Justice Committee on June 17th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 24 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the motion adopted on February 8, the committee is meeting to resume its study of the government’s obligations to victims of crime. We will also go in camera to discuss the travel plan for this fall and adopt the report on PCEPA subsequent to this first part of the meeting.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. For those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use an earpiece and select the desired channel.

Before I introduce the witnesses I just want to let you know I have two cue cards. I will raise one when you're down to your last 30 seconds. When you're out of time I will raise the red one. I ask that you conclude to respect everyone's time.

As witnesses we have Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, research chair and professor of victimology and public safety, victimology research centre, Algonquin College. We also have, from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, Aline Vlasceanu, executive director; and from Ottawa Victim Services, Heidi Illingworth, executive director.

Witnesses, you will have five minutes to give your opening statements, and then we'll go to subsequent rounds of questions. If you don't finish your comments in your opening statement, try to flesh them out in the questions, or you're more than welcome to submit your statement or briefs to the clerk and we can add those into the report.

We will have Dr. Benjamin Roebuck for five minutes, please.

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, Research Chair and Professor of Victimology and Public Safety, Victimology Research Centre, Algonquin College, As an Individual]

Thank you so much.

Victims' rights are not an abstract topic. They have real-life consequences for victims and survivors of crime.

When somebody experiences trauma from violence, they're in one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives and forced to navigate the complexities of a system that can be quick to leave them behind. The crime is deemed to be against the state, rather than the person who was hurt, and most of the rights with legally binding power belong to the accused, who's guaranteed the right to a fair trial, to legal counsel and to be provided with information on the case against them. If these rights aren't respected, a mistrial can be called, because we recognize that there has been a miscarriage of justice. In fact, sections 7 to 14 in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lay out these rights for people accused of criminal offences, because as a society, we believe in justice, fairness and due process.

When it comes to victims of crime—and this is so important—the legal onus is reversed. Our legislation states that victims can receive information when they request it, and the only recourse prescribed is to file a complaint.

In a recent study completed by our research centre, we heard from victims and survivors of crime from all across Canada. I have submitted English and French copies of our report to the committee. People shared the real consequences of not being informed, including missing the opportunity to participate in hearings, to be consulted about decisions that affect their lives and, perhaps, most importantly, to share concerns about their personal safety. This is all because they haven't been provided with information they didn't know to ask for, and no one in our current system is responsible or accountable for providing that information.

What can make things worse is that, at the federal level, privacy legislation has been used to justify not informing victims. The federal government believes that this might violate their privacy. That's a real barrier. Instead, if we draw on a person-centred or victim-centred approach, victims of crime need to be invited into conversations about their privacy and about their safety.

According to our former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, who is with us today, information is a gateway right. It's how we access all of the other rights that we're afforded.

If we apply the reasonable person test, we can assume that a reasonable person who has experienced victimization would want to be kept informed of the progress of an investigation and information about services and compensation. They would certainly want to be provided with information about their right to attend a parole hearing or to give information about their personal safety to be taken into consideration. We don't have to make that assumption, because survivors across the country are asking for this to change.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the equal protection and benefit of the law, and section 28 guarantees gender equality. In the case of gender-based violence, I don't understand how we can have a system that provides predominantly male perpetrators with information about their rights, legal counsel and guaranteed access to information in their cases, while predominantly female victims don't have access to the same rights. They will only be informed if they ask and if they know what to ask, and they might not be consulted about information on their personal safety in the release planning for that offender.

Decolonizing justice starts with recognizing the power imbalance that exists when people take what does not belong to them without consent. Strengthening rights and services for victims of crime is non-partisan, and it's our responsibility in a fair and equal society.

Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees an accused the ability to bring a challenge in court if their rights have not been respected. Currently, victims of crime are not permitted to bring a challenge in court when their rights are not respected, only to raise a complaint.

