Public Safety Committee on Feb. 13th, 2014

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

At the end of the next session for committee business....

I see everyone nodding yes, except one. I believe it does not require unanimous consent, so we'll have a vote.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

A recorded vote, Mr. Chair...?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

We will have a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

We will briefly suspend for two minutes to give people a chance to get up from the table, and we'll reconvene as quickly as we can.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

We will reconvene.

We have our second witness on Bill C-479. We'd like to welcome Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and ask her to make an opening statement of 10 minutes. I believe members have it in front of them.

[Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-479, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I would like to begin by providing you with a brief overview of our office's mandate. The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created in 2007 to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims, by promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime, by providing information and referrals, by promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime, by raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy makers about the needs and concerns of victims, and by identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact victims of crime.

The office helps victims in two main ways, individually and collectively. We help victims individually by speaking with victims every day, answering their questions, and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, or programs to better support victims of crime.

I would like to begin today by thanking Mr. Sweet for his work on this bill and for his efforts to recognize the valuable role that victims of crime have to play in the Canadian criminal justice system.

As mentioned, my mandate is to assist victims of crime in Canada. During my previous and current term as ombudsman, I have had the privilege of hearing from hundreds of victims across this country. I have found that victims are most concerned about their treatment, both within the criminal justice system and beyond. More specifically, I have found that, while the needs and concerns of victims are unique and do vary, on the whole victims want to be informed, considered, protected, and supported. It is clear to me that the intention of Bill C-479 is to further consider and include victims of crime in our criminal justice system. I fully support these aspects of the bill.

I think this bill puts forward some valuable changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would significantly enhance victims' treatment and consideration in the process. Many of these changes are, in fact, in line with recommendations that our office has made in the past. That being said, I think there are some minor modifications that would further strengthen the bill, and I would like to share these with the committee today.

Bill C-479 aims to address the lack of information victims receive by providing them with more information about the offender who harmed them. This is done in part through the bill's proposal to shift the onus on the Parole Board of Canada, or PBC, from providing the information to victims on a discretionary basis, to ensuring that victims shall receive it. I strongly support this amendment; however I would suggest a modification.

As written, the bill suggests that only certain items currently considered discretionary become mandatory. I would suggest, as a further modification, that all of the information currently listed as discretionary be given to victims automatically, unless there is a relevant safety or security reason not to. If the principle of the bill is to provide victims with greater access to information, then I see no reason not to include all of these items.

Additionally, the proposed list of information to be provided to a victim includes information relating to the offender's correctional plan. We have often heard from victims who wish to know more about the offender's progress towards rehabilitation. Through the Safe Streets and Communities Act, Bill C-10 in 2012, some information about the offender's program participation and serious disciplinary offences report, or the PPDO, was made available to the victim at the discretion of Correctional Service Canada, or CSC.

However, the PPDO provides very little information for victims outside of the names of the programs offenders may be taking, their status—for example, whether they are complete or ongoing—and blanket descriptions of the programs' overall goals. The PPDO does not provide information relating to the offender's risk, progress, and overall rehabilitation. This is the information that victims are most interested in obtaining.

The correctional plan, on the other hand, provides much more comprehensive information that would be more meaningful for victims in understanding the risks an offender may pose, how those risks are being addressed, and what progress, if any, he or she is making toward rehabilitation. Given this, I fully support Bill C-479 in its proposal to provide victims with more information relating to the offender's correctional plan.

As an additional note, many victims have expressed the desire to be informed of the commission of any new criminal code offences by the offender while under the supervision of CSC. Therefore, I would recommend that Bill C-479 be amended to include this information.

Finally, as a further modification to this area of the bill, there is an important technical oversight that could nullify the proposed benefits of the bill, once passed.

The bill proposes to expand the type of information provided to victims. It includes an amendment to section 142 of the CCRA, authorizing the parole board to provide information related to the offender's correctional plan. The correctional plan is a document under the control of CSC and is used to manage offenders over the course of their sentences. Accordingly, our office recommends that CSC rather than PBC be authorized to provide this information, through an amendment to section 26 of the CCRA rather than only section 142.

Further, the same pertains to notifications to victims related to the date and destination of certain absences and releases, as well as whether the offender will be in the vicinity of the victim while travelling to the release destination. This is all information that is currently provided to victims by the Correctional Service Canada under section 26 of the CCRA, which is not provided for in the bill. In other words, I recommend that the bill be amended to mirror the proposed amendments to section 142 of the CCRA in section 26 as well.

