THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 12, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:37 a.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.
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Denise Batters, and I’m a senator from Saskatchewan. I am normally deputy chair of this committee, but today, I am acting as chair while our colleague Senator Cotter is away for at least part of this meeting.
I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Arnot: I’m David M. Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Good morning. I am Claude Carignan from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Good morning. I am Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: I am Bernadette Clement from Ontario
[English]
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Welcome. Kim Pate, and I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: [Innu-Aimun spoken] I am Michèle Audette from Nitassinan, Quebec.
Senator Moreau: Good morning. I am Pierre Moreau, and I represent the senatorial division of The Laurentides, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
For the meeting this morning, we meet to continue and conclude our study on 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 from Victim Services of Durham Region, Krista MacNeil, Executive Director. She is accompanied by Sydney Marcoux, the agency’s Clinical Director. We also have Karine Mac Donald, Criminologist, Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes; and Sarah Crawford, Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.
Thank you for being here today. Welcome. We appreciate you joining us. We’ll start with your opening remarks before we move to questions from senators.
We will start with Ms. MacNeil, followed by Ms. Mac Donald and ending with Ms. Crawford. The floor is yours for five minutes each when you are ready.
Krista MacNeil, Executive Director, Victim Services of Durham Region: [Indigenous language spoken], Mi’kma’ki territory.
I have been a registered social worker, working with survivors of crime and trauma, for the past 22 years. As a First Nation women and service provider, I have witnessed the retraumatization that happens to victims and their families as they attempt to navigate the criminal justice system.
It is understandable that many survivors choose not to receive information about these processes, often with the hope of reducing exposure to situations that may retraumatize them.
This is, and should always remain, their choice, which I believe Bill C-320 supports. It has been my experience that many victims are not consistently advised of their right to information and are even less frequently advised about the implications of exercising or choosing not to exercise that right.
The act and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights place the onus on victims to have knowledge of a system they are unfamiliar with in order to make important decisions that could impact their lives, healing and sense of safety. That accountability should lie with the system. Victims have enough to contend with.
Decisions that impact offenders also impact their victims. Despite the sentence handed down to an offender, victims of trauma are often handed a life sentence, yet they receive no pardon after their years of suffering. In fact, they face extensive wait-lists for support when retraumatized by the sudden removal of accountability as they once understood it, which is often something they are very unprepared for. Their victimization is no less life-altering because an offender demonstrated good behaviour or showed promise on an assessment of crimonogenic risk factors. At the very least, victims deserve to be well informed about possibilities as well as advised and prepared in advance for decisions that may have a drastic impact on their lives so that they may attempt to proactively devise a safety plan and navigate wait-lists for the support they may require.
A system that defaults to removal of this right because the same system fails to ensure adequate education for survivors is a system that needs to change. While triggers may still exist outside the system, all efforts to mitigate that risk within the system must be taken if we are truly committed to ensuring the rights and protection of victims. Yet we continue to have a bill of rights that concludes with a statement that victims have “No cause of action or right to damages arises from an infringement or denial of a right under this Act.”
Bill C-320 will not fix the system. However, it will bring us one small step closer to ensuring victims are empowered to make informed decisions. I believe that if victims knew the real implications of their choices, we would have a system that hears more of those voices. Hearing those voices would enhance the system’s ability to view these processes in a more holistic way that upholds the rights of both victims and offenders.
We know the majority of victims are women and girls, and those who are marginalized are disproportionately impacted not just by victimization but also criminalization. Inequity is at the root of what we are talking about today. That is why this act needs to change.
I implore this government to consider the implications for a victim from a small urban community to which the offender also belongs. Without resources to support the victim and rehabilitation for the offender, decisions made by the system can have devastating impacts on entire communities. A lack of supports, both inside and outside the system, creates the perfect storm for revictimization and criminalization fuelled by inequity. Proactive resources would address both.
Of those who reported, 80% of the victims we support at our agency are women and girls. They are victims of gender-based violence. I know that violence against women is an epidemic in this country. When an offender is released without notification to the victim, the actual and perceived safety of that victim may be threatened.
We have all seen the news. Men do not refrain from killing women simply because we tell them not to. For this reason alone, we must do better. I want to extend my deepest appreciation to my friend Lisa Freeman and MP Colin Carrie for their unwavering activism and devotion to enhancing survivor rights. I would also like to thank our elected officials and members of the Senate for their collective recognition of victims’ rights as a non-partisan issue deserving of unanimous support for Bill C-320.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Wela’lioq.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Next, we will hear from Ms. Mac Donald, please.
[Translation]
Karine Mac Donald, Criminologist, Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes: Good morning, honourable senators.
My name is Karine Mac Donald, and I am a criminologist and the Chief Executive Officer of the Association québécoise Plaidoyer–Victimes, the AQPV. I’ve been working with victims for 20 years now. Thank you for inviting me to be here today.
For 40 years now, the AQPV has been defending the rights and interests of victims of crimes and their families, and working to make their rights accessible and effective.
Our services include information programs, outreach, engagement and advocacy. We bring our expertise to bear in Quebec and throughout Canada. The AQPV has over 200 members from various sectors, including justice, public safety, education and the community.
First of all, I’d like to say that the AQPV welcomes Bill C-320. It is a step forward that will strengthen the right to information and the right to protection provided by the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. In fact, we believe that, in addition to offering transparency, this makes it possible to clearly explain the reasoning behind each decision, which helps to reduce the risk of revictimization, humanize the justice system and strengthen victims’ trust in the system.
Today, we want to emphasize the need to effectively implement the proposed amendment. In the AQPV’s view, it is essential to ensure transparency with regard to how federal sentences work, and thus explain how decisions are made about these dates. However, the AQPV has questions about the form these explanations will take. Will they be succinct or detailed? This information needs to be clear, easy to understand and tailored to the needs of victims.
In addition to these explanations, the AQPV believes that, at sentencing, victims should be informed of what a federal sentence entails, including the offender’s eligibility for parole.
Given the complexity of Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, documentation — even for a criminologist like me — the AQPV recommends providing a simple, concise and clear document, along with a possible telephone meeting with someone from CSC’s National Office for Victims, or NOV. This would help victims to feel safer.
The AQPV also wonders about how these explanations will be shared and what measures will be taken to support victims when they receive them.
In our view, explanations should be provided in a sensitive and compassionate manner. Victims should have the option of being supported by a trained person — someone from NOV, for example — when receiving this information, even if the victim has indicated that they would like to receive it in writing. This would give victims an opportunity to ask questions and better understand the explanations provided. A human and empathetic discussion can really make all the difference, helping victims to feel safer and better cope with the news, which can be very difficult.
The AQPV has found that victims have trouble accessing the information they need to exercise their rights. Whether it’s a matter of obtaining details of the federal sentence or, with this bill, understanding how certain dates are determined, victims must first register with CSC or the Parole Board of Canada. However, many are unaware of this process or are reluctant to do so, as previously mentioned.
How can we ensure that people are at least aware of this procedure? Bill S-12 partially addresses this issue by adding a checkbox to the victim impact statement, but this form has not yet been introduced by Quebec’s justice department. The AQPV therefore recommends that an organization such as the NOV make a proactive call to complement the process, so as to inform victims of their right to information and the ways in which they can exercise it whenever a federal sentence is handed down.
In closing, Bill C-320 improves victims’ access to justice by strengthening their right to information and protection. However, if the amendments proposed in this bill are to be truly effective, the AQPV believes that the information must be clear and easy to understand and that victims must be supported throughout the judicial process, even after sentencing.
Thank you for your time, and I’d like to reiterate that the AQPV is available to actively participate in future discussions and to continue working together to ensure better access to justice for all victims.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Now we will hear from Ms. Crawford.
Sarah Crawford, Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime: Good morning, honourable senators. At the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, or CRCVC, we provide critical advocacy, education and emotional support for victims and survivors of crime across Canada.
We help them navigate complex legal processes, ensure their voices are heard and advocate for systemic reforms that prioritize victims’ rights. From one-on-one guidance on the parole process to helping survivors prepare victim impact statements, our role is to ensure that victims are seen, heard and respected in every aspect of the justice system.
One of the most frequent and heartbreaking concerns we hear from our victims is that they are left in the dark. They are often uninformed of crucial parole hearings, and when they do receive notice, it is often too late for them to meaningfully participate. This is not an isolated issue; this is a systemic one.
