influence a change in this? It would have made a lot of difference for me and my family. I deal with a lot of victims of crime, and they say the exact same thing.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Thank you, Ms. Freeman.
Mr. Carrie, I’ve read the bill. I’m wondering if it isn’t a bit short for what Ms. Freeman is trying to achieve. She tell us that she is scarred for life by the crime that victimized her family. With this bill, people will be able to prepare themselves for hearings.
What she finds outrageous, and rightly so, is that she was never informed that a life sentence without possibility of parole for 25 years is very rare in the current system. It applies to only a few crimes. That aspect isn’t considered in the current bill. Basically, what is being added is an explanation of how the dates are determined. That doesn’t match the criteria for involvement that Ms. Freeman was looking for. What could give more comfort to the victims?
[English]
Mr. Carrie: Thank you, senator, for that because I would agree with you that it’s a tad short.
The challenge is that in a parliamentary system — in a minority — I consulted with colleagues across different parties, and I’m actually very proud that it was supported unanimously in the House of Commons.
I’ve also seen some good work coming from the senators. I brought this by, 65 pages of the Improving Support for Victims of Crime, this report that maybe some of you had a chance to look at.
You’re 100% correct. I just find Ms. Freeman’s story — can you imagine her sister going for groceries, just turning around and there’s the murderer of her father? These stories are not just unique to Ms. Freeman. If she has the opportunity, she can tell you some of the stories that she’s been dealing with in helping other victims.
One of the nice things about the Senate is the institutional knowledge, and whatever happens with the elected members, you around the table will know what intentions were with this bill and perhaps in the future we can even improve it more.
I thank you, and I appreciate the comments.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Carrie, what this experience also shows — you’ve been a member of Parliament for 20 years, and this is the first time that you have had a private member’s bill go this far in the system. It also shows those of us in the Senate because we have the opportunity — with your lottery system, as MPs, it shows how infrequent getting a private member’s bill passed is.
You’ve tried a few times before on different ones. This one, you’ve really tailored it down, and it just shows us — because we can, as senators, propose private member’s bills on our own more frequently than that.
That would be the reason because you want to make sure that this — even if it’s a more tailored version — that it really gets down to what can help, as far as a private member’s bill, in this regard.
I would like to ask you: How could this bill help restore the trust for families of victims in the criminal justice system especially about transparency and communication with the Parole Board of Canada?
Mr. Carrie: I don’t think this bill is going to restore trust. I think it will be one small step. As I mentioned, it’s 10 words, and it’s been 10 years — which is one word per year.
Transparency means a lot. As Ms. Freeman was saying, there are opportunities to do victims’ impact statements, and just imagine that you don’t have that opportunity. When a parole officer is dealing with an individual in the system, they may be dealing with that offender for six months. She’s been dealing with him for decades, and to not have that ability to voice, for victims, is hugely disappointing.
The Parole Board, they are legally required to divulge this information to the offender but not to the victim.
Right now, in my humble opinion, this is the offender’s rights, and this is the victim’s rights. What this bill does is this, and it’s not moving it to where it needs to be.
However, in the system we have, I see this as moving it in the right direction. It is welcomed in victims’ rights groups, and I think it’s something the Parole Board can do.
As parliamentarians, they send letters out anyway, so just put a little bit more information in it so that victims are aware. With transparency and a compassionate move, I think this is something that we can all do and feel pretty good about.
The Deputy Chair: I remember when my husband would tell me about how, as an MP, you’ll be lucky to get one private member’s bill passed in your entire tenure as a member of Parliament. That’s how people would look at it, so that’s what he took into account when deciding what he wanted to do.
When you’re saying that about these letters, yes, some advance notification would also be good, and some actual information. Because, Ms. Freeman, when you said in your opening remarks that this in-office decision thing, you were just informed that you would be informed of the outcome sometime in December, and then to be told that, I mean, this is the time of family gatherings with Christmas and that sort of thing, and not knowing when it will come. Will it be December 24? How will it come now with a postal strike? Will it be something that they will ensure gets to us or would it just have been sent in the mail? How will you be informed now? All of these things would be key things to know.
As Mr. Carrie said, a few provinces over, and to think that you might, as a victim’s family member, run into an offender in the grocery store is just absolutely shocking.
Maybe you could just tell us a little bit more, Ms. Freeman, what direct impacts this lack of transparency has had on your healing process and that of your family?
Ms. Freeman: Thank you for the question.
In regard to the healing process — and I’m speaking for every victim of crime that I’ve met, and I’ve met many through the years — I don’t know if you ever quite get there. There are bad days, and there are better days, but you carry this with you every single day. This is not something you put down. This is something that’s part of your DNA almost.
Especially for me, as I was in my early 20s when this crime happened. As I said, it’s been my whole adult life dealing with this offender and then the Parole Board as the parole process has moved on.
When you’re having one of the better days, and you find something like this out, it just destroys it because it takes you back to a place you never want to go to. For me, I always say that I put the really bad things on a shelf way back in the top of my head — way at the back, so they’re not in the forefront — so people don’t often see it. But when the bad days are there, it’s right in the front again, and you cannot do anything about it. It’s like a wound that doesn’t completely heal.
We know it’s not going to. But to have the added stress of things that really can be controlled — it’s a simple act of letting you know that this will be happening. You might not like it, but at least you will know it’s coming, instead of a surprise happening when you pick up the phone, go into the Victims Portal that the Parole Board has or you open your mail. Advance knowledge, to me, has always been and always will be — you can prepare yourself a little bit better and prepare your family.
At the time, I was told there was nothing I could do to reverse it. I thought there must be something. They said, “Well, you can write a letter to the sending warden and the receiving warden.” I feel I need to try 110% so I can say, at the end of this, that I’ve done everything I could possibly do.
It’s one day, and it was the offender’s rights that prevented that from happening. Again, as MP Carrie said, offenders’ rights are stacked up very high and my rights as a victim of crime are very low, and I haven’t done one thing wrong. This is something that’s been put on me.