While ensuring that victims are properly informed is essential, it is equally important to create opportunities for victims to participate in the process and to create an environment to encourage that participation. This means providing choices and options for how victims can choose to participate in the criminal justice system without feeling intimidated or fearful, and without causing significant disruption to their lives and finances.

One example of this is the parole hearing. Parole hearings can be extremely important to some victims, given that it is often the first opportunity since sentencing for the victims to learn more about the progress, if any, that an offender has made towards rehabilitation. While some victims will find it important and even necessary to face the offender in person, others may find this idea intimidating or generally undesirable.

In the current system, attending or observing the parole hearing in real time is the only way that victims can attain the most complete information about the offenders who have harmed them and the progress the offenders may have made. For those victims who are fearful of encountering their offenders, for any number of reasons, including fear of retaliation, there is a distinct lack of options for observing a parole hearing. Only in exceptional circumstances can victims request that they attend the hearing via video-conferencing technology or closed-circuit television. Attending a hearing by secure webcast or audio feed is not an option.

Bill C-479 aims to address this gap, by proposing that in cases where a victim or a member of his or her family has been denied the ability to attend a hearing, the board shall provide for the victim or family member to follow the hearing by teleconference or by a one-way, closed-circuit video feed.

I would recommend two modifications to this. I recommend that the wording be amended so that it doesn't merely permit victims to follow the hearing but allows them to participate by reading their prepared victim statements, and that the option for a victim to observe and/or participate in a parole hearing via teleconference, one-way circuit video feed, video conferencing, or other technology, be extended to all victims, regardless of whether they have been denied attendance. We must keep in mind that for some victims it is work commitments, child care, caring for elderly parents or family members, financial restraints, or their own emotional anxiety about being within close proximity to the offender that may prohibit them from attending a hearing.

While the proposals in Bill C-479 are well intentioned to provide victims with greater access to the hearings, they neglect to take into account the fact that for many victims attending a parole hearing is not always an option, regardless of whether their attendance has been approved.

The lack of options for attending a parole hearing wouldn't be as problematic if a victim who did not attend a hearing had choices and options for reviewing the proceedings at a later date. However, the reality is that there are no alternatives for victims in these cases. There are no transcripts provided, and victims cannot access an audio recording, even when it exists. The only further material available to a victim who is not able to attend a hearing in person is a copy of the decision registry, which outlines the decision taken and main supporting reasons. It is in no way a full depiction of the information that is provided during the parole hearing.

Bill C-479 recognizes this need and attempts to address it by providing that if a transcript of the hearing has been made, on written request, a copy of it shall be provided by the parole board free of charge to the victim, a member of the victim's family, or the offender. Unfortunately, while this clause has the victims' needs in mind, our office understands that it is not currently the practice for transcripts to be made. Instead, audio recordings are kept as records of the parole hearing proceedings. As such, this legislative change would not result in further access for victims to the proceedings of any given parole hearing.

Previously our office has recommended that victims be granted access to listen in, not keep, audio recordings of the parole hearings, and that there be potential funding support, as necessary, to travel to the locations at which these recordings are stored.

As such I would recommend that the wording of the bill be amended to state that victims, members of the victim's family, and the offender have access to, at no charge, any recordings, be they audio, audio-visual, or otherwise, of the parole hearings.

In addition to increasing the information victims receive and their role in the system, Bill C-479 proposes to increase the time between parole hearings for violent offenders who are denied parole or who have parole cancelled or terminated.

In 2010 our office released a report entitled “Toward a Greater Respect for Victims in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act”, which recommended that the time between hearings be extended to five years for those serving life and indefinite sentences if an offender's request for conditional release is denied.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Ms. O'Sullivan, may I ask you to conclude your remarks?

[Sue O'Sullivan]

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my support for Bill C-479 and to commend the bill's efforts to address some of the gaps in information, participation, and consideration that exist in our current system for victims of crime. I feel that with the modifications I have suggested today, the bill could significantly help to enhance the treatment of victims of crime in Canada. I would encourage the committee to seriously consider my amendments and suggestions for technical modification to make the bill as sound and as effective as possible.

I thank you for your time.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Thank you very much.

We will turn first to Mr. Payne, for seven minutes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and my question is through you.