Victims frequently report being told that they cannot attend parole hearings in person, and when they do submit victim statements, the offender has the right to see those statements. However, when victims request information about the offender, they are told that the offender’s rights to privacy supersede their right to know.
This imbalance reinforces a clear hierarchy where the rights of the offender outstrip those of the victim. Bill C-320 would be a crucial step in the right direction. By requiring corrections officials to explain how key dates related to parole and temporary absences are determined, the bill promotes transparency, increases trust and addresses a critical power imbalance.
Currently, the information provided at a parole hearing comes from primarily from a correctional or parole officer. These reports tend to focus on the offender’s progress and rehabilitation, often serving as a support for the offender’s release.
Meanwhile, the perspectives, trauma and ongoing safety concerns of victims are secondary considerations. With greater transparency into how release decisions are made, victims will be better positioned to challenge decisions that may put their safety at risk.
Currently, there is often a lack of consideration of victims’ needs for geographical restrictions, allowing for increased safety concerns and retraumatization. Increased accountability for correctional officers also ensures that decisions are made with fairness and justice rather than expedience in mind.
While Bill C-320 is a vital step, further measures are required to ensure survivors of crime are truly empowered in the justice system, and I would like to highlight three additional priorities.
The first is access to parole hearings. Victims have the unequivocal right to attend parole hearings in person if they choose to do so. Virtual options are helpful, but the in-person experience is often more meaningful for survivors.
The second regards equity and privacy rights. If offenders have the right to access victim impact statements, then victims should have the right to access information about an offender’s risk assessment and other key documents. Equity, not privilege, should be the guiding principle.
Third is sustainability funding for non-governmental organizations, or NGOs. The CRCVC is a prime example of the funding crisis faced by victim supporting organizations. Our organization, which provides essential advocacy and support to all Canadians, receives no core funding. The success of legislative reforms like Bill C-320 hinges on the ability of NGOs to support survivors in navigating these new systems. Sustainable program funding is essential to ensure that survivors have ongoing, high-quality support throughout the process.
Bill C-320 is not just a change in procedure. It is a change in principle. It sends a clear message to survivors that their right to know matters, their safety matters and they matter. It also challenges the long-standing prioritization of offenders’ privacy over victims’ rights.
We must ensure that victims have a seat at the table, the privacy imbalance is corrected and NGOs are supported and have sustainable funding.
Thank you for your attention and your commitment to justice for survivors of crime. Thank you for having me here today, as well.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all for your remarks.
We will now proceed with questions from senators. The first senator will be Senator Carignan, who is the sponsor of this bill.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I would like to thank you for your testimony and your ongoing fight for victims’ rights. It’s important work. I would also like to thank Senator Boisvenu for raising our awareness of this issue. When we see all the effects on victims, we better understand the importance of provisions on transparency and the reasons for a decision. It all helps to explain how the system works and why it is the way it is. I think the information helps the process of accepting certain decisions
Yesterday, a number of senators asked whether this bill was really necessary, since it’s only 10 words — it’s already covered by directives anyway, it’s already provided for in the policies that need to be developed.
I’d like to hear what you have to say about the importance of this bill, which seeks to insert these words into the statute, rather than into a circular, directive or public service policy. That is for all four witnesses.
[English]
Ms. MacNeil: With the way the act is currently written, I would say that victims’ rights are not being upheld. It is not happening, and so that is the bottom line.
If what we have right now were working, we would see those things happening. If it is made law, it is mandatory; it has to happen.
That is the bottom line. It has to happen, and it must be enforced. The way to enforce it is to add it into the act.
Ms. Crawford: I agree. Currently, whenever something is written, we infer from it what we want and, often, whatever is easiest.
The way it is currently written, victims do not get to meaningfully participate in the criminal justice system, and that is problematic. We see the ongoing revictimization of these folks. We are writing letters to the Parole Board of Canada daily or weekly on behalf of and to support victims and survivors of crime.
This bill is very necessary. It will help to ensure that their rights are upheld and they are supported throughout the system. Even though it is short, and it is — as you said — a few sentences, I think the implications of those sentences have a great and meaningful sway over the outcomes for victims.
[Translation]
Ms. Mac Donald: I agree with what my colleagues just said. The fact that it’s not in legislation leaves it all up to the discretion of the person who has or doesn’t have to provide the information. As I mentioned, right now, it’s extremely difficult for victims to access not just information about the offender, but also information about parole, as was the case at parole hearings for certain offenders. Sometimes, victims called to say that they had heard that the offender had been released or had been given an escorted absence. They didn’t understand why this had been authorized and why they hadn’t been informed. This can cause revictimization and a sense of injustice among victims, and they may lose trust in the justice system. If they are ever the victim of another crime, they may decide not to report it, believing that they have been failed by the system. These few words are very important, in my opinion.
Senator Carignan: As the other witness said, it often happens that victims are not notified, even if it’s a Parole Board of Canada policy or directive. Is that the case in your experience?
Ms. Mac Donald: Absolutely. It happens all the time. As Ms. MacNeil said, some victims choose not to take any action; just calling the victims’ office to register, for example, is one step too many. After going through a legal process that may have lasted four or five years, they want to take a step back or not have to do anything more. That’s why I talked about a proactive approach. That way, the person isn’t being disempowered. They are being offered the opportunity and they are free to take it or not. Afterwards, the person can be informed in the way that they choose about what they want to know. I think it’s a question of giving victims back what they’re entitled to.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
[English]
Ms. MacNeil: If I may, I will speak to the frequency issue.
As I mentioned, I have been a social worker for 22 years. My family comes from a criminal justice background. My dad retired from being a corrections officer after 30 years. I have a sister and brother-in-law who work for the RCMP. I work for an all-female agency, many of whom — though staff — are survivors of gender-based violence. I had a cousin who was murdered as a result of gun violence and cousins who were impacted by human trafficking.
I am not a stranger to the criminal justice system. I am very familiar with this.
In terms of frequency, over my 22 years, I have worked with many victims. I have not had one victim say to me that they feel the information they were given was sufficient. I have also never had a victim say to me that they don’t want the information and it is going to impact their life and safety. I know there are victims out there who choose not to receive that information. I have not heard that in my 22 years. In terms of the frequency, I wanted to add that.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses. I can only imagine the experience you have had in dealing with victims and the stories they share. I want to recognize your effort, advocacy and compassion.
Ms. MacNeil, [Indigenous language spoken]. I want to follow up on a couple of things you mentioned that I thought were quite interesting. You mentioned that victims of trauma often face a life sentence, then you got into the idea of this concept of safety plans. I would imagine that information is power, as they say, but there is a preoccupation in some instances with victims, I would imagine, as it relates to their safety.
I’m curious about safety plans, and also, if you don’t mind, you mentioned there must be a holistic way of upholding the rights of offenders and victims because there is an opportunity to retraumatize or revictimize certain persons involved in the system. If you could, share a bit on safety plans and that holistic way, please. Thank you.
Ms. MacNeil: When I refer to the “life sentence,” it is because when you experience trauma on that level, obviously, it doesn’t just stop the day the sentence is issued for the offenders. For the victim, that trauma continues for the rest of their life.
In terms safety planning, often, because victims have experienced trauma, whether they are in real jeopardy or there is an actual risk to safety when an offender is released — and we see both and know that many offenders reoffend — victims often feel their safety is at risk, particularly if the offender and victim both come from a small community. Sometimes it is impossible for them to not run into each other at the grocery store. The Parole Board of Canada not considering that in terms of the restrictions they are putting in place and the geography — looking at the impact of both — is really important.
You mentioned balancing the rights of the offender and the victim. Many times, we know that offenders also have a history of trauma, so it is also important we focus on services that support them in terms of their rehabilitation. To give an example that puts it in perspective, many times I have sat in courtrooms while I watched photos of a woman’s naked and beaten body shown in the courtroom because it is that offender’s right to see that information: They have a right to disclosure. Yet we don’t see the same right to disclosure with the victims. An example of this would be when you have victims of a heinous act of sexual violence against them. Often, the offender is released without notification to the victim. When we ask the police why they didn’t notify the victim that the offender is being released, the police say they are only required to notify the victim if the victim and offender were in a domestic relationship. Why does the relationship matter? The impact and trauma to that victim are no less impactful.