The Deputy Chair: You were initially saying that, on conviction, you bargained on it being that year plus 25 years. Then it was three years earlier that, all of a sudden, boom, you were told about this. You couldn’t even prepare by, maybe, going to see a counsellor or something like that. You could not take any steps like that. Thank you very much.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Ms. Freeman, for all of your work. I’m very sorry for your loss. As someone who has a family member who was murdered as well, it’s something that doesn’t ever leave you. It’s always there.
From the work that I’ve done with victims, often there’s much more needed long before this process. I wanted to check on whether there had been any work on some of the other types of approaches, rather than law reform, that have been discussed with you.
And for Mr. Carrie, as I’ve read through this bill, and I know its provisions fairly well, I can’t see what this bill remedies. Everything that the bill permits is already permissible. It looks like it’s trying to correct what are more administrative or procedural issues about how duties are followed or dealt with within the Parole Board or perhaps in Correctional Service Canada, or CSC.
I’m curious: What of the policy and the legislation, in particular, needed remedying from your perspective? Can you point us to that?
Ms. Freeman: Thank you for your question. I personally have not been approached by anyone for any other things. What I do, I am in a homicide support group outside of Toronto. I support victims of crime through our candlelight vigil information session, which I fund myself every year. For bigger things, no. I just seem to do my own thing. I help where I can, where I’m needed, and I help whomever is asking for help.
I help people write victim impact statements because there’s very little support out there. After the trial has finished and the sentencing has happened and once parole unfolds, there’s very little support out there. The victim services that we do have in place do try their best, but there just doesn’t seem to be any focus on people bereaved by homicide for the long-term effects and the things that they need. I don’t do a lot of work for legal things and the things that you’ve asked about.
Mr. Carrie: Senator, thank you for the question. This bill actually puts it right in there, with 10 more words, saying, “ . . . and an explanation of how those dates have been determined.”
You mentioned an administrative issue. It’s been 10 years and they haven’t changed. This will actually put it in the legislation. I believe you will have an opportunity to talk with people from the Parole Board and from Correctional Service Canada. That is something they can talk about with you, but this puts it right in the law for victims. It gives them security and transparency.
As you are aware, because you’ve done some great work with victims in the past, when something like this happens, the offender gets a sentence, and the victim and the victims’ families get a life sentence. As Ms. Freeman was saying, it’s something she’s never asked for. By putting in those 10 words, that will show this information sharing is a necessity unless there is a real problem that could happen in the public. I think this is a small change that will give solace to victims and victims’ families, to know that when these decisions are made, at least they will understand how, why and when the dates have been determined specifically.
Senator Pate: There’s nothing in the law preventing that right now, so I’m curious: Have you had discussions with the Parole Board, the Correctional Service Canada or the Minister of Public Safety about the procedures that they use? Because there’s nothing preventing that from happening right now.
Mr. Carrie: I want to thank you for that specifically. Perhaps Ms. Freeman would like to elaborate as well. During COVID — you will remember the situation there — I definitely talked to Minister Blair about it, and he said, “Oh, absolutely. We can make sure that that happens.” Did it happen?
Ms. Freeman: It did not happen.
Mr. Carrie: Right. So, again, it’s been a long time. Corrections is aware of the changes that I’ve been requesting through different iterations of the bill over time. Sometimes it just has to be put in there, so that victims know that the CSC will follow through with this.
For whatever reason — and I do encourage you to ask them why — this has not happened. I’m very confident and I’m very happy that this bill got unanimous support. It went through committee in the House. Everybody appeared confident that this was a good way to move forward.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Carrie, you just said that the House unanimously adopted it. Did whoever was the Minister of Public Safety at the time vote for it? Also, did all of cabinet vote for it?
Mr. Carrie: You betcha.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you for being here. It’s hard no to be moved by everything you’ve told us. Thank you, Ms. Freeman, for your courage, and thank you for pushing the cause. Thanks to you, we can take a major step forward. Thank you also, Mr. Carrie, for introducing the bill.
I think we’re all very sensitive to what you went through. You will certainly have my support for the bill. Before I came to the Senate, I worked for a few years in crime victims’ compensation in Quebec. When I got ready to read the bill, I thought, “Notifying victims is the least we can do.” I didn’t expect this amendment. Perhaps that’s the reason my colleagues are asking questions about victims’ right to information. I feel it’s the least we can do. I naively thought that was already the case. Thank you, Mr. Carrie. I hope we’ll have a chance to hear from people at the Parole Board and ask them why it’s not currently the case.
My question is about the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, and I have a sub-question about the definition of a victim, especially in the case of a child. Ms. Freeman is the child of the person who was murdered. I would like us to properly define what a victim is.
My first question is this: Why should we amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act rather than the Victims Bill of Rights Act? You might tell me that you don’t want to go there because it’s quasi-constitutional, but the bill of rights is broader. It already provides for the right to information and a broader definition of victim than the one your bill refers to. I would like to know why you decided to make these amendments rather than going after the Victims Bill of Rights. I’m sure you’ve thought of that and must have a reason.
Then we’ll talk about the second part of my question, what exactly a victim is. My goal is to broaden the idea of a victim to also include the families, not only the immediate victim, but everyone who is entitled to be notified about what’s happening with a case. I would like to hear from you about the idea of a victim, which I feel should more broadly include the family, especially the children. That’s not what I understand from the definition of “victim” in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, as opposed to the definition in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights Act.
I’ll stop there. Thank you for your answers.
[English]
Mr. Carrie: Thank you. Again, a very good question.
I do believe that victims — the definition — should be expanded. Speaking with victims over many years, and reading the testimony of victims for this study, it’s quite understandable when something like this happens that the family members are traumatized. And when they’re originally contacted by the Parole Board, they ask them, “Do you want to register?” Ms. Freeman could probably go through how that occurs. But some victims are just so traumatized that they say, “No, I don’t want to hear anything.” This, senator, can change over a number of years. So when you’re initially contacted and you say, “I don’t want anything to do with this.” What’s the next step if you originally say, “No, I don’t want to deal with this. I don’t want to deal with you guys. This is horrible. I can’t deal with this right now.” Those victims, are they defined by the system because they said, “We’re not going to be participating in the system that you have.” So what’s the follow-up? Is there any follow-up? How far does victimization go?
