Justice Committee on Nov. 7th, 2013

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you.

When you speak to victims and others in our society about their faith in the justice system, and they hear stories of victims and offenders being put in close proximity to each other and of the continuing traumatic impact on a victim, what does that kind of story do to the faith that people generally have in our justice system? Do you think that this piece of legislation will help to restore—

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I think this is one piece. I think we have a lot of work to do in ensuring that people....

When people report crime, they want to be involved in the criminal justice system. They need to have faith that the system is going to consider their needs, that it's respectful and will treat them with dignity. It's going to give them that information, allow them to feel that their input is considered, that they feel protected, and, ultimately, supported.

So this is a piece that is going to go some way in doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, for those questions and answers.

Our next question, from the New Democratic Party, is from Madame Péclet.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much to the witness for your testimony.

I would like to start by addressing a fairly important point that wasn't covered in the last few questions. It has to do with the communication of information. The clause stipulates that the person must not be within two kilometres of any dwelling-house where the victim resides. But, Ms. O'Sullivan, you said in your remarks that there was no system of communicating information and, as a result, there were problems regarding privacy. You wondered how that could be resolved.

Should victims give their consent so that the court can communicate that information? How could that be done?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

You've raised a very good point.

As I've indicated, there have to be some procedural safeguards in place, particularly when the offender does not know the address of the victim.

We're a very broad and expansive country. As has been pointed out by many people here, we have small rural communities, northern communities, fly-in communities, and large urban communities. If a range is to be put in, one example is that written consent could be given in advance by the victim, saying they are fine with the two-kilometre boundary. I think that you could broaden the radius.

These are some of the procedures that would have to be considered, particularly when the offender does not know the victim’s residence. I think everyone here agrees that this is common sense in cases where an offender is moving back in across the street.

My concern is that we make sure that with whatever procedural safeguards are put in place, there is also a process that considers the victims.

[Michael Spratt]

From my experience, I can tell you that an offender is never told where the victim is residing. That's counterproductive, and that's not done.

There are provisions that can lead to some very confusing situations. For example, if he doesn't know that the victim is within the two-kilometre radius of where he is, it can lead to enforcement problems and other issues.

What is routinely done in probation orders is that a probation officer or the police are informed of the offender’s address. If he changes his address, he has to inform the authorities. Certainly, that's information the police would know, probation officials would know, and it can be communicated to the victim as well.

When you look at these measures, which are very well intended, I don't want anyone to think that I mean that the system works right most of the time and we don't need these measures. These measures may correct some imperfections and examples of imperfections that have arisen in the system; however, if they're not carefully thought out and properly applied, they can create other imperfections as well.

That's the balance that needs to be struck, and that's what my comments are geared to.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

The intent of this article was to make the

…accused not approach the dwelling-house where he knows or should know that the victim lives. Furthermore, if the victim does not know exactly where the person resides, but knows the person lives in the neighbourhood, that might cause some stress.

How do you think this should be done? Should the victim know where the person resides as well? How should that overlap in the whole system? In general, should the victim have access to information? I'm not talking about specific cases here.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

One example I've given is that it requires the victim to consent in advance to the information that's being shared with the offender. That's simply one example that could be implemented. I use that as an example because that would ensure that the victim is comfortable with the parameters.

Clearly, in cases where the victim and offender know each other and know where each other lives, a radius is pretty straightforward. The challenges arise when.... Let's take this city, for example. You have a population base of roughly 900,000. If you put a two-kilometre radius on that, you could potentially target an area for the offender, who may wish to reoffend, about a smaller area where the victim may reside. But the victim may be comfortable with saying, “I'm comfortable, if you tell them that they're not to be within this radius”.

I think one option is to seek consent from the victim as to what information can be shared in advance of its being shared with an offender. I realize there are people who perhaps have more experience than I do in the implementation of boundaries. For example, I know that in other countries boundaries are imposed in some situations. My concern is only that there be those appropriate administrative and procedural safeguards in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our final questioner for this panel is from the Conservative Party, Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Susan, you raised a number of points that I think this committee needs to consider. With respect to some language issue, when you're talking about the amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, where it says it's that “or”, I take it you think that we should be putting forward an amendment to either remove the “or”, which I think works, or change the “or” to an “and” to make it clear that they have to do both—not communicate and refrain from going to the place, because when you leave the “or” in, it seems like if you do one, you're okay.

I think you're suggesting we have a drafting error in the legislation that needs to be fixed.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Yes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Michael, do you agree with that—

[Michael Spratt]

Yes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

—that it's somewhat unclear how it's drafted?

[Michael Spratt]

I think it's somewhat unclear. It looks like it's not necessarily completely the same as....

Yes, you're right, it's in the other one, too.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

It's in all of those sections.

[Michael Spratt]

Removing the “or” and leaving it open to impose both, or just impose one, would provide flexibility and remove the situation where someone says “I complied with one, but not the other”.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Yes, I agree.

The second thing I see, Susan, is that when you're talking about the parole board or any other releasing authority, you're saying that the written reasons need to be constrained, effectively, to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. You're saying that's where we have a problem with oral reasons being given.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Or no reasons being given.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Or no reasons being given.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

For example, if a registered victim chooses to attend a parole hearing, and they attend, there's a lot of emotion in many cases as well. For example, they may want to ask to listen to the audio recording that was made, next week or something. They can't do that, because it wasn't made for those purposes.

The only thing that they can get in writing is a copy of the Decision Registry, which is not a transcript. If, in fact, the reasons given for the decision are not in the Decision Registry, then they wouldn't have access to that. They need to be provided that information in writing. So CCRA changes, yes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I'm not trying to interrupt you, but I have such a limited amount of time and I want to get this right, because we're apparently going to clause-by-clause study right after this.

Right now, with the legislation as it is, it's saying that if the releasing authority makes the decision saying they're not going to impose these conditions, they have to provide written reasons.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Yes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I take it you support it as it's drafted for the releasing authority.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

It has to provide written reasons to the—