Justice Committee on June 8th, 2021

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

I want to express particular thanks to you, Ms. Reid. As someone who taught criminal justice for 20 years before coming to Parliament, I rarely ever dealt with the issue of children with parents who were incarcerated, except on an individual basis. I think you've done quite useful work in bringing our attention to this question more systematically.

My question is about the characteristics of children. We know that certain groups in our society—marginalized groups, indigenous people, racialized Canadians—are vastly overrepresented in our prison system. I'm assuming, therefore, that the characteristics of children with incarcerated parents reflect that fact. I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Jessica Reid]

Thank you for that wonderful question. Yes, that is in fact the case. The majority of the children we support identify as marginalized and racialized members of our communities.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

My assumption, then, is that this would also be groups of children who quite often lack the resources that other groups of children might have in our society, and therefore the support services would be even more critical for these children.

[Jessica Reid]

Absolutely. That's exactly what happens. They are marginalized and oppressed in all of the systems, and they have a lack of supports in the communities they reside in.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Most of the services we're talking about are provided at the provincial level. I'm wondering whether you think adding children with parents who are incarcerated as victims specifically will help secure the delivery of provincial services

[Jessica Reid]

I believe that including them in this bill is the first step to raising awareness. I think the first piece is that children are invisible. They're often forgotten about in this conversation. Including them in this bill is a start. That subsequently will create a platform for advocacy to build supports across the country.

I already am contacted by families across the country. We provide some virtual support, but there is a need to provide this type of support across the country. I truly believe it is one of the most effective ways we can reduce the cycle of trauma and criminality.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thanks very much, Ms. Reid.

I want to turn to Mr. Berkes now. I thank him for his multiple appearances here and the valuable contributions he's made to this committee.

The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has made a series of recommendations about amendments or changes to the way we deal with victims of crime. One of those is that victims of crime have a right to complain about the failure to observe their rights in the system, but they don't have any centralized system to do that, or any right to redress for those complaints.

Can you tell us your views on that? She has suggested that the office of victims crimes should be the place for all those complaints to go.

[Jody Berkes]

Certainly, having a centralized system for redress is the most efficient way. It would also contribute to the highest level of satisfaction.

The unfortunate nature of the criminal justice system, as I know from having toiled in it for over 20 years now, is that a just result usually involves everyone in the process being unhappy with the result. When you ask a criminal lawyer how they know it was a just result, the answer is, because no one was happy with it.

Certainly, having a centralized system for processing these complaints....

I find that generally speaking, sometimes these are structural issues that there is just no way around, and people will be dissatisfied with the result no matter what. However, if you try to provide them with the information about how the system worked in their situation and how it should work ideally, I find that at the end of the day maybe they're not satisfied with the outcome but they certainly understand it.

If I might, I would follow up on something Ms. Reid said before. There is a bill before Parliament to roll back mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentencing is the single biggest cause of the overrepresentation of marginalized and indigenous communities in jails. The devastating effects of incarcerating these individuals aren't just on those individuals; they're also on the families and children of those individuals. This committee should take up the bill at its earliest opportunity and pass it as quickly as possible.

The Canadian Bar Association has passed a resolution calling on Parliament to roll back mandatory minimum sentences.

Thank you.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Berkes, for reminding us of the impacts of mandatory minimum sentences, something that my party has long advocated for removing, and giving discretion back to judges in those cases.

I want to ask you about another recommendation from the ombudsman, and that is her recommendation 13, in which she suggests replacing restitution in the act with the broader concept of reparations. Her argument, which is one I have heard, is that many victims of crime aren't looking for financial compensation, even though they may have suffered losses. They're looking for more symbolic or systemic changes in the form of reparations.

Is the Bar Association supportive of expanding that concept to reparations, rather than the narrower concept of restitution?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Answer very briefly, please, Mr. Berkes.

[Jody Berkes]

As briefly as possible, Madam Chair, we find that complainants and victims of crime often receive more satisfaction when they are permitted to have alternate forms of sentencing, so not just incarceration, but redress and sentencing circles. We have been working with our justice partners on expanding sentencing options to include various other options.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

We'll go into our second round and I am cognizant of the time. We have six minutes remaining in the first hour, and I understand that we have a very hard stop at 1:00 p.m. because of committee restrictions. What I would like to do is perhaps divide those remaining six minutes into one question per party, if members are okay with that.

We'll start with Ms. Wong.

Please go ahead.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madame Chair, thank you very much.

We haven't really talked much about seniors. Very often seniors are very vulnerable and it's difficult for them to actually navigate the criminal justice system. Elder abuse, for example, is a major concern of mine.

Through you, Madam Chair, can any one of you shed light on that?