In Ms. Freeman’s situation, you have a father, you have people that loved him and were friends of his, family members. I don’t really know, and that’s not my expertise on how to define that, but I think we can come up with a better definition if we start listening to actual victims and see what they have to say. Did that answer both of your questions?
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I’d also like to hear from you about the idea of choosing the Canadian Victims Rights Bill as the legislative vehicle rather than the act you’ve chosen to amend. What led you to choose to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act?
[English]
Mr. Carrie: I originally wanted to do a lot more because starting to listen to victims, and they wanted to talk, they were looking for somebody. “Just please listen to us.” And I wanted to overhaul the whole thing, but reality started to set in because even around this table, if we started to talk about it, the reforms, I bet we would get different opinions and we would agree on a lot of it, but then it comes down to votes. This is how our system works.
Listening to victims over a number of years, and talking to my colleagues across the aisle, it was what could we do now? Because this report was done December 2022, two years ago. How far have we gotten on this? There are, what, 15 recommendations? And knowing how this place works, and knowing Ms. Freeman; again, she was the inspiration that wanted to do something that would make a difference not necessarily for her but for families in the future. So we did decide to narrow cast what we were asking for, and I think the fact that she’s here with me today is a testament that that strategy kind of worked.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: words spoken in Innu-aimun. Thank you for your courage and for sharing your truths with us. Now that your message has made it around this table, we are responsible for it. That’s the way it is in my Innu culture.
I had to go through experiences with indigenous women to understand the complexity of the government of Quebec and its justice or decision-making system, how different cases are treated, the victims’ experiences and the judges’ decisions. Afterward, I learned that at the federal level, no information is communicated when a decision is made to incarcerate the person in an institution. There’s a total void. I thought victims had that right, which is a necessary one.
Over the last few years, have you learned whether other provinces or territories have approaches for notifying the victims of crime? My question is very broad. It’s a shame everyone works in silos. We’d like to make big changes. However, something very specific has been brought to us. You deserve healing. There is now an act in Quebec known as “family of the heart”. It’s for people who aren’t the victim’s child, but their sister, brother or cousin. Have you thought about that with a view to making recommendations? That’s my first question.
Ms. Freeman, I think it’s a shame that victims have to educate other victims to understand the complex system. I would like that recorded in our minutes. We should take a broader view and act in the coming months to support a system that needs to do its work. It shouldn’t be up to all the women and men who have lost loved ones. I’ve seen it too often. Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Freeman: That’s an excellent question. I’ll answer the last one because I remember it first.
Absolutely correct. I do workshops. I do what I can. I work in nursing so I’m very busy just by nature. I have children so I’m very busy. I do workshops, how to write stronger impact statements. My three words are: Engage, educate and empower. These people know the struggles. It’s the public that you have to educate as well that have no idea what it’s like to be in the position of a victim of crime.
I’m all for organizing whatever I can with whoever can help me do it bigger, on a grander scale, but I’m only one person and I spread myself pretty thin, which is fine, I’m not complaining because I do help a lot of people all the time. I’m simply filling a void that isn’t there. That needs to be looked at. What are we missing here?
The Parole Board of Canada tells victims of crime that they’re listening to their voice, but they’re not. Because I’ve had to go out of the system to be heard. I’m sitting here today. I’ve had to go out of that system. And they help people with victim impact statements. And I’m like, “No, don’t, they’re not the right people because they don’t understand what it’s like.” It’s not a textbook thing, it’s coming from your heart and a painful place.
So I’m always open to steering any committee, anything, to help people because that’s my legacy, and the memory of my dad, of course. Because everything that we’re asking for, all the things I’ve talked to you about today, nothing’s going to help me. I’m at the end of the parole process unless it is denied again. It was denied two times previous. I’m at the end, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop at all because there is much work to do.
You mentioned the victims bill of rights, that needs a complete overhaul. That’s what I looked to to protect me. Since parole has been unfolding since 2012, I have had no right to information, I have had no right to participation. Through COVID, I had no rights. The offender had all the rights. He was able to have hearings with his support team. I was banned from hearings. And I’m like, “I work in nursing. I can wear personal protective equipment and be six feet apart from anybody. I know how to do it.” They still wouldn’t let me go, but the hearings continued. The right to information — that’s why I’m here; it’s a struggle to get that.
I’m open to anything, and I’m willing to try and do anything I can so people don’t have to go down this horrible road like I did. In 1991, when my dad was killed, there were no victim services. I was lucky to have an awesome older sister and a very invested detective who took us under his wing. Now, there are a lot of places for help. At the same time, though, they don’t seem to have the right tools because they’re missing things that victims of crime and I know. We know it; we walk together every day.
That’s the answer to the second question, but I can’t remember the first question.
Oh, other provinces. I don’t know; I have no idea about other provinces. For sure, there are homicide support groups out there. I ran the first one in Ontario with Victims Services of York Region, which was not funded by the government; a donor gave the money for that to run. They are few and far between. There are communities of survivors, people affected by homicide, who get together. I help where I can, but I don’t know of any other provinces that have anything set up to help people.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Before we go to the next senator, I wanted to ask you, Ms. Freeman: Could you tell us about your dad? He’s really the reason. You’re the inspiration for Mr. Carrie, but your dad is your inspiration.
Ms. Freeman: My dad’s name was Roland Slingerland. He was a navy vet. He was on the first ship to circumnavigate the Northwest Passage. Growing up, we always thought he was telling tall tales, but all of them were right, and they are in the history books. I wish I had him longer, but I had him until I was 21. My dad had four daughters. We’re a family of girls.
As mentioned, the crime was focused around a woman he helped move because the offender was beating her up. Of course, he wasn’t going to give up the location where she was moved to. He had four daughters, and he would never do that.