Thank you for coming today, Ms. O'Sullivan. I noted in discussion that when Mr. Sweet was here, he did say that he talked to a number of members of the parole board. I'm wondering if you were one of those individuals he talked to in gathering information to help craft his bill.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

As a matter of fact, we had a technical briefing by Mr. Sweet, yes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

All right, thank you.

I know that during discussions Mr. Sweet did talk about attending parole board hearings and about the difficulty that victims have had. I'm wondering if you could tell us about some of your experiences with the victims attending these parole hearings, and some of the difficulties that Mr. Sweet expressed—your comments on those.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

I too have had the opportunity to attend parole hearings, obviously, and have spoken with victims. I think Mr. Sweet spoke very eloquently to some of the experiences that he has had. I can reflect on some similar experiences. I would go further to say that we often talk about the day of the hearing and the emotion and all that's attached to it.

When you speak to families and family members who do feel that obligation to attend because they're representing a person who can't be there, they'll talk not just about the day of the hearing but about the months in advance, the year in advance. Are they going to apply for parole? Is the hearing going to actually take place? Is it going to be cancelled? Do I need to amend my victim impact statement? It's not just the day of the hearing. Then, of course, once the hearing takes place, it's the “after” of that as well. This is a huge toll that takes place.

Of course, one of the things that this bill is trying to address is—if I were to say it and use those four words—that victims are looking to be informed, considered, protected, and supported, so those are a lot of the pieces of this.

Number one, victims need information. They need information on the offender who harmed them—and a lot of the pieces are here—and they need to know if the offender, while in the institution, is taking proper steps toward rehabilitation, not just that he was taking a course and that it was completed but was he engaged in that?

Also, what are the risks that have been associated with this offender? Are the responses toward rehabilitation appropriate? Conversely, if in fact they're not, the victims may want to take extra steps when the offenders get back into the community. When they're released back into the community, be it on a pass or be it on parole, they want to know and need to know what conditions are attached to that. If there's a condition that says the offender is not to communicate with the victim or their family, they need to know that. If there is a geographic specification, they need to know that. It really comes down to their right to be informed so that they have the information they need to feel safe.

When this talks about, for example, the parole board considering a victim's safety in their decision-making and looking at that, this is something we hear from victims—how do I know those board members have considered my safety when they are making that decision around release? I think a lot of the things that this bill is bringing forward....

If we were to look at the specific amendments, for example, we would see that when we talk about the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, section 142 gives direction to the Parole Board of Canada, and section 26 gives that authority to Correctional Service Canada. You have those two sections over two federal agencies that both are involved with the offender, both on the management side and in the correctional plan, as well as the conditional release issues.

What I'm seeing is that there are some things, for example, such as a work release, and it's a decision of the warden, through Correctional Service Canada, to issue one of those. We should really have reflected in section 146 and section 26 that the governing authorities should have the ability, because they can only give the victim what the legislation says they can. When you look at something like a correctional plan.... As I said in my earlier testimony, I've listened to victims who heard for the first time at the parole board hearing about how or whether an offender has been returned, which might be 15 or 20 years down the road....

What they're saying is that Correctional Service Canada has that correctional plan early on, so if they have the authority to give that information to the victims earlier in the process, they can assess those risk issues and whether the offenders are engaged towards their rehabilitation. It would make sense in these modifications we're recommending, in that sections 26 and 142 grant both of those authorities the mirror ability to give that information to victims of crime.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

That does make a lot of sense. Certainly, we have heard over and over about victims and the difficulties they've had, particularly upon release or temporary release, so that's really important.

I wonder if you could touch a bit more on the video piece. You talked about a one-way closed circuit video feed or via video.... How do you see that whole thing working for the victims? I know that travel certainly might be an issue for individuals. In particular, how do you see that working to help the victims?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Just a brief response, please.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

Our recommendation is that every victim or family member who wants to attend a parole hearing should have a choice and an option about how they wish to attend. That can be in person, or they may choose to attend by video conference or by another use of technology. They should have a choice to do that.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Thank you very much.

I now yield the floor to Ms. Doré Lefebvre, who has seven minutes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Ms. O'Sullivan for joining us today to discuss Bill C-479 and victims' rights.

I know you are doing a great job as ombudsman for the rights of victims of crime. I would like to thank you for that.

I think your presentation was cut short. Unless I am mistaken, you were talking about amendments to the terms between parole hearings.

Before I begin with my questions, would you like to add anything on that topic? Would you like to summarize what you did not have time to say over the last few minutes of your presentation?