We just want to see victims have rights equivalent rights to those of offenders. Victims have a right to disclosure about their own victimization. Every bit of information that is shared with the offender pertains to the victimization of that person. Should they not have a right to information pertaining to their own trauma and victimization?
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Ms. MacNeil, when an individual is arrested for intimate partner violence and released by the police, you’ll agree with me that Bill C-320 won’t change a thing.
Let me give you a bit of context for my thinking. I have a lot of compassion for victims, regardless of the crime. In 1984, my father was killed in a car accident by a drunk driver, which is a crime. I have a great deal of compassion and I understand fully how victims feel. I don’t want my comments to be misinterpreted.
It’s being suggested that Bill C-320 will change things for victims. Basically, Bill C-320 would provide victims with an explanation for the parole dates already determined by the Parole Board of Canada. My fear is that victims are being led to believe that this bill will fix the system. It’s far too short to fix the system. That’s why I spoke yesterday. I believe Senator Carignan was referring to my remarks in his question to you.
What are you really expecting? What do you think this bill will really change in terms of victims’ trauma? How will the bill solve the issue of the Parole Board of Canada or the Canadian prison system being unable to identify victims in some cases?
Victims are not just the people who are murdered, but also the people close to them. Yesterday, we heard Ms.Freeman’s very moving testimony on this very subject. People who are victims under the law, in other words, those who suffer even mental trauma as a result of the crime committed, don’t want to hear about it again in some cases, and won’t be identified in others. How can we change that dynamic?
You said that having to register is one step too many. This bill won’t change the requirement to register if victims want to be identified and benefit from the minimal improvements the bill will bring. I wouldn’t want the Senate, which does not have to do things for political gain, to suggest that passing this bill will fundamentally improve victims’ rights. One of you can go first.
Ms. Mac Donald: I agree with you. That’s why I said it’s a good first step. All three of us identified fundamental issues in our presentations that will not be addressed by Bill C-320. However, these few words are important to help the victim understand the situation.
I’ve worked in legal support for victims. For a victim, knowing what to expect when testifying in court and being well prepared makes all the difference. When someone who is unprepared walks into a courtroom and goes before a judge, they come out traumatized all over again. Knowing that the person who caused them pain and is serving a life sentence, as was said. . . I’m going to use the same expression as Ms. MacNeil and say that what’s important is that the victim be kept in the loop. In an ideal world, as I mentioned, all this would be explained right from the start.
Victims often think that the offender will serve the full sentence, but that is not the case. It’s essential to explain to them from the outset what is involved, what parole is and how it can be obtained.
The bill doesn’t refer to it, but if an offender is eligible to be released after serving a third of their sentence, the victim must be given an explanation. This will reduce the feeling of betrayal and abandonment by the justice system. It’s important to explain to the victim that this is the way the system works. For example, the offender has undergone treatment, they’ve been rehabilitated and that’s why they’ve been granted parole. That’s the justification. The victim will not feel that the system failed them because the offender was released, or that he was released because he had reached a certain point and was still a danger to society. There are reasons, because he is eligible for statutory release after serving two-thirds of his sentence.
Senator Moreau: Even when they get that kind of explanation, victims will still continue to feel a sense of injustice.
In testimony we heard yesterday from a witness, she mentioned that she thought 25 years really meant 25 years, and she felt that parole before 25 years was an injustice. Bill C-320 won’t fix that problem; that’s what I was saying.
Ms. Mac Donald: It will lessen the blow.
[English]
Senator Arnot: Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today. You have described intimate partner violence and sexual violence as a crisis and epidemic. I don’t think anyone at all disagrees with you. Victims are scarred for life mentally, emotionally and physically — without question.
This act will allow, authorize and, in a sense, make mandatory an explanation of how dates were determined. What you have been talking about, in my opinion, is something unique, which is specific, robust policies to protect and support victims so that there isn’t a revictimization. You also need robust programs to support those policies. These programs must be populated by experienced, well-trained social workers, psychologists and trauma-informed experts. Do you have any confidence that Correctional Service Canada will provide those kinds of resources? Because the demand is to have it done correctly. If this act changes and they don’t roll out very much, it is not going to be very effective.
I’m just wondering: Do you have confidence that Correctional Service Canada can roll out these kinds of resources in a way that makes the implementation of what you are asking for effective?
Ms. Crawford: Currently, the way we’re seeing our victims interact with basically the entire criminal justice system is inherently problematic. We see our victims regularly and continuously have to advocate for themselves and be their own advocate. It takes up the majority of their time. For some of them, they’re already working, and then this is another full-time job. They continue to be revictimized themselves because they have to continually advocate for themselves and ask, “When is this happening?” and “Can I appear?” All of these are continually and systemically problematic.
You asked me if I have faith in a system that is inherently flawed. I think there are a lot of steps that need to be taken to make sure we are enhancing and forwarding victims’ rights throughout the criminal justice system. Currently, we are not seeing any of that happen. The external agencies like ours are the ones who are picking up that slack and doing that work currently. I don’t know whether the criminal justice system is the appropriate mechanism to provide that support to victims. But I think sustained funding to non-profits and non-governmental agencies to support victims in the way we are already doing, with the staff who are already trained and specialized in victim support, is maybe a more relevant avenue.
Ms. MacNeil: I couldn’t agree more. I could not have said it better myself.
The burden to support survivors largely falls on the not-for-profit sector, which, as we know, is chronically and severely underfunded and unsupported. With that said, we are already doing that work. We are already doing it. What this bill will do is provide greater transparency and information to victims so we can better support them from a proactive standpoint. When we are called in to support a victim because they have been retraumatized by a system that has failed them, it is a lot harder to pick up the pieces. If victims are given information in advance and are better prepared, we are better prepared to support them. I would agree that the corrections system is not the system that should be providing these supports. I think it needs to lie with the systems that already specialize in that.
Is all of the support necessarily going to be provided as a result of this bill? To be honest, no. I don’t believe it will. It hasn’t been for many years, and I don’t foresee that changing in the near future, but we are doing that work anyway and will continue to do so. This bill will help and support us in that work.
Senator Arnot: Thank you for your work.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for being here. I want to pick up a little bit on what Senator Moreau was speaking about regarding yesterday’s testimony. We heard from MP Carrie that these 10 words inserted in four places is a modest step forward. It’s not what he wanted to accomplish, but it is a step forward. That gave me some comfort.
We then heard from a woman who said that since they had testified at the House of Commons committee a year ago on this, they went to work and have vastly improved everything they are doing and that it is now working like a Swiss watch.
I have been here long enough to know that what an Ottawa senior bureaucrat says about what is actually happening — and it is not just bureaucracy. I don’t mean to demean them. The fact is that in big organizations, when you are at the top, everything is theoretical. You are not the one mailing stuff out and taking phone calls — or not mailing stuff out and not taking phone calls — so, first, I wonder if you could give me your reaction to what you heard with respect to the Swiss watch working beautifully now.
Second, we heard a very disturbing answer from the same woman, Ms. Kirstan Gagnon — thank you — who is deputy commissioner. When asked if this bill would change anything that they are doing, she said no. So how do you then square all of that — “Working beautifully and no change if this bill happens”? If I could just get a quick reaction from you because I have another question to follow.
Ms. Crawford: That is disheartening to hear, because we see the everyday impact on victims and are doing the regular advocacy, knowing the system is completely and inherently flawed. It does not support victims. It does not take into account their experiences, so to say it is running like a Swiss watch is problematic to all the victims and survivors across the country, and there are thousands of them. So that’s another revictimization and another problematic stance when we know it is not working.
Ms. MacNeil: Just yesterday, one of my staff came to me. I’ll share with you a quote shared to her by a victim she’s working with. She said, “I don’t know why they call it the justice system because there is no justice for victims with this system.”That is the experience we hear all day, every day on the front lines.
Will this bill change the world and solve every problem we see in the criminal justice system? No. But if we brought a bill forward that made big, sweeping changes, I don’t believe it would have gotten this far. Changing a few words that shift the accountability from the victim to the system even just a little is a step in the right direction.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
My next question, then, is this: If the posture in a public hearing from the people in charge of delivering the interaction and fulfilling all the requirements says there is no change coming with this bill, does it give you any handle to go into court to do anything to point out the fact that they are not doing what they say they are doing or what they are supposed to? Is there any ability or organization that you could point to that would be inspired enough to hold these guys to account, or is that something that we have to consider in our deliberations?