He was a quiet, intelligent man. We miss him dearly. It was a big impact on the City of Oshawa because he worked for the city. Everyone knew him. My mom ran the local hotel, so everybody knew my parents. It was a huge loss for the community, one that is still felt today. When I came in to catch the train, there is a building called PK Welding. He was a sheet metal worker, too, and the sign is still up there — PK — what he put up there decades ago. I thought, “Okay, Dad. I’m off to Ottawa.”
The Deputy Chair: I’m from a family of four daughters, too, as is Senator Pate. Interesting.
Senator Clement: It’s important to have people say their names, so I appreciate that. Thank you.
I became a lawyer in 1991, and I remember those days. I was a Legal Aid lawyer — legal clinic lawyer. There were no victim services then. I represented people in front of the Criminal Injuries Compensations Board, with all the limitations that had and continues to have. A lot of my clients didn’t have the resources to do much.
I want to ask you a different question; I want to ask you about your books because you’re also an author. You’ve written two books. There is a gap of time between those books. Could you explain how those helped in terms of some of the questions you’ve been answering today?
Ms. Freeman: The first book came out in 2016, and it’s called She Won’t Be Silenced, which my mom named for me. From the time of the crime until the parole started unfolding, I wouldn’t talk about this to anybody. The people closest to me didn’t know my father was murdered. I just didn’t want them to know. I’m a very private person. That was until I went to the first parole hearing for the escorted temporary absences. It was the first time I had seen the murderer since the trial. The Parole Board of Canada introduced me twice by full name in front of this man.
When I got back to Oshawa, I complained. I said, “I’m sorry that’s wrong. You should not be doing that. You should ask me how I want to be introduced.” They said it was his right to know who’s complaining about him. Now what? I don’t want to do this, but I’m going to have to get out there and try to change things. It did get changed via the ombuds office. By law now, they have to ask you how you want to be addressed. That was huge.
As for the gap of time, the story was still active. It has been a long process for parole.
I put out the second book just this year.
Senator Clement: Recently.
Ms. Freeman: I think it was in April or something like that. It’s called Time Served because I served the time for a crime I have not committed. I served my time. The story is unfolding still.
I have another book coming out probably in the springtime called The Pearl Necklace and Other Accessories of Grief. It is impact statements — what I’ve written. People don’t know how to write them. There are also stories I’ve put together along with that. I also have a workbook on how to write impact statements.
So the gap of time is that I have to work for a living, the story is unfolding and I thought the time was right to do it. Last year, I started writing it, and it was finished and published earlier this year.
Senator Clement: Thank you so much for speaking to us.
The Deputy Chair: It has been such an impactful hour. I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us today and for answering questions.
Continuing our study of Bill C-320, for our second panel, we are pleased to welcome the following witnesses: First, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Crime Prevention Branch. Second, from Correctional Service Canada, we welcome Kirstan Gagnon, Assistant Commissioner, Public Affairs, Culture and Engagement Sector; Katherine Belhumeur, Director General, Offender Programs and Reintegration Branch, Correctional Operations and Programs Sector; Katherine Cole, Senior Director, Victims, Inclusion and Engagement, Public Affairs, Culture and Engagement Sector. Finally, from the Parole Board of Canada, we have Lawrence Chow, Director General, Policy, Planning and Operations Division. Thank you very much for being here today.
We will begin with opening remarks from Kirstan Gagnon. The floor is yours for five minutes when you are ready.
[Translation]
Kirstan Gagnon, Assistant Commissioner, Public Affairs, Culture and Engagement Sector, Correctional Service Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Bill C-320.
My name is Kirstan Gagnon, and I am the Assistant Commissioner for Public Affairs, Culture and Engagement at the Correctional Service of Canada. The National Victim Services Program falls under my area of responsibility as does our Restorative Opportunities Program.
I first want to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinabe and Algonquin people.
I am pleased to be joined here today by Katherine Cole, Katherine Belhumeur, Lawrence Chow and Chad Westmacott.
Together, we all play a role in supporting victims and survivors of crime.
[English]
Victims have been and continue to be an important part of the Correctional Service Canada’s work as we uphold the law and deliver on our mandate. As part of this work, CSC works daily to ensure that victims and survivors of crime — and their families — are treated with fairness, dignity and respect.
Currently, we have more than 9,000 registered victims who receive information about the offender who harmed them. I am proud of our victims services program and our victims services officers across Canada who use a trauma-based approach to liaise with victims each and every day.
This work can be challenging, and they do a great job. They help provide information, answer questions, seek input and facilitate victim participation. Each victim has different requests and needs, and we work with each of them to uphold their rights at all stages of the process. Most importantly, victims can choose what they want, what they need, how they would like it and in what way. They can change that at any time.
Last year, we completed more than 46,000 notifications to victims with various pieces of information, which includes information on transfers, temporary absences, work releases, conditional releases, release dates and conditions. Victims are also invited to exercise their right to participation by sharing their concerns about potential transfers. This helps to inform our decision-making process.
CSC processes approximately 1,500 victim statements annually. Victims are also invited to update their statement as things change in their lives. The number of victims who choose to receive information from CSC continues to grow, and we believe registrations will continue to increase with the coming into force of a recent revised clause in the Criminal Code where courts will now be required to send the name and contact information to CSC for any victim who wishes to receive information about the offender who harmed them.
This change was brought about with the passage of former Bill S-12. It will create more continuity of services for victims given that, after sentencing, we previously had no way to reach victims proactively.
One year ago today, we appeared before another parliamentary committee to respond to questions about this same bill. We are pleased to note that, since then, CSC has implemented a number of new initiatives related to how we deliver services to victims. For example, we have worked to implement additional victim engagement prior to offender transfer decisions. We also put in place a new form that serves as an alternative to a victim statement. That makes it easier for victims to outline their key concerns and geographical restrictions. We also increased our direct engagement with victims when they submit a complaint to us. This often includes organizing several meetings with victims to gain a better understanding of their concerns and work to address them. These conversations go a long way to providing a more personalized service.
We have held several meetings with all victim services and prosecution services in the provinces and territories to strengthen the continuity of services for victims and implement the updated clause in the Criminal Code.