This makes the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime crucially important. While the Office of the Correctional Investigator has a budget of approximately $6 million, with 41 full-time equivalent positions, the victims ombudsman has a budget of just over a million dollars, with 10 to 12 FTEs.

Even a modest increase of two to four FTEs would allow the office to recruit additional expertise to develop policy envelopes that can support systemic reviews. There's a lot of work to do.

I'm thankful to have been invited to the committee today. I do hope the government will follow through.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Dr. Roebuck.

Now we'll go to Aline Vlasceanu from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.

[Aline Vlasceanu, Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. My name is Aline Vlasceanu, pronouns she/her/elle, and I am the executive director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.

Every year more than two million Canadians report criminal incidents to the police, almost a quarter of which are violent. The CRCVC comes into contact with thousands of them every single day of every single year and has done so for almost 29 years.

The year 2020 marked the five-year anniversary since Bill C-32, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights Act, came into force. In 2019 the Department of Justice's review of Canada's criminal justice system acknowledged that victims often feel revictimized under the current system and argue that major changes are needed to adequately support the rights of victims in Canada.

The CRCVC agrees that major changes must be made to the act as it currently falls short of delivering the rights and protections that it promised. The act was set out to provide victims of crime with four statutory rights, which are information, participation, protection and restitution throughout the criminal justice continuum. Since the act came into effect, the CRCVC has witnessed its shortcomings first-hand and how they have negatively affected victims of crime in Canada. Many of these shortcomings can be attributed to the following issues: sporadic and inconsistent implementation of the act, limited training for criminal justice officials, and no public education effort to inform citizens of their rights under the act.

The above-mentioned shortcomings and much more were also published in the 2020 “Progress Report: The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights” by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. In this report, the office clearly illustrates that the objectives set out in the act have not been met. This year, CRCVC agrees with this conclusion made by the OFOVC.

When the legislation was first passed in 2015 to create the CVBR, there was also a requirement that a committee of Parliament be designated or established to review the CVBR five years after it was enacted. Seven years later, the review has not taken place.

Criminal victimization is frightening and confusing. The effects can be debilitating and demoralizing and leave victims confused, fearful and frustrated, often exposing them to long-term issues to overcome. Added to these impacts is the burden imposed by the complexity of navigating the criminal justice system. The adversarial justice system relegates victims to roles of observers or witnesses in proceedings between the state and the accused.

CRCVC works daily with victims who are often retraumatized by a system that should be protecting them. The Canadian criminal justice system fails to adequately and automatically inform them of their rights and the relevant criminal justice procedures. Some of the most common complaints the CRCVC has encountered include learning about hearings and trials after they've taken place, and learning about their right to submit a victim's statement after the deadline for filing has passed. Another common complaint is being unaware of their right to information about a federally incarcerated offender and unknowingly coming into contact with that person when they are eventually released back into the community.

While the CRCVC assists in a number of ways, a large part of our services involve helping individuals who are navigating the shortcomings of the CVBR. For example, the CRCVC helps registered victims of crime navigate post-trial agencies such as Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada in their search for information and participation in the hearings of their offenders. The CRCVC also helps victims who have their rights violated file a complaint, and it supports those who have not had their violations addressed correctly.

These services are directly related to the shortcomings of the act, as victims do not have real tangible remedies available to them when their rights under the act are violated.

Simply put, moving forward, we must hold officials and the system accountable for ensuring that victims' rights are delivered to them in a practical way. As outlined in the OFOVC's progress report, there are a few recommendations to address this lack of accountability. Specifically, these are the introduction of an automatic provision of information about victims' rights and remedies; designating a list of officials who have direct responsibilities to victims of crime within the criminal justice system; and naming the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime as a single authority with jurisdiction to review complaints by victims of crime in relation to how they were treated by a federal department, agency or body.

In agreement, CRCVC also recommends guaranteeing support services and assistance for victims, collecting national consistent data aligned with rights enumerated in the act, and assisting victims with the collection of court-ordered restitutions for the losses they have suffered.