Ms. MacNeil: I would ask that question back to the Senate. What is the responsibility of our government in terms of holding people accountable when something is legislated and then not followed? Why make legislation if people can just not follow it and there are no repercussions or accountability? I would call on our government to ensure that’s enforced.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: That’s a good point. I think one of you made this reference before, but do you believe the notifications provided to victims by the Parole Board and by Correctional Service Canada are detailed enough to meet the needs of victims, or have you identified other significant gaps? Perhaps what is covered in this bill is one of them. Could each of you just very briefly give me a response about that, please?
Ms. MacNeil: They are woefully inadequate. In terms of the materials and letters that are forwarded to victims, plain language is needed. We need to look at who is disproportionately being victimized, and it is often those with intellectual or cognitive disabilities, people functioning at the level of a 9-year-old or 10-year-old. We have people coming from poor socio-economic backgrounds who don’t have access to education. Education is woefully inadequate in our First Nations communities across the country. When you are sending out letters and information packages that are not written in simplified language, it’s woefully inadequate to support victims.
Ms. Crawford: I agree. Often, the information provided never touches on the geographical implications. You had spoken about people from small communities, but even in larger communities, there are perhaps only two grocery stores. There are impacts to victims from not being notified or being improperly notified. Currently there is a mail strike, so those letters might arrive six weeks after they were sent out. All of that is increasingly problematic.
The lack of implications around geographical restrictions for folks who are allowed to be on day parole or unaccompanied release from prison, those are also huge for victims of crime. That is one of the areas that we think needs to be expanded on. They need to be better imposed.
[Translation]
Ms. Mac Donald: I mentioned it in my remarks: the information needs to be understandable to victims. Ms. MacNeil pointed that out. It’s gobbledygook to the people who receive it. In fact, as I was preparing for my remarks, I went to the Correctional Service Canada website, and it’s gobbledygook even to an educated person like me. Someone who receives a letter stating that the person was released on escorted temporary absence is going to wonder what “escorted” actually means. Steps have been taken to ensure the person’s safety, but they probably have no idea. What does parole entail? The idea is that, after serving a third of their sentence, the individual will be released. If a person is given a life sentence, for example, even if they are released after 25 years, they have to adhere to conditions for the rest of their life, and this is not very well explained. For the person’s sense of security and safety, it’s extremely important that this explanation be added, and the information is not easy to find on the internet.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Yes, if a criminologist is saying that, it’s a very good point. Hopefully, a number of people from the Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada are watching our parliamentary committee study of this bill and some of the other types of very good changes that you have suggested. I hope they will make those proactively.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Yesterday, we asked a lot of questions to Public Safety Canada and Parole Board of Canada representatives. Personally, I would have gone further with this legislation: I would have preferred that victims had the right to information not only at sentencing but even well before that. I even referred to sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which state that victims have the right to this information, and the whole debate that ensued centred on the words “on request.”
I pointed out to them that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had actually recommended that the information no longer be provided “on request,” but that it be done automatically, since it is a right. As someone who’s worked in this field for a long time, I reminded them that all the medical studies show that, once you’re a victim, it’s as if you’ve suffered post-traumatic shock that endures for years. Post-traumatic shock impairs judgment and makes it difficult to make informed decisions. We certainly can’t ask victims to take on the burden of reading a six-page form, understanding the website, updating their registration and getting lost in the red tape. I’m a lawyer and I completely understand what you were saying in your testimony, Ms. Mac Donald. It’s incomprehensible.
Yesterday, I asked the government representatives if they dealt with stakeholders on the ground. They told us they were having trouble locating the victims. This answer didn’t make sense: the victims attend the hearings. We asked them whether it was possible to reach out to them and work with them on a more human level. There seem to be letter templates that must be just as incomprehensible. I didn’t see the government’s approach in this way at all, but being present at the hearing, even beforehand, and explaining the role of witness, is difficult. Some people withdraw their complaints when they’re asked to testify, especially victims of intimate partner violence. It’s long before the sentence is handed down. It’s very difficult for victims, and I know you know that. I’m sorry I didn’t thank you for your work at the beginning of my question. My sincere thanks to all four of you for your work with victims.
I would like to hear more from you on the whole issue of “on request.” Those are the words that appear in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, and that’s what the government officials cited in their responses to the committee. They told us that they perform the duty “on request” and that if victims don’t request the information…. If you never notify them, they’ll never come and ask the information. Then, I brought up their targets and indicators in the GC InfoBase — I apologize, it’s more technical. Their target is to have just 350 people register with the federal correctional system. With the number of crimes there are, I mentioned to them that it wasn’t a very ambitious target in terms of asking victims to apply on their own. I think that’s your position too, but I want to hear it from you again. If you’re telling me that it has to be on request, the government needs to do some work upstream to inform victims, because they need to know that they have to make a request. Right now, victims don’t know.
Ms. Mac Donald: Actually, there are two issues. There’s the “on request” aspect, but there’s also the whole issue related to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. It’s a lovely principle, but, unfortunately, it’s not binding. That’s a cause we’ve taken up at the AQPV: we’re trying to make the bill of rights binding. You say it’s on request. Yes, because that’s how it was written, but for some people, it’s extremely difficult to take the necessary steps. It’s one step too many. If it’s written down, it’s a right they have, so why not just give it to them?
Senator Oudar: In 2022, the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended that it should no longer be “on request.” It should be automatic. In 2022, did you take a position? Did you disagree with the recommendations?
Ms. Mac Donald: I wasn’t around back then, so I couldn’t say.
Senator Carignan: I would like to provide some additional context.
I encourage senators and everyone else to look at Bill S-265, which was introduced by Senator Boisvenu before he left the Senate. It’s at second reading in the Senate and covers just about everything that you said was missing and that we should have. In particular, it amends the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights at section 6 to stipulate that the victim has the right to information “without request.” This bill was referred to as a step forward, but Bill S-265 would mean many steps forward if we could move it along.
Senator Oudar: Thank you for your comments and for enlightening us, but I need to hear from community organizations. I’d like to know whether they agree with this requirement — actually, with the recommendation that the information no longer be provided on request and that it instead be provided automatically.
I’m keen to hear your input.
[English]
Ms. Crawford: Yes. I think that the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is a theory. In principle, it sounds great. In actuality, it doesn’t do anything, unfortunately. It basically says, “Here are your rights. If they are not respected or upheld, you have the right to make a complaint.” We make complaints on behalf of our victims, with their support, and they may never hear anything back. It might be months, or they tell them that because they have this letter or request put in, now they can know that the Parole Board hearing will actually be tomorrow but you cannot appear in person because of COVID or whatever the reason is.
It exists in theory but, again, it’s the advocacy piece. I think that people should automatically have a right to know. It shouldn’t be by request. The request should be to opt out.
The amount of advocacy that people must do in order to even understand what is happening in the criminal justice system is a full-time job. To advocate for themselves, they must figure out what they are supposed to do, where can they get help and if there is funding — all of these pieces take so much time.
Ms. MacNeil: First, I’ll touch on your mention of the system reaching 350 victims. Our small team of eight front-line staff reached 35,000 victims in the last five years. Less than 30% of the work we do is sustainably funded. Hopefully, that speaks to the issue of the 350.
I believe that “on request” needs to be removed from sections 7 and 8 because, again, if we don’t do that, we are sending a message to victims that they need to request the information. We want to change the act so that accountability shifts. I also think there needs to be a removal of the final statement in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which I referenced in my speech, where it says, “No cause of action . . . from an infringement or denial of a right under this Act.”
We have an act telling victims of their rights and then, at the very end, saying that if their rights are violated, they have no cause for action. That also needs to be removed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I’ll do my best to respect your views, because I do understand what you’re saying.
For me, the power of words is invaluable, as is the choice of words. You understand that our responsibility is to legislate. My world as an Innu woman is very holistic, but here, we sometimes have to operate in silos, because we might talk about the police and some people might say that this bill doesn’t address certain concerns. I urge us to remember that, for a victim, it’s hard to think in silos.
Thank you very much, Senator Carignan, for telling us about Bill S-265. I hope we’ll see you again as a witness.
To recap, from 2004 to 2007, I was an Associate Deputy Minister in the Quebec government. I was given the opportunity to implement the first policy to combat violence against Indigenous women. The 13 departments were very supportive of the idea, but because we didn’t legislate it, and because there was a change of government, there is no longer a policy for Indigenous women in 2025.