I’m also pleased that we have also increased our outreach efforts to Indigenous, Black and other racialized communities to ensure they are aware of our services and their rights as victims of crime.
In addition, CSC engages with victims on an ongoing basis through our Regional Victim Advisory Committees. These are victims of crime who provide ongoing advice to us on our programs and services.
At the beginning of this year, we launched the Multidisciplinary Victims Committee, which includes victims and survivors of crime. The Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime was an observer on this committee. We had very productive discussions, and this group provided a series of recommendations and feedback on our services. We put in place a multi-year work plan to address all of them. The full report is available on our website if you’re interested.
Public Safety Canada continues to organize national victim round tables which provide important opportunities for our partners to meet with victims and victim-serving organizations. This can include in-depth conversations about how to improve victims’ abilities to exercise their rights within the federal corrections and conditional release system and strengthening awareness of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
Through this, we welcome the opportunity to further learn from these engagements to ensure that Correctional Service Canada is providing culturally safe, trauma-informed services to victims.
In closing, Correctional Service Canada is committed to supporting victims of crime. We are also committed and open to making ongoing improvements that increase transparency and participation. Thank you, and we look forward to answering any of your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for providing remarks, Ms. Gagnon.
Senator Prosper: Thank you all for being here. I want to follow up with you, Ms. Gagnon. You provided a lot of detail on the services you provide and notable improvements you have made over the last year. Can you please give me your opinion on Bill C-320? Do you agree with it? Do you think it will improve the transparency to victims and respond to their needs?
Ms. Gagnon: Currently, we follow the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Senator Pate is correct that currently we do provide information on sentence calculation and eligibility dates. A whole booklet is dedicated to that effect, and it is there to support victims. I don’t think it hurts to provide a deeper dive into explanation for victims who wish to receive it. It’s a very technical area. For those who do want to do a deeper dive, we’re more than happy to do it.
Senator Prosper: Just from that testimony, if I can, when you say it doesn’t hurt, does it mean you’re in agreement with the substance of the bill?
Ms. Gagnon: Yes, sure.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Gagnon, in your opening remarks, you said you were talking about this bill a year ago. I’m assuming that was at the House of Commons committee. Was it as a result of this bill that you then instigated those additional actions that you talked about, the additional victim engagement and the increased direct engagement with victims? Tell us a little bit more about that and whether that was as a result of this actual bill.
Ms. Gagnon: We’re a fairly small program. We’re always working away at making improvements to the process. We get a lot of feedback from victims and victim groups. We have a complaint process in place. We don’t get tons of complaints a year. It’s around maybe 10 or 14. We do learn from those. We take steps if there’s a pattern or a systemic issue which victims are facing, and we work to address it.
Last summer, frankly, we did notice that security classifications and transfers were not fully clear to Canadians and also to victims in terms of how that works, how that whole process unfolds, what it means and how we maintain public safety in that greater context.
We did a lot of work on that front. From there, we did build that victim committee, with victims on the committee, to learn what more we could do to make it clearer for them, to help explain, to engage them earlier before a transfer occurs. We did put those steps in motion, and we’re doing that now.
The Deputy Chair: Okay.
Ms. Gagnon: I was showing Senator Pate that we came up with a new booklet about institutional security levels. It’s something that victims had requested because they didn’t really understand what a minimum was. Was it safe? What’s a medium and what’s a maximum? What are the conditions inside? How does that work? We wanted to explain that a bit better to victims. Those are some examples.
The Deputy Chair: Could you provide that booklet to our committee clerk, so that our committee members could get a copy of that?
Ms. Gagnon: Absolutely.
The Deputy Chair: I’m not sure if you were here for the first hour of testimony, but Ms. Freeman was talking about how she has recently been informed of this in-office decision and that she will be informed of the outcome sometime in December. I know you can’t comment on individual cases, but does that sound like the kind of thing that perhaps should have been improved with the kinds of victim engagement that you just spoke about? Or is that something outside of that?
Ms. Gagnon: I think she was referring to a Parole Board hearing, so I will let my colleague answer that.
Lawrence Chow, Director General, Policy, Planning and Operations Division, Parole Board of Canada: Yes, we certainly are sensitive to notification dates or decisions or whatnot. We do have a system in place where we take a trauma-informed approach when working with victims. We have a team of very dedicated, well-trained regional communications officers who would work with victims with the Parole Board of Canada.
When we are contacting victims either by mail, phone or by any means, we do take into account what we would call sensitive dates, such as holiday periods, the dates where the crime may have taken place or other sensitive dates that are unique to the victim we are contacting. Yes, we absolutely do take those into consideration.
The Deputy Chair: As we heard, how would a trauma-informed approach work when the victim’s family is just being told they will be informed of the outcome from an in-office decision sometime in December? That is right jam-packed into the holiday period, the Christmas period. Also, that’s the only information that is received. Does that sound like something that would be in accordance with your trauma-informed approach or not?
Mr. Chow: It is in a sense. Can we do better? Absolutely. We continue to do that. We try to strike a balance between keeping the victims informed so that they have all the information well in advance, as early in advance as possible, but we also take into consideration some of the potential sensitive dates. Could we do better? Absolutely.
For us, we ask how we can strike that fine balance between keeping the victims informed of the progress or legislative deadlines that we are facing versus at what point do we have to tell the victims and give them the advance knowledge they are seeking so they can be better prepared as well.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Ms. Gagnon, listening to your testimony makes me feel like I’m on a totally different planet from the one that Ms. Freeman unfortunately found herself on. Do you systematically contact the victims of every crime for which people are incarcerated in the correctional system to tell them about parole eligibility, release dates and the eligibility or review date applicable to temporary absences? Do you systematically communicate this information to the victims?
Ms. Gagnon: Yes, I can say that we systematically communicate that information to the victims registered with us. Letters containing all that information are sent to the victims. What is important and essential is using the victims’ statement to find out whether there are geographical restrictions, for example. We share more information so that victims are aware, because sometimes the crime took place 30 years earlier and the victims may not have updated their statements. It’s very important to do that. With the new process, we can gather all new information. That’s a major improvement to the process.