Furthermore, it's important to note that OFOVC was created as an independent resource for victims of crime in 2011 to ensure that the federal government meets its responsibilities for victims of crime. While the responsibilities of the OFOVC sound promising on paper, it is difficult to follow through with these responsibilities given that there is no current federal ombudsman for victims of crime. The position has been vacant since the end of September. This is an affront to all victims of crime throughout Canada who rely on the OFOVC as an independent resource.

As the committee responsible for reviewing the government's obligation to victims of crime, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and I are calling upon you to use your voice to advocate on behalf of victims of crime in Canada who have had their voices stifled.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Vlasceanu.

Now we'll go over to Heidi Illingworth of Ottawa Victim Services for five minutes.

[Heidi Illingworth, Executive Director, Ottawa Victim Services]

Thank you.

I don't know what happened to my camera. It's not turning on now, but I hope you can hear me.

Good afternoon. My name is Heidi Illingworth. I am the executive director of Ottawa Victim Services.

OVS is a community-based agency that provides emotional support, practical assistance, referrals and advocacy to individuals who have been victimized as a result of a crime or tragic circumstance.

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear.

The federal government has clear obligations to victims of crime. The 1985 United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Ms. Illingworth, we're going to have to pause. I think there is a rule that your camera has to be on. I'm just getting a message from the clerk.

You can pause for a second and we'll try to get IT services to resolve this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I've been told we can resume. Interpretation has Ms. Illingworth's text, so they don't need a video to help them translate. Hopefully, we'll get this sorted out before the questions.

Ms. Illingworth, please continue.

[Heidi Illingworth]

Okay. I'm sorry about that. I don't know what happened. It was working earlier.

The federal government has clear obligations to victims of crime. The 1985 United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power sets out clearly that governments must provide victims with access to justice and fair treatment, enable offenders to make fair restitution, offer victim assistance and support services, and set up financial compensation programs. It is my position that Canada has largely failed to meet or maintain international standards and obligations to victims of crime.

Passed in 2015, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is weak legislation. It is symbolic rather than taking real effect, and guarantees neither rights nor services to victims of crime. It was drafted in such a way as to purposely deny enforceable rights to victims of crime. The act specifically states that none of its provisions can be interpreted as giving any victims standing in court to challenge authorities on whether their rights have been met.

When I was ombudsperson, I recommended the act be amended to provide a legal remedy for its violation. Currently, the act prevents victims from legally enforcing their rights either through judicial review of decisions or other administrative mechanisms.

Further, the CVBR places the onus on traumatized victims and survivors to know and assert their rights instead of requiring criminal justice officials, who have a duty of care to victims, to provide information automatically. I believe the act should be amended to clearly define roles and responsibilities of criminal justice officials towards victims.

The act must set out which officials are meant to inform victims of their rights and when they must do so. It must also require them to document what information is shared, how protections are delivered, etc. Authorities such as the police, Crown prosectors and corrections and parole officials must be accountable for providing the rights that are laid out in the act to information, protection and support, and they should also have to report publicly on how they do so.

Implementation of the CVBR has been a failure, in my view. There is a lack of data collected, reported and recorded at all levels in relation to the rights that are provided in the bill. There has been no effort made to measure the impact of the bill or outcomes for victims. Significant investments are needed to improve the recording of data by all criminal justice institutions.

Implementation also requires the development and evaluation of ongoing training for officials working in the criminal justice system at the federal, provincial and territorial levels who come into contact with victims. This has not happened. It is critical that an evaluation take place to examine the content of the training, who's delivering it, how much training individuals receive and what the impacts are. We must evaluate the effectiveness of the training on criminal justice personnel, especially trauma-informed principles and anti-racist education, so that we can deconstruct power and privilege.