For me, it’s important and you’ll have my support. However, we know that this is a very specific bill. As you mentioned, there is no binding legislation for what was mentioned by my colleague.
Does Bill S-12 reassure you? Might it also be an avenue for us to support you by pushing for Bill S-12 to have an impact or be enforced? It is law, it’s supposed to be law.
How can we ensure that victims. . . As we know, they are notified when it’s time to go to court; they may not be there, but they will be represented. I’ll give you a hypothetical example: my mother was killed, she’s the first victim, but in the second circle, the close family, we are also victims. That tends to be overlooked in the definition of “victim.”
For Bill S-12 and this bill, how can we take a stronger approach in the future, given that we think in silos here?
Ms. Mac Donald: As for Bill S-12, I’d say we’re still waiting to find out how it’s all going to play out. It’s a little box, but once the person checks it, who gets the information? Will it be systematic?
You mentioned something important about the family, which isn’t necessarily the victim. A few years ago, I specialized in working with people who had died as a result of a crime. We realized that the letter sent to the victim by the Quebec government was sent to the victim in a homicide case. People would get a stack of mail that was about the person, and it would say “The Queen versus” instead of the victim’s name
When we noticed that in 2012, we put an initiative in place to support people’s loved ones. As far as I know, that’s still how it works today. In my opinion, there’s still room for improvement.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Simons: Thank you to all of our witnesses. Ms. MacNeil, you spoke of the importance of transparency and user-friendly language. One thing that perplexes me about Bill C-320 is the insistence on explaining how dates of release have been determined. I am trying to wrestle with the degree of detail people expect from that and whether it will just be more confusing if they get a technical explanation about standards of sentencing. What are you hoping to get from an explanation of how a date was arrived at?
Ms. MacNeil: It boils down to the right to receive that information. Is it going to be perfect? Is the victim going to be able to read everything and understand it in its entirety? No, but that is already the situation now. However, they have a right to receive the information. We need to ensure there are supports available so that when they receive the information, they are able to interpret and understand it. We can’t just not give them that information because it could be confusing. They have a right to receive it.
Senator Simons: It is the explanation of how as opposed to why a date was arrived at. I imagine the “how” might sometimes be as simple someone being away on Tuesday when they were supposed to have a parole meeting. I do not know.
Ms. Mac Donald, you dealt a little bit with that issue. I am struggling to understand why there is a focus on how the date has been determined when it may be a statutory thing.
Ms. Crawford: It is also about the changes in date. If we were expecting 25 years and it has changed, is it due to their good behaviour? What are the reasons for those date changes? That was my understanding and interpretation. I could be wrong.
Those are the explanations we often hear our victims say are lacking: being under the impression, for example, that an offender was serving a life sentence, and now they are eligible for parole after 10 years or whatever it is.
Senator Simons: That is relatively straightforward. But we are talking about, if it were a temporary absence, it might be because they have a dentist appointment and that is the day that the dentist is available.
I understand what you are saying about the fact that, despite testimony yesterday, victims are not getting this information in what you feel to be a timely and actionable manner.
However, I have been struggling to understand whether knowing somebody was released on a temporary absence because of a family funeral and how that time was determined is going down a rabbit hole that is maybe not that helpful to anybody.
Ms. MacNeil: It boils down to transparency. If a decision is made that impacts my entire life and my sense of safety, I don’t care if it is a dentist appointment; I feel like I am entitled to know. Victims are entitled to know. How they arrived at a decision will sometimes better prepare the victim in terms of their input into the process because depending on the situation, the victim may have a response to and be able to provide input on what went into that “how.”
If we don’t give them that information, they are unprepared to respond.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Isn’t it more a situation of whether they are eligible to receive those kinds of absences at that stage of their sentence? Isn’t that generally more the type of information that would be contemplated by this bill? As you said, thinking that somebody is in prison for 25 years at least, and then it turns out to be 22 because these types of eligibilities start at 22 years — isn’t that the kind of thing this is contemplating?
Ms. Crawford: Those, to me, would also be how and why they have reached a decision. I understand what you are saying regarding a temporary day absence. Still, if you are suspecting that the person who caused your family or you harm is incarcerated for 25 years, and then they are at the dentist and you happen to bump into them — if they are, for example, allowed to go to Kanata because that is where the dentist appointment is, and you live in Kanata — these are problematic things, and people have a right to know because it infringes on their safety and their sense of safety.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of you for your work and ongoing efforts.
I have actually worked with predecessors of Ms. Crawford and Ms. Mac Donald, in particular on work trying to get reviews of cases of women who had been jailed for killing abusive partners after not having the kinds of supports that you have all talked about.
It is part of what led to a number of us working on things like guaranteed livable income and the need for supports so that people can have time off, counselling and time to grieve.
I asked this question yesterday of Ms. Freeman: I am curious as to whether you have been involved in any discussions about the types of supports that are needed that actually — instead of this after-the-fact piece — prevent but also then intervene, to get supports to people at the time that they need them, not just information, I shouldn’t say “just,” but information after the fact.
If each of you are comfortable commenting, that would be great.
Ms. MacNeil: As I mentioned, our agency is funded sustainably for less than 30% of what we do. The other 70% has to come from grants and fundraising, which is not sustainable. This creates capacity issues for our agency.
We also just saw in Ontario a change to the Victim Quick Response standards, which saw a drastic reduction in the hotel allowance provided for victims of violence, particularly victims of gender-based violence. We saw the amount for labour trafficking actually increase slightly, but the amount for sex trafficking and victims of intimate partner violence is now, in one situation, a third of what it was last year.
When we look at sex trafficking and IPV, it disproportionately impacts women. I would ask this question: Why are victims of labour trafficking deserving of that level of support yet the other categories that disproportionately impact women are not supported in the same way? We do see huge issues in terms of the supports available.
We cannot access shelters for women. So even when we call a shelter and we ask to be put on the wait-list, we wait anywhere from 12 to 14 days to get a bed for that woman, but the funding available through provincial support programs covers 2 days in a hotel. Victims are left no choice but to remain in the abusive environment, particularly if they have children they could not support while living on the street.
Ms. Crawford: I will touch on the prevention piece as well that you asked about.
That also is chronically underfunded. We support 3,000 to 4,000 people a year. We are a staff of three people and have no core funding. We would love to do more prevention work. However, ultimately, there are victims and survivors who need our support. Unfortunately, those prevention pieces often get pushed aside because people do not have the capacity to do that work.
We are regularly supporting people, and unless we apply for a grant or get grant funding, which then also shifts our strategic direction and planning because we’re piecemealing together ways to actually support these people — I think without the core funding, we don’t have the ability to support victims in the first place, let alone even touch on that prevention piece as well.
[Translation]
Ms. Mac Donald: Of course, prevention is one of the issues raised when we read the bill. We have said that this will not prevent crimes from being committed, and that we must continue to take care of the victims. Funding is the key. Unfortunately, all of these organizations are non-profit. In every province, there are cuts to these organizations. It’s not considered a priority, unfortunately.
[English]
Senator Clement: I have no questions; they have all been asked and answered. You have all been powerfully clear.
[Translation]
I’d like to thank you in French, Ms. Mac Donald.
[English]
Thank you all and I say nia:wen for your work. Also, to come back to the point you all made, NGOs do not have the funding and are mostly staffed and led by women, so thank you all for your work.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for attending today, especially in person. It is very nice to have all of you here so we can receive this powerful testimony in person. Thank you, also, to all senators for such a good round of questions.
Senator Brent Cotter (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: I wish to extend my thanks to Senator Batters for chairing the meeting this morning in my absence. A dear friend of 50 years passed away, and I attended his funeral this morning.
We have a couple things to do. One of them is to move a new chair be considered and nominated for this committee, effective December 18, when this chair reluctantly departs.
I will invite Senator Prosper to move a motion in that respect.
Senator Prosper: Briefly, since I have the floor, I would like to make some comments with respect to Senator Cotter. I’m sure it is true for many, but certainly your presence has impacted me quite a bit. I tend to look to certain senators to try to emulate. I find your abilities as a senator and a chair to be admirable. There is a word in Mi’kmaq, which is [Indigenous language spoken]. It’s the way the light looks when it reflects off the water. I just want to say that your presence or spirit within this institution has a way of reflecting the light on each of us, and even though you may not be here, that spirit, that light, is within us. I want to recognize you for that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: On with business: I move that Senator Pate be Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, effective December 18, 2024.