[Jody Berkes]

Madam Chair, with your permission, I could take a stab at that very briefly.

There are structural difficulties in investigating offences involving seniors. These are vulnerable groups. They often aren't investigated by the police in the most effective manner with presenting the evidence, so the two-pronged approach would be educating investigators on how to properly investigate these types of offences, and also on the local level, having clinics that could support seniors and provide them with independent legal advice.

If I might add one thing, I was grasping for a term during the last question. It is “restorative justice concepts”.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for that, Mr. Berkes.

We'll now go to Mr. Virani for his question. Please go ahead.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll just state on the record that I'm quite shaken, as I'm sure we all are, by the news that I've heard from London, Ontario, in the last 36 hours. It's weighing heavily upon all of us, as it should be: a horrific hate crime and an act of terror targeted against a Muslim family who lost their lives.

I'm thinking about victims who deal with hate and victims who deal with targeted acts. I know neither of the witnesses spoke to this directly, but I might ask Mr. Berkes.

Mr. Berkes, you commented a little on your views on Bill C-22, the mandatory minimum penalties bill, and I share all of your views and echo them. There's also another bill before the House, which is Bill C-21 and which dovetails a bit with this theme that I'm raising. It talks about red flags, and how you might address people who might be potentially in a situation where they might commit an act of hatred; by flagging them, you might help to remove potential weapons, including firearms, from them.

Would you care to opine on what impact that kind of legislation would have in terms of protecting Canadians?

Thanks, Mr. Berkes.

[Jody Berkes]

Madam Chair, with your permission, I will comment in the very little time I have left.

Certainly having a registry of firearms that allows firearms to be tracked, determining where people have access to firearms, has been helpful. Law enforcement has asked for that repeatedly and has thought of it as a good tool. Any tool that will increase safety by limiting access to firearms by people who pose a danger is something that should be looked at.

The CBA doesn't have an official position on that, so I'm unable to comment any further. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Berkes.

We'll go to Monsieur Fortin for one question.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Berkes, I'd like you to tell us about the definition of “victim” set forth in the charter. It refers to an individual who has suffered harm and so on. It's a broad definition, but one that may not apply uniformly in the courts across Canada and in Quebec. Its application may vary with the judges and provincial administrative authorities.

Shouldn't that definition be clarified, or should it be stated in the general provisions that these terms include, although without excluding general terms, such and such a situation?

For example, no references are specifically made here to families of victims or attackers. Perhaps they should be better explained.

What do you think, Mr. Berkes?

[Jody Berkes]

Madam Chair, once again I'll try to keep my comments very brief.

In the nomenclature we use in the criminal defence bar, the term “victim” is a very loaded term, and in terms of how we like to view things or how we like to term things, we prefer the term “complainant” to refer to the person who has made the criminal complaint.

Other parties can be witnesses. Other parties can be affected by both the charge and the operation of the justice system.

I think if you don't use the term “victim” to designate these people, but just call them who they are—families of the defendant, families of the complainant—that way you focus less on labels and more on people as human beings. That way you can address their specific needs, because depending on where they sit in the courtroom, their needs are going to be vastly different. For a defendant's family, their immediate needs may be to have the defendant come back and serve a conditional sentence at home, so you don't rip the family apart. With respect to the complainant's family, it may be counselling that is needed.

If we focus less on labels and more on needs, I think we will increase the level of justice for all participants in the system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

Last, but not least, Mr. Garrison, you have one quick question if you're able to.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me make two quick comments.

First, let me express, as all members of the committee have done, our shock and horror at the hate crime in London, and the redoubling of our efforts to combat hate in Canada, whether it's based on Islamophobia or any other form of hatred.

Lastly, from the witnesses we've heard so far, and those I know we're going to hear, these sessions have drawn our attention to the fact that the five-year review of the legislation affecting victims of crime certainly needs to take place.

In the interests of time, I'll let us turn to the next panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Garrison.

With that, thank you to the witnesses for this panel, for your very compelling testimony. If there are additional clarifications or information you'd like to provide, please don't hesitate to send that information to Mr. Clerk, who will circulate it amongst members.

Thank you, everyone.

I'll suspend to prepare for our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I call this meeting back to order, and thank our witnesses for taking the time to be here today.

So members are aware, interpretation is available at the bottom of their screens.

Select the language you'd like to listen to. You can speak in either official language, and please speak slowly and clearly, so that interpretation is easy for all of us, especially our interpreters. When you are not speaking, please make sure you're on mute. When you are speaking, it will be prudent of you to unmute yourself. That would be helpful.

With that, I'll welcome our witnesses.

We have the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Senator. Welcome to our committee.

[Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Senator]

Thank you, Madam Chair.