Senator Moreau: What efforts do you make to ensure you convey to the victims how important the statement is? What resources do you have for that?
Ms. Gagnon: We do it a number of times. The system is designed to respect what the victims want. For example, some victims don’t want to receive information, while others very much do. I spoke with Ms. Freeman. She feels it important to have a lot of information. Other victims fall somewhere in between.
Some victims want to get the information over the phone, some by letter and others through the portal. We try to accommodate the degree to which victims want to participate in the process. The information is fairly detailed. When victims have been traumatized, it can take a few tries before getting them the information. We have officers to support them in the process. They talk to them on the phone, clarify information and remind them of important facts. The work is done is different ways depending on the victims’ needs.
Senator Moreau: Mr. Carrie told us that 10 words were being added. Will adding 10 words change your approach in any way? Does the amendment impose any obligations that you don’t currently have?
Ms. Gagnon: No.
Senator Moreau: Do you think these amendments might force you to convey information to victims that they don’t want to have?
Ms. Gagnon: The entire section of the act is drafted to say “at the request”.
In addition, a letter is sent to victims before they’re registered. They might have approached us for information about services. The letter is quite detailed. It provides a lot of information about the inmates.
Senator Moreau: Could you give the committee clerk a sample of the latter?
Ms. Gagnon: Absolutely. There are three templates.
Another letter containing similar information is sent after they’ve registered. A third letter is sent to them if the inmate’s situation changes. There could be new charges that could extend the inmate’s sentence. The letter could also say whether there are changes in the calculation of the inmate’s eligibility date.
Senator Moreau: Great. Could you provide all three templates?
Ms. Gagnon: Absolutely.
Senator Moreau: Thank you.
Ms. Gagnon: I would like to add a comment.
We try to keep the language simple and colloquial so that it’s easy to understand. However, as I said, if victims want to understand all the calculations and how the whole thing works, we have operations people who make the calculations. It’s pretty technical, but there are people who can help if needed.
Senator Moreau: Thank you, Ms. Gagnon.
Senator Audette: Thank you for your presentation in French. I greatly appreciate it.
I come here with a great deal of goodwill. If I use hurtful words, I apologize in advance.
I feel that wanting information is a right. The person we’re dealing with has a right to get information. Your colleague Mr. Chow talked about the trauma-informed approach.
In Quebec, following a court ruling, when victims ask for their victim’s rights or the available programs and services to be explained to them on the phone or in court, the approach is tactful and sensitive. When they’re informed about rights, programs and services, they can accept or decline.
At the federal level, a victim has to relive the experience and no one notifies them. They don’t even know that they have to register with Correctional Services Canada to get information. In addition, the form is six pages long, whereas the CAVAC uses a one-page form where victims share their truth. Isn’t that a little far from the trauma-informed approach? People have to fill out complicated forms explaining what they went through in order to join the victim registry. There is a lack of effort. We could change things to increase the pool of people with a right to information about the progress of a case.
Ms. Gagnon: Bill S-12 will change things. We often have trouble reaching victims.
Senator Audette: You know where the victims are: in court. A ruling is made, and it’s clear who it affected. The Cour du Québec manages to find these women.
Ms. Gagnon: At Correctional Services Canada, we definitely reach them once they’re in the system. It might have to do with roles. However, we work with the provinces and territories to learn from them and simplify the procedures wherever possible.
There are also municipal, provincial and federal victims’ services. They’re available on many levels. We try to do what we can to simplify the procedures and make the process easier.
The bill will make it easier for us to communicate more easily with victims and more effectively make them aware of our services. The new form will help us. They will no longer be forced to describe the crime.
There can be special considerations. For example, an inmate has been moved to Kingston, not the institution across the road. We need to know that when it comes to transfers.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I would just like to ask a question to Mr. Chow from the Parole Board of Canada. What is the minister’s level of attention to this issue, and what directives, if any, have been issued to ensure that the Parole Board of Canada’s practices are better adapted to the well-being and needs of victims?
Mr. Chow: Madam Chair, I can’t opine on what the minister is currently thinking. However, I can say that the nature of the setup of the Parole Board of Canada is that we’re an independent administrative tribunal in the sense that the minister can’t direct the Parole Board in terms of decision making and whatnot. We often remind the public there is that arm’s-length relation there.
The Deputy Chair: Right, about decisions, but what about these types of things that I was just asking?
Saying that you can’t opine on what the minister thinks, I’m assuming then that means there are no directives dealing with victims that have been issued despite these ongoing issues continuing to be raised as issues.
Mr. Chow: I can say, on the policy front, we’re always looking at how to improve our accountability, transparency and engagement with the public and getting the feedback from victims as well.
As Ms. Gagnon mentioned earlier, we work closely with CSC, as well as Public Safety, on many of these initiatives, like the multidisciplinary committee on victims so that we get to hear back from the victims and individuals like Ms. Freeman first-hand to let us know where we are and what our shortcomings are so we can proactively make improvements in the system.
For example, coming back to this bill in front of us right now, since the deliberations occurred through Parliament, we have been looking at internally how we can proactively provide that information, those explanations to victims in advance of all of this because currently it doesn’t prevent us.
The Deputy Chair: Are you proactively providing that yet or not?
Mr. Chow: We are not at this point yet, but we are working on getting that information out.
The Deputy Chair: Also a question for Mr. Westmacott. You mentioned in your opening remarks about these round tables that are held with victims and victims’ groups. That was something that you also noted in your testimony in the House of Commons about that, about Public Safety Canada doing that.
Despite that, we continue to hear these concerns — not just on this bill but on other issues — from victims and families like Ms. Freeman’s today who express a profound feeling of not being heard and informed as they should be. If these round tables are being held regularly, how do you explain that these continued concerns from victims and their families continue to come up? They feel like they have been ignored or insufficiently informed.
On that topic again, are these concerns and recommendations that have come out of these round tables going up to the minister? What concrete actions dealing with that have been considered a priority for the minister on this topic?
Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Crime Prevention Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada: Thank you very much for the question. Yes, absolutely the National Office for Victims that is housed within Public Safety Canada does hold these national round tables. We held a number of them before COVID and have restarted them since COVID.
What happens at those round tables is an opportunity for victims and victim groups to discuss with us in terms of how the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights should be delivered, how they could receive information and receive it better. There are a number of actions we have taken following the round tables, including improvements to the publications, easier communication through the Victims Portal and the victims websites that are run on the Government of Canada.
For example, one of the publications, the sentencing calculation — this is the French version because I gave the English version to Ms. Freeman — document that has come out that provides a bunch of information about various scenarios on sentence calculations when somebody could be eligible for various forms of parole and leave. That is one example of something that has come out of the round tables and actions that we have taken on that front.
The Deputy Chair: Those reports that you receive from the round tables and the concerns and recommendations that come out of that, are those considered a priority for the minister and how is that information conveyed to him?
Mr. Westmacott: I would say it depends specifically on the specific action. If there’s something that requires ministerial attention, whether it’s through information or through a decision, we would brief up appropriately through the various mechanisms that we have, whether it’s a memo or bilateral discussions, et cetera, and we would brief up the minister.
The Deputy Chair: How often is that done? How often do concerns rise to that level that you would brief up the minister on these types of things?
Mr. Westmacott: I would say that we would raise issues to the minister when appropriate. I think it depends — there’s always material going up to the minister —
The Deputy Chair: On victims. In the last year on victims, how many times would you have briefed the minister about victims’ issues?
Mr. Westmacott: I don’t have that in front of me, but I would say over the past year there were a number of times that we have briefed the minister over victims’ issues.
The Deputy Chair: Okay, thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Mr. Westmacott, for producing the sentence calculation for victims information. I’m a bit confused now because you said the information came out of the round tables, but there was an iteration of that booklet decades ago when the involvement of victims was first introduced into the CCRA. So, was this not in effect for a period of time? I’m trying to figure out what happened there. That wasn’t where I was starting. That just came up after you responded to the chair.
I’m interested in a couple of things. One, in my experience with victims, oftentimes they are very supportive of a gradual release process when they understand that means that people will be supervised in the community as part of the way of moving them through the system. Understandably, though, if they receive only information that suddenly the person who has harmed my loved one or was responsible for harming or the death or involved in something will be released on this day, understandably it creates a great deal of fear, confusion, anger, all of the above.
It strikes me that there are a number of ways that could be done. In the past, I’m aware there were at times videotapes done. There were certainly information sessions. Sometimes victims and former prisoners who have been doing rehabilitation work would be involved in doing that. I’m curious. It seems like there are a lot of you folks working on it now, but I’m wondering how much information is actually going out to folks?
My second question, which you can add on to, is: My read of this legislation is, as well-intentioned as it is and important because these things haven’t been happening, there is nothing in the current legislation or policy that wouldn’t allow what this legislation calls for.
Have there been discussions about implementing additional measures?
Ms. Gagnon: To your first question, one of the tools we have is a correctional plan progress report that’s sent out to victims. It helps them see the programming that an offender’s taking, the progress that they are making and we are making improvements to the tail end where it says next possible steps. For example, if an offender is up for a security review of their classification, so then they can know if an engagement point is to be forthcoming or if there’s a Parole Board hearing coming so they know there’s a next step there in the process. That’s helpful.
Your second question was about I think additional awareness sessions?
Katherine Cole, Senior Director, Victims, Inclusion and Engagement, Public Affairs, Culture and Engagement Sector, Correctional Service Canada: Thank you for the question. We have five different regional victim services units across the country and a national victim services unit, so we are about 50 in total. All of the units are involved in outreach into the community. We do outreach into the institutions as well and parole offices so that everybody is aware of victims’ rights and the services that they provide at CSC.
We have a database of over 1,000 different victim-serving organizations and agencies, and we regularly send out all of our publications to ensure people are aware. We really rely on other actors in the system to refer victims to our services. That’s why we ensure that that information is available to them, and we often give outreach sessions. We present on our program often with the Parole Board of Canada at the regional and national level to bring everybody together to talk about the services that we provide.
It really is the whole system that’s helping the victims through the process, and we want to ensure that other parts of the system are able to refer victims to us. Does that answer your question?
Senator Pate: Part of it, but is there anything in this bill that you couldn’t already be doing?
Ms. Gagnon: I see it as additional explanation where the victims want it. I think that’s a positive thing, if they do want it, if it makes it clearer for victims.
Senator Pate: You could be doing that right now with the current legislation.
Ms. Gagnon: And we would if a victim asks us.
Mr. Westmacott: Senator Pate, just to respond, yes. You are correct, that document did exist before. The most recent version was published in 2021, and it’s an update and makes it clearer. We have put it in more plain language so it’s easier to understand and be more accessible. That was something that came out of the round tables.
Senator Moreau: Could you provide us with the document?
Mr. Westmacott: We can provide that, yes.
Senator Pate: Are they available online?
Mr. Westmacott: They are available online and in hard copies. In fact, we have distributed 90,000 publications since 2005 to individuals who are interested in this and other documents that we have. I would mention they are also translated in 21 different languages.
The Deputy Chair: Just to follow up on Senator Pate’s question, if you could be giving this information out right now, why aren’t you? I am assuming that someone like Ms. Freeman is exactly the sort of person who has asked about these kinds of things.
Ms. Gagnon: We do that in the letters that go out to registered victims. There is a letter, also, before you’re registered, if you do reach out to us, that goes out. I’m happy to give these to everybody so you see the template. It has convicted offences, court of conviction, date of conviction, sentence length, start date, eligibility dates, escorted temporary absences dates, unescorted temporary absences dates if there are any, day parole, full parole, convicted offences, court of conviction — and then it goes on.
I think what they’re referring to in the bill is if someone wants a deeper explanation of how we came to calculating those eligibility dates, and it does get a bit technical, then we would provide someone who could explain it to them.
The Deputy Chair: Right. Yes, that is actually what they’re asking for. As you were saying, you do agree with this bill on behalf of the government? The government is willing to provide this information, correct?