The Chair: Is there any discussion with respect to the motion?
Hearing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Carried. Congratulations, Senator Pate, but you have to wait until my birthday.
Senator Moreau: And the motion is adopted on my birthday.
The Chair: Happy birthday, Senator Moreau.
Senator Batters: Congratulations to Senator Pate, and I want to say a few words about Senator Cotter as well — a fellow Saskatchewanian.
I want to say, Senator Cotter, how much I have appreciated working with you on this committee, particularly during our time on steering together. As someone who has always stood up for Saskatchewan, whether it was regarding the Canadian Pacific Railway, or CPR, situation that we had early with this committee or on other matters where you have stood in the chamber to talk about agriculture and other matters of importance to Saskatchewan. I have always appreciated that.
When we had a Legal Committee meeting and then a Roughriders game coming up on the weekend, I felt that we had a good record going there. I’m not sure how we will continue that for the upcoming season. In that regard, perhaps Senator Arnot can step in.
Thank you for your work on this. I wish you many happy returns.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters.
Senator Carignan, I will call upon you, but I thought that you said something nice about me at the Ethics Committee.
Senator Carignan: But that was in camera.
[Translation]
I want to thank you. I didn’t say this to the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest of Senators, but when you came on the scene, I thought you had everything it took to be an excellent senator: the experience, the character, the wisdom, the ability to listen, the input you provided. I was really impressed and I still am. When I learned that you were already close to retirement, I said to myself: “Come on, he’s a rookie. He just got here and he’s already leaving us?” It was short, unfortunately, far too short. I think you’ve already made a great contribution, but it could have been even greater. Once again, you’re living proof that the Parliament of Canada made a mistake by making senators retire at age 75.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senator. I appreciate that.
I should say, if I may, in my evolution in the Senate, particularly around the very challenging debate on the bill concerning medical assistance in dying, you were a role model for me in the way that you presented your perspective on the bill. I drew a lot of guidance from that. I thank you for it.
Shall we move on to business?
The key part of our activity today is to move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-320.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Pate: The observation has been circulated. Does everyone have a copy? I gave my written copy away, sorry. I’ll read it:
The measures proposed by this bill are already permissible under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the policies of the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. To avoid creating stress and trauma for victims, both organizations should proactively ensure victims have access to information about sentencing and gradual release processes. Rather than devote more resources to repetitive criminal law reforms, investments could be made to ensure appropriate access to health, social, economic and other supports for victims.
The Chair: Would you like to speak to those observations, Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Certainly, we’ve heard evidence to this effect including the last panel, in terms of the types of information. During the panel yesterday, the government indicated, and it’s certainly in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and policies, that the information being sought by this bill can already be provided under the current policy.
There are certainly challenges, as was illuminated through all of the witness testimony, about whether people are actually getting that information, even though they’re entitled to have it.
Also, there was discussion about the fact that, at one time — certainly, I was aware of it then, but the government officials indicated that they are once again reproducing things like sentence calculation books, sentence calculation tools and information for victims. There appears to have been a period when that was not being disseminated, and certainly an issue has come up around accountability.
As well, though, many victims talked about the fact that this area of the law is where we have jurisdiction to impact the federal law, that being the Criminal Code at times and, in this instance, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. However, additional supports are needed for victims before they become victims but also in the process of dealing with the trauma, to help alleviate those concerns as well. That’s the background for this observation.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much, Senator Pate. There are some parts of the observation I can agree with, but main concern about this observation is that, at the start of it anyway, the first sentence and a part near the end basically say that this bill — which we just unanimously passed — is not needed.
Also, I asked the officials from the Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada when they testified yesterday, when the thought was raised that this is already provided for and could already happen, “Why isn’t it, then?” Certainly, it was the case that they admitted it is not happening, and they also said the government agrees with this bill, as was evidenced as well by the unanimous vote in the House of Commons, including by the Minister of Public Safety and all of cabinet.
Frankly, I would be fine if the first sentence were taken out and, instead, to just then refer correctly to the organizations in the second sentence — instead of saying, “. . . both organizations . . .” to name them, and then to change the very beginning of the last sentence, where it says, “Rather than devote more resources to repetitive criminal law reforms . . . .” I don’t believe this is a repetitive criminal law reform, as it is not done. Perhaps that clause could be taken out and the last sentence just be reworked slightly to say, “Investments should be made to ensure . . . .” That would be my suggestion, to ensure that this bill that we’ve just unanimously passed and about which heard some important evidence on how these things are not happening — that’s why this bill needs to happen, so that they actually do happen.
The Chair: Thank you. Could I suggest a process, Senator Pate? I will invite others to speak, and then I will invite you to maybe address this point and perhaps others. Then, depending on where we stand, if there is an agreed-upon modification to the observation, an alternative might be to invite Senator Batters to move an amendment to it.
Is that acceptable? It will give you a chance to speak to the various perspectives that are advanced since it is the observation you are proposing. That would mean, next, we invite Senator Oudar to speak.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you to Senator Pate for the observation. With regard to the first sentence, which states that the measures in the bill are already permissible, this may be consistent with the comments already made. If this is written, it’s as if the Senate isn’t doing its job properly, because the legislator does not speak in vain. I think to do that would be to shoot ourselves in the foot, as the saying goes. We can’t write that they’re already permissible, because we are the legislator. It’s as though the legislator wasn’t doing its job properly and had passed a superfluous bill. Perhaps we should remove those words or say that the measures in this bill are an extension of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act or are rooted in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. That’s a suggestion. If it’s already permissible, we’re all here for nothing.
The last sentence as well — I haven’t been here long, but I’ve heard a lot about wanting to reform criminal law and the Criminal Code. It refers to the bill as a criminal law reform. By the way, I don’t think this bill is a reform. I wouldn’t have called it a “reform.” I don’t have a solution, but I’m uncomfortable with what’s being said here. We still have to be consistent with the observations the committee has made in the past. I wanted more details on why this bill is being described as a reform of criminal law. For me, it’s not. It’s an amendment. Moreover, the witnesses said that they would have preferred something else. For me, it’s not a reform, unfortunately. I would have liked one. I am also uncomfortable, but I didn’t look at the English version, so maybe I’m misinterpreting the sentence.
There are my two comments. Thank you.
Senator Audette: When I received the observation, I said to the team at the office, “If we vote in favour of the bill and tack on this observation, I feel like we’re saying yes.” Is the reason that we want to respond to people who had the courage to share their truth and then we want to add something? I’m a strong believer in observations. I belong to that school of thought. I felt uneasy, because in this case, if you add that, you either abstain or you don’t support the bill, because you believe in principle that it’s set out clearly in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. What I was going to propose to my colleague Senator Pate is that, instead of saying “rather than,” or in French “plutôt que de consacrer”. . . . I think the federal government and the departments have an obligation to do both of those things, to make sure that the legislation is up to date, that the victims are protected, and that the departments and organizations that answer to the federal government support them as well. Both can be done, then. I have a problem with that. In this case, it’s as if we’ve done this work and then come along and say “except that.”
Senator Moreau: Overall, I would agree with Senator Pate’s observation. I think the only words that could be changed in the first sentence — because, yes, it’s already authorized — would be “are already permissible.” It could be changed to “are already authorized under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.”
In fact, Mr. Chair, I’d like to draw honourable senators’ attention to section 143 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which reads as follows:
(2) Where the Board renders a decision with respect to an offender following a review of the offender’s case, it shall
a) record the decision and the reasons for the decision . . . .
Recording the reasons is exactly what is provided for in the amendment proposed in Bill C-320. By stating in the observation that “the measures proposed by Bill C-320 are already authorized,” I think we’re just repeating the reality of the law, on the one hand.
On the other hand, with regard to Senator Batters’s comment about victims’ not feeling it was already done, I don’t want to question the testimony heard. However, the fact that something isn’t done does not mean that it isn’t authorized by law. That’s why I would just change the word “permissible” to “authorized.”
As for the second part of Senator Pate’s observation, I’d like to echo what the victims said and what Senator Carignan told us about the bill Senator Boisvenu had introduced. Rather than speaking of “repetitive reforms,” I would say “piecemeal amendments.”