[Sue O'Sullivan]

Our office has recommended that when it comes to people charged with murder and people with indeterminate sentences that it be five years. What was added to this legislation was schedule I. I am not an expert in offender management, but it's my understanding that when some people are released back into the community, obviously it can be beneficial to be under supervision.

However, this bill also does say “within five years”, so if the board is cognizant that some of those benefits...but I would certainly defer the best approaches to offenders being back in the community to people with that offender management expertise.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much.

I do think that victims have good reasons to attend some parole hearings. That is a good thing in cases where the offender is likely to return to the community where the offence was committed and where the victims still live. That is also a good thing in cases where the victim asks that the offender's release be subject to special conditions, such as non-communication orders.

The New Democrats are prepared to support some of the amendments proposed in this bill. More specifically, we will support the amendments that would give victims access to parole hearings—which we consider extremely important—as well as the amendments that would enable victims to attend hearings by videoconference or teleconference. I think this is a great idea, especially for victims with reduced mobility or, as you said in your presentation, those who work or have young children. I am a young mother. I can understand that our time can be very precious.

It is important to examine this legislative measure. I have the same question for you as I had earlier for the bill's sponsor. The question has to do with the Victims Bill of Rights promised by the Conservative government.

Do you think that bill should have been part of a broader legislation for victims' rights? Shouldn't the Victims Bill of Rights have been part of a more comprehensive piece of legislation?

[Sue O'Sullivan]

I think we're all waiting to see what the victims' bill of rights will contain. I don't have that, so I can't speculate on that.

What I can say is that this bill does address, in part or in many ways, some of the recommendations we have specifically already made. When I go back to my comments, this as an opportunity to put in legislation—as was said earlier, some things might be in policy—and really to start to recognize that this is about informing them, it is about considering victims, and it is about supporting them.

You've raised—and I thank you for that—some excellent points around a choice in options for victims. So would we like to see comprehensive looks in all legislation, ensuring there's a victim's lens to make sure they are informed, considered, protected, and supported? Yes. So we look forward to and are waiting to see the bill of rights once it's tabled.

Our office has, as you may be aware, made our submission on the upcoming victims' bill of rights, which is available on our website, along with some of the videos that I think were mentioned here earlier. We held a national forum.

When we talk to victims, we say they're not bystanders in the criminal justice system. They have a right to meaningful participation. So this bill does address directly some of the recommendations we have made, and we look forward to seeing that the victims' bill of rights will, hopefully, as well, address many of the needs, issues, and concerns of victims of crime.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Excellent.

In 2013, you published a report titled Moving the Conversation Forward. Mr. Sweet mentioned this in his presentation. I would like to quote what you said in the report.

Despite best efforts, victims attending a parole hearing may find themselves using the same entrances and/or without a separate waiting area to avoid the offender prior to the hearing.

What types of measures should be implemented to ensure that victims feel safer when they attend the parole hearings?

I know that you touched on this briefly in your presentation, but I would like you to elaborate further.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

I just want to be sure of your question. You're asking what steps we can take to ensure they feel safe?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Yes.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

One thing is that they need to be informed at all parts of the process so that when there are upcoming dates, they have that information in an appropriate amount of time and they're aware of what's required. For example, some victims who have never given a victim statement at a parole hearing.... They have to prepare their statement ahead of time. It has to be submitted ahead of time. Then once it's submitted, they can only read it; they may not deviate from that statement. They may read only what is written at the time of the parole hearing.

There are many issues that have been brought forward to our office from victims in terms of both parole hearings and simple considerations. For example, parole hearings take place in institutions; they're all different. So one thing could be making sure that you consider the victim and put yourself in a victim's perspective. If the offender is to be walked right by the victim on the way to the parole hearing, and in close proximity, put a lens on in terms of considering the impact to the victim.

We've dealt with everything from where the victim is sitting within the room where the hearing is taking place to looking at, if there is a video impact statement being given, where it is and whether the offender can see it or not.

It's to really consider all of the information, the proximity issues, and the respect issues, treating those families and those victims with dignity and respect in terms of that hearing, and making sure that through all stages, they are informed, they are considered. That's going to go a long way toward their feeling safe.

Also, I think the modifications we've recommended here.... Give them those choices and options, because as I said in my testimony, some may very much want to be there in person, and some may not be able to but will still want to participate. For example, one of the simple modifications was that even if they're denied attendance for safety reasons, if they're denied that attendance they should be allowed to follow. They should be allowed to give their statement using the technology, not just follow.