Ms. Gagnon: Of course.
Senator Pate: I apologize, Madam Chair, but your question raised some supplementary issues.
As you were describing that, to my ear, the missing piece is what those things mean and what’s the rationale for them. If you just say they’re eligible for — you and I know, and no doubt Ms. Freeman knows now as well, that for people who are serving a sentence of life or whatever, the parole eligibility date indicates the full parole eligibility date. It needs to be explained that there is a reason why you look at a date three years before parole for escorted temporary absences. The presumption is it’s not a good idea to just dump someone, after 25 years in prison, out into the community. Three years before, they start to be considered. It is not that they necessarily get parole, but they start to be considered for a gradual conditional release. The research and the evidence behind that shows that’s the best way to safely have someone who is eligible and deemed appropriate by the Parole Board to be reviewed and to get back into the community.
I haven’t looked at the new document, but I don’t see where that kind of explanation exists, to show that this isn’t just something we dream up or that some legislator decides to just pick a number out of the air and stick it in, but that this is how it is brought about.
It strikes me that kind of information would be important. In my experience working with victims, it is incredibly important. We don’t just randomly decide a person will do this many years, and then get to do X, Y, or Z. There is a methodology to it.
Ms. Cole: We have an infographic on that just because it is so important. Victim services officers and the regional communications officers at the Parole Board would explain these things on the phone to victims as well.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you for your explanations. My question is for Ms. Gagnon. As you know, all the studies have shown that being a victim is the equivalent of suffering post‑traumatic shock. You can’t make decisions. I don’t think you can require a victim to go through a maze of six-page forms and keep their file up to date.
I went to your site. By the way, for my colleagues, there’s a very good Government of Canada site, Info GC. It publishes your indicators and targets. I was astonished to see that the target you wanted to achieve was only 350 per year for the number of victims newly registered in the Correctional Service of Canada’s registry system, when we know the scale of the crimes committed.
I’ll take you back to the report you referred to earlier, which justified the conclusion of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that information to victims should be provided not on request, but automatically. This was one of the recommendations made in the report in 2022. I’d like to hear what you have to say about that. I have the impression that this recommendation has not been followed. Instead, you seem to be advocating that victims should do all the work.
I repeat: you can’t require victims to take so many administrative steps or keep their files up to date. I don’t think that’s their opinion either. It should be a right. It shouldn’t be subject to an application or a six-page form; it should simply exist, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I’m uncomfortable because not only has this recommendation not been followed, but you seem to be advocating that it’s up to the victims to do the work.
In fact, on your website, we see that you’ve set yourself a target that isn’t ambitious; 350 is nothing. I see that you’ve increased your budgets. When I look at this section alone, there was $16 million. That’s not trivial. It was dedicated to 63 full-time equivalents in 2022. Today — I only have the published data — we’re talking about a budget of $35 million. I’d like to hear what you have to say about this. If you continue with this philosophy of asking victims to do all this work, do you have partnerships with community organizations that reach out to victims? Where does this money go? Are they actually used in partnership with organizations, or are you telling us today that you’re ready to change your approach so that victims no longer have to apply, so that it’s done automatically?
I’ve been listening to you since just now and I’m flabbergasted to hear that it’s up to the victims to do this work. I’d like to hear from you first about the objectives, then about the means.
Ms. Gagnon: I think it’s a balance that exists in the system. There are many factors to consider in all decisions. What’s more, we comply with the law, and the law states that it’s on request. It’s the same thing in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
There’s one aspect that’s been very important to me since I’ve held this position, and that’s respect for victims who don’t want to receive the information. It’s important in terms of their trauma. We also have to take into account the fact that there are victims who don’t want us to give them information. We have to respect that.
However, I think that with the changes that have been made... Yes, victims have a right to information, and the information is there.
Senator Oudar: I didn’t understand that earlier. I would agree with you if all victims had a choice at the beginning and only had to register once, or if they could renew their registration in the event that they change their mind, even if you don’t reach them.
Ms. Gagnon: Not all of them.
Senator Oudar: This indicator of only 350 per year is nothing compared to the number of crimes that are committed. I don’t know who decided on this target for you, but it’s not ambitious at all.
Ms. Gagnon: I would like to add that for us, it is often difficult to know who and where the victims are or what their number is.
Senator Oudar: That’s what we were saying earlier. You can reach them, they’re at the hearing.
Ms. Gagnon: We should send people to the hearings. Our role is to take care of victims once they’re in the federal prison system, but there’s definitely more work to be done with Bill S-12. We can be more proactive when the courts give us the information. That’s what we want. We can find the victims and make them an offer. If they say no, we stop there, but they can come back at any time and tell us they’re now interested. Maybe in a year, two years, three years or five years, they’ll be ready. I think that will change things.
Senator Oudar: Since you seem to be having trouble reaching victims, are you open to partnering with community organizations and using those millions of dollars you have in your budget to offer grants to reach them where they are? In Quebec, we have BAVAC and CAVAC, community organizations that are physically with the victims. There’s nothing to stop a Government of Canada employee from being there too. You can talk to people, be available to victims and offer a service on a human scale.
Ms. Gagnon: We work with several organizations — Katherine can talk about that — but I don’t think you’re talking about my budget, because I don’t have that much money. We work with organizations. In addition, for Indigenous victims, there are the Family Information Liaison Units that provide information to victims with the provinces and territories. We give information to Crown attorneys so that they can contact their clients.
We try to reach victims through several channels.
On the other hand, yes, that assumes that victims have to come to us and contact us to take the steps, but I think things will change with the new process we’re putting in place with the provinces and territories and with Justice Canada.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: — response, if you want to provide something.
Mr. Westmacott: I just wanted to add that the Department of Justice also has the Victims Fund, which is a fund that can go to provinces, territories and non-government organizations to support victims, share information with victims and to work with victims through those organizations. That’s approximately $30 million a year that the Department of Justice administers.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, all of you, for being here and answering all of our questions. Colleagues, thank you for your excellent participation today.
(The committee adjourned.)