What we’ve often heard here is that the government takes a “patchwork” approach because it addresses one aspect and then another, rather than taking a holistic approach to the overall legislation in which the amendment fits.
I’m fairly certain that Senator Pate could get behind this change. In other words, the first part of the sentence would become “Rather than devote more resources to piecemeal criminal law amendments,” and the rest of the sentence would stay as is.
That’s all I have to say, Mr. Chair.
Senator Carignan: I quite agree with what Senator Moreau said, but perhaps I’ve misunderstood Senator Pate’s observation.
Senator Pate, you have regularly suggested that there should be a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system, and that’s not at all what I’m seeing here. As I see it, it says the complete opposite. Maybe I’m misconstruing something. I detect a change in your approach, so perhaps you could enlighten us on that.
I’m not against a major overhaul of criminal law, especially because of the patchwork and the Law Reform Commission of Canada, which may already be looking into this. However, I just wanted to hear your other observations to make sure they don’t contradict what we might have already endorsed in other reports.
Senator Clement: I agree with the direction that Senator Pate’s observation is going in, and I agree with Senator Audette’s observation. I think observations are worthwhile, and I want it to be on the record because I think this work is worth it. Thank you for your comment.
Senator Moreau, I agree with the wording that you’ve proposed. I’d love to put the word “patchwork” in the mix as well, but let’s not go overboard. In English, the word “piecemeal” or “patchwork” refer to just that.
I’d also like to point out that the Criminal Code hasn’t been reviewed in 50 years, so we’re really in an absurd situation to respond to your comments, Senator Oudar. It’s an undertaking that’s necessary, and we have to find a way to do it, in this committee or between governments.
That’s what I have to say. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Tannas: I have two things: First, I think the first sentence is its own concept, and pairing it with the second one diminishes the bill. We have talked about that.
Instead of “are already permissible,” we could insert “clarify specific requirements” because we are being specific. It is not mentioned in these areas, and that, then, disposes of that piece.
The observation kind of dismisses the bill and then says that instead of wasting our time on this bill, we should be doing this. I don’t want to impute nasty motives, but that’s how I would read it.
I think we should make the rest of the paragraph a separate concept, which is that these things need to occur, and separate it from an implication that diminishes the work of everybody who has been here and spent the time with us and spent more than a year advocating for this.
I would suggest we try to separate this into the two halves. I like the other comments that have been made.
That’s my suggestion.
The Chair: I’m going to invite Senator Pate to comment. There are a couple more speakers after that, and I may call upon you again to respond to their views, but we have a good collection now.
Senator Pate: Thank you, colleagues, for your commentary.
Senator Tannas, thank you for nailing squarely what it looks like. That is not my intent, but I am very concerned that well-meaning efforts to support people often mean we have duplicative processes and provisions when the aim that is the objective of the bill is already available in law.
Thank you, Senator Moreau, for your suggestion about how it is already authorized, because I think it is important to make that point. It sends a message, also, in terms of the accountability of the government departments to actually fulfill their obligations.
It may look like it’s directed at the proponents of the bill, but it talks about the lack of accountability, particularly in some areas for — in this case — corrections.
I take the point that it should focus on correctional law reform as opposed to criminal law. I actually did contemplate doing my usual observation. Thank you, Senator Carignan; I’m happy to add that in. We know what the wording is because we have had it multiple times over, so I’m happy to add that in.
It is really important to underscore that these measures are already authorized, so thank you very much for that language.
I’m happy to have it split. I think we heard very clearly — and we heard it not just on this bill, but many times over from people coming before us, victims — that the only option given is to reform the criminal or correctional law, not to look at what people actually need. If it can be a separate paragraph in the observations, I’m happy to have it that way.
But the fact that we keep spending time, energy and resources on reforming laws that already permit what is there, and we are not putting resources in place to assist people when and how they most need them is what I’m trying to get across. I’m happy to have additional assistance with the wordsmithing, but I feel strongly that those concepts should be communicated.
Again, I’m very grateful for the suggestions about wording.
The Chair: Unless there are more interventions, we should see if there is a consolidated way of bringing this to closure, either by an agreement on some language or motions to amend.
Senator Batters: Thank you for those comments from my colleagues about this. I hear the proposed changes about using the word “authorized” or something like that.
I still feel like that first sentence — I mean, “permissible” and “authorized” are really not that different in wording, and I think if that were included, I would want to see an addition to that sentence to say, “But we heard testimony that this is, actually, not happening.” That would be important to add so that there is a definite statement.
My preference would probably be to remove the first sentence entirely and then change the second sentence to — instead of saying “both organizations” — say “both the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada.” Then, I would like to revise the last sentence to delete the first part about the repetitive criminal law reforms and start that sentence to say, “Investments should be made to ensure appropriate access to health,” et cetera, that sort of thing.
Let’s also remember that this is a private member’s bill. It’s very limited to specific things. It’s not like a large government bill where you can do whatever you want, including having large expenditures. That is not allowed with a private member’s bill.
We’re also dealing with a private member’s bill from a 20-year MP. This is the very first private member’s bill that he has ever gotten this far, and there is much support from victims for it because they tell us that these things are not happening.
As far as Senator Pate’s general observation that is often included at this committee, here, we are not dealing with the Criminal Code. I believe that general observation says, “a reform of the Criminal Code.” Here, we are not dealing with that particular statutory instrument, so I don’t think we should use that one.
Those are my remarks. I would prefer to keep it simple and streamlined to bring out the parts that victims need and to delete the rest of it.
The Chair: Next is Senator Oudar, and then I might make one suggestion about one option for closure on this.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I’d like to make a suggestion, and I don’t want Senator Audette’s comment to get lost in the shuffle. I completely agree with her. I don’t want to tell the House of Commons to do something else, rather than make legislative reforms or investments; it’s not either or.
I’m not comfortable with this because I’d have liked to see that part removed. We’re the Senate: send us legislative amendments and we’ll study them. Why send a message to the House of Commons to stop sending us bills? I don’t think we should write that. I agree completely with Senator Audette’s comments; it’s not either or.
I would have been even harsher. Instead of “investments could be made,” it should say “that must be made.” Investments must be made to ensure victims have access. It shouldn’t say “could,” it should be called for in the recommendation. It is then up to them to follow the recommendation or not.
This goes well with the previous sentence, which we haven’t talked about at all this morning, but which is very relevant — thank you again, Senator Pate. It says that, to avoid creating stress and trauma, both organizations need to be proactive.
Next, we could say “investments must be made in victims.” That was my first suggestion.
To go back to the beginning, I agree with Senator Tannas’s comments: if we don’t want to use the words “permissible” or “authorized” — which mean the same thing — we need to indicate that this clarifies the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. If we use any other terminology, we’ve spent the last two hours running in circles. We’re going to write that everything we, ourselves, have done is pointless. The legislator does not speak in vain, so we cannot write that it’s already permissible or authorized, or any other such language.
That’s why I suggested referring to the measures as being rooted in the legislation; they’re not the right words.
I agree with Senator Tannas’s comments and his suggestion to use “clarifies the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.” I think it reflects all the comments that have been made here.
[English]
The Chair: Could I suggest a way forward and see whether it invites everybody to put a little bit of water in their wine? Maybe we could achieve consensus. Leaving out, for the moment, this point about the call for the criminal law to be looked at in a more comprehensive way, my suggestion — and I’m perhaps inaccurately reading the tenor of the room — is we retain the first sentence but change the reference of “permissible” to clarify specific requirements. Is that comfortable? It’s not a complete endorsement by everybody, but it’s a moderation of that in the ways in which some of you have spoken.
We retain the next sentence. We delete the reference to repetitive criminal law reforms and just begin the sentence, because, quite frankly, it flows nicely from the previous sentence of Senator Pate’s, “Investments must be made,” et cetera. That would be the first package, which would be the first paragraph. If we are close to being comfortable, we could then take a moment to discuss whether we want to make another statement about criminal law reform in a more comprehensive way.
Since it is your observation, I would like you to have the semi-last word, but Senator Moreau had a brief intervention.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: I would add that I fully agree with what you are proposing, Mr. Chair. I think it’s important, if we use the wording “clarify the requirements of the act,” in line with what Senator Batters was suggesting, to add the sentence, because we’ve heard evidence that this isn’t being done and that victims aren’t being informed.
Then we won’t have intervened in vain. I would like to reassure senators Oudar and Audette
[English]
The Chair: I have one more suggestion, which, again, in English, might embrace the point that Senator Moreau has made. I wonder if you would be comfortable with this phrasing — I’m going to work with the English if I may, Senator Moreau, because it would be a disaster if I tried it in French — “The measures proposed by this bill, already authorized, clarify specific requirements under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which underlines that they are already in place and clarify requirements.”
I’m kind of merging as a suggestion. We can keep the first one on the table, but it is an option.
Senator Pate: I understand the sentiment that Senator Oudar and Senator Audette are expressing, but the reality is, as Senator Moreau showed, it is in the law. We have to say something about how it is already authorized. I’m happy to add in something like, “Although we heard evidence that the law is not being followed and hence the genesis of this bill . . .” That would be acceptable. But I don’t think we should shrink from the fact it is already there in the law.
The Chair: “Already authorized” is something you would be comfortable with?
Senator Audette: No. If I may, the Indian Act — it’s out of scope, I say.
[Translation]
We have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[English]
It’s in the law, but the Indian Act doesn’t change. Sometimes wording to refer to, remind, add or improve is good.
In this case, I understand my lawyer friends — I’m surrounded by them — but I am a non-lawyer person. We understand the majority, as you said, Senator Tannas, but if we go back to the same words, then it looks as if we did this exercise. They came here — they are criminal law experts and have lawyers — to tell us that even though the law is written this way, it doesn’t give them the information.
So this little piece of legislation will help to provide a little bit more information. If I look at it with a narrow lens, this is where I’m comfortable with the bill and how Senator Tannas made a suggestion.
Senator Tannas: I worry about the “authorized” part because we heard testimony from the correctional service that they are in full compliance and doing really well. If we say it is already authorized, then presumably their position will stay exactly the same: The law never changed. It said so in the observations in the Senate, so we are good with what we have.
That’s not it. Those words are not in those four subsections we are talking about.
Chair, I do feel that, while there may be a point to be made, this has been reviewed and drafted with the help of folks who provide that kind of advice. So we are not doing anything legally wrong by passing this bill. We know it has been reviewed. I worry that we are giving an excuse to somebody down the road to say that this is a nothing and they don’t have to change any action. In fact, we heard, “Oh, we’re not going to change anything.”
Senator Moreau: I agree with Senator Tannas that it is better to stick with “clarify” and then to add a sentence that would provide that we had testimony here saying it was not the case. Without saying this, we are clarifying what is already authorized, but we don’t have to put the word “authorized” in the observation.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I’m going to say it in French, because it’s important to me. There may be thousands of people following these proceedings. This isn’t just a debate about words. I’m an independent senator, and these words matter. It’s the government that came out and said that it’s already authorized, that it’s unnecessary. I don’t agree with that.
The words have introduced some elements into the bill. It’s very detailed, and victims must be given explanations as to how the dates were authorized. I won’t go back over Bill C-320, but I completely agree with what Senator Tannas just said.
It’s not just a matter of semantics. I want to reassure people. We’re not just playing with words. It’s a question of my independence. I don’t agree with the position expressed by the government.
I completely agree with Senator Tannas, and that is why I didn’t agree with the first sentence either.
[English]
Senator Pate: The only point I’d like to make is this: Those of you who have been around the table for a while know that part of the issue here is we know that government departments don’t always fulfill their legal obligations. We have made those recommendations in other parts.
I think it is important to underscore that we recognize this is already the law. It is not semantics to me. I am happy to add a sentence that says we heard a lot of evidence that it is not being followed in the face of the bureaucracy saying that they are following the law, hence the need for these kinds of reviews. I am happy to have that wordsmithed.
I think it is really important that when we see these kinds of bills coming forth because the law is not being followed — whether it’s for victims or people who are prisoners or accused, whatever it is — we can name that because it sends a message as well. It’s important we have it in there. I am happy to have you figure out how to say it. If the way that Senator Tannas proposed meshes, I’m fine with that.
The Chair: Let me invite a straw vote, perhaps, on whether we remove the phrase “already permissible” and say “clarify specific requirements,” speaking to the first sentence. An intervention or a vote?
An Hon. Senator: Yes. Agreed.
The Chair: All those in favour of the change — I’m removing Senator Pate’s preferred language and proposing the injection of that of Senator Tannas.
Senator Simons: Could you read that back?
The Chair: “The measures proposed by this bill clarifies specific requirements under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act . . .” et cetera.
Senator Simons: I don’t understand what that means. I literally don’t understand what that sentence means in English, if we do that. It’s missing a word somehow.
The Chair: Which word is it missing?
Senator Simons: If we said “this bill clarifies,” that would make more sense.
The Chair: We could say that.
Senator Simons: I just think there is something peculiar grammatically about the sentence. I’m not disagreeing with the thought.
The Chair: Sure.
Senator Batters: I don’t see that that is grammatically incorrect. It would say, “The measures proposed by this bill clarify certain requirements under the Corrections and Conditional . . .” “The measures clarify” — that is correct.
We have heard there are these requirements already in those acts, but they are being clarified so that everyone is receiving the information they should be.
The Chair: It may be a little wordy. Is there much to choose from the phrase, “the measures proposed by this bill clarify” or “this bill clarifies”? It strikes me as not a lot different, one from the other. I know this is an area of your expertise, Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: Can you read me back the way you have it written? And don’t say, “blah, blah, blah.” Say the whole sentence.
The Chair: Okay, I will not say, “blah, blah, blah.” I will not even start with the, “blah, blah, blah.”
“The measures proposed by this bill clarify specific requirements under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the policies of Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada.”
Senator Simons: I don’t understand what it’s clarifying. I don’t think the word “clarify” is doing —
The Chair: It’s Senator Tannas’s word, so I will get him to answer.
Senator Tannas: It was sort of a nod to what people were saying about how it’s already in the bill. If you go through it, you can make a very persuasive case that all of this is there.
Senator Simons: Can we say, “clarify measures that are already —”
Senator Tannas: That is what we’re getting into. If we say it’s already there, then we’re needing to clarify. We could say, “impose specific requirements.” I’m fine with that.
Senator Simons: “Impose” is better.
Senator Tannas: But “clarify” kind of hints that maybe it’s already in the bill. That was it. I would be happy with “impose.”
Senator Simons: I think that “clarify” will just be confusing to anyone who reads this without having been party to this discussion.
The Chair: I think there is a difference between the word “clarify,” which does suggest Senator Pate’s point that it’s already existing, whereas “impose” certainly sounds new. I think we might be more respectful of the point by maintaining the word “clarify.”
I will invite people to say whether they are comfortable with the word “clarify” replacing “already permissible.” All of those in favour of the “clarify” message? All those opposed? I think we have about eight to one in a straw vote. I will suggest that we work —
Senator Arnot: I wasn’t here for any of this, but did you hear that this clarifies policies of Correctional Service Canada? Did you hear anything about policies?
Senator Simons: That would make it make more sense.
Senator Pate: We heard some about policies, yes.
The Chair: If I may say, I’m going to take it as guidance to the steering committee to draft. We will have to do a bit of work on this, but we are pointing toward “clarify.”
Senator Simons: To follow on Senator Arnot’s excellent point, could we say what we are clarifying? There is a subject but there is no object.
The Chair: At a certain point after we have voted, I think we need to move on and say we have some guidance on that. That has been, if I may say, clarified. I’m sorry.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
[English]
The Chair: Could we turn to this other point, then, and whether we essentially drop the introductory words of the last line of that paragraph, the last sentence of that paragraph, and begin with “investments must be made to ensure appropriate access,” et cetera, which would remove from this sentence a reference to the concerns about criminal law. All of those in favour of that as a change?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Opposed? Do you want us to put in another sentence about criminal law reforms of a more comprehensive nature?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: All those in favour of another one of those, say “yes.” I guess that settles it. If it’s all right with you, we will take this observation along the following lines, and I will get a vote from you.
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with the necessary —
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, agreed.
Is it agreed that I report the bill with observations to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. I believe that that concludes our business today. I thank you all and —
Senator Clement: Before you hit the gavel one last time, I want to thank you again. You just demonstrated how elegant you are as a chair. Thank you for being erudite but also accessible. I think we should clap.
The Chair: Thank you. That is very kind.
We will close this off with a skillful observation. At this point, I am going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you all.
(The committee adjourned.)