In my view, the objectives set out in the act have not been met. Like I said in the progress report, the implementation has been sporadic and inconsistent. Training opportunities for justice officials have been very limited, and there has been no mass public education effort to inform Canadians that they have rights if they become a victim of crime. Thus, the situation of victims of crime has not fundamentally changed since the bill was passed.

Victims of crime face a very heavy burden in the Canadian justice system. I know you know this, but we expect them to report the crime, to provide evidence, to bear witness, to be cross-examined on the stand and to relive their traumas over and over as they tell their truth, yet we provide them with very little assistance or protection to do so. Unsupported victims are less likely to come forward. When victims are not recognized as rights-bearing individuals in the criminal justice system, the system is less effective.

Canadians deserve transparency. They deserve to know whether our justice system is treating victims fairly and supporting them to recover and if it's respecting their legislated rights or not. Canadians lose trust in the justice system when the rights of persons harmed are systemically overlooked.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Illingworth.

Now we will continue to our first round of questions, beginning with Mr. Brock for six minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I sincerely want to thank all witnesses today. I've listened very carefully. I did some research on my own prior to your appearance, and you bring collectively such a wonderful perspective on a deeply flawed system.

This particular bill was pronounced in 2015 with great fanfare as trying to level the playing field for victims across this country. Leaving aside my profound disappointment that the office itself does not have an ombudsperson in place and has not had that vacancy filled since the end of September of last year and now hearing through one of the witnesses that the mandatory review has not taken place within five years, this is deeply concerning to me.

As a former prosecutor, I often remarked there was a lack of balance in our criminal justice system, that the pendulum itself had so shifted in favour of the accused that the victims often felt left out of the process. It's incumbent upon all justice participants, particularly including those in the Crown attorneys offices, to try to include victims in the decision-making. That's usually the process I adopted as a prosecutor, trying to develop that rapport and that trust to make them feel that they're part of the system and to keep them informed throughout the entire process. The way that I conducted my prosecutions vastly differed from my colleagues and vastly differs, I might say, from the entire province of Crown attorneys, at least in Ontario.

Can I get some sense from any witness as to what additional steps by way of professional training you recommend for justice participants to ensure that the victims feel an equal participant in this process?

[Heidi Illingworth]

Certainly, I think that training is very important for Crown officials. In light of the Victims Bill of Rights, Mr. Brock, it sounds like you took a very sensitive approach when you were a prosecutor, but we don't always see that.

We know that Crowns are very busy prosecuting many cases, so there's not always the time to sit with victims to explain things and what they can expect as they go through the system. We absolutely need to see more sensitivity training, more training around the rights that victims have and their being provided information about the supports they can access when they're called to testify, testimonial aids, that sort of thing, and their rights around impact statements, what that looks like when they can prepare one and the requirements around that. We know there's a form now, and there are restrictions around what can be said.

Victims need all of that information. They need to be guided through that process. Depending on the province or territory, there isn't always victim or witness assistance staff to do that with victims. It's really important that the Crown take the time to do that and that there's training that is national, federal, that ensures that we have a consistent approach to how we support victims as they're going through the difficult process of giving evidence in court.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thanks, Ms. Illingworth.

I have one further question for you.

You talk about legal remedies, that legal remedies perhaps should be better reflected in the Victims Bill of Rights for clear violations, and there have clearly been violations for the last seven years.

Also, keeping in mind the evidence of Dr. Roebuck in terms of the charter rights that are available to all Canadians, including victims, do you feel personally that charter violations and the ability to argue charter violations should also form part of the bill of rights?

[Heidi Illingworth]

I think that would be very interesting. We need to move towards having some sort of system where we can test that. Certainly, in the progress report I made when I was ombudsperson, I talked more about starting with maybe having an administrative review of decisions not to prosecute, for example, so that victims could have a higher level of review there, or if there's a decision made by a federal body, having the ability to seek a Federal Court review of such a decision as a parole board decision and that sort of thing.

I think maybe those sorts of mechanisms would be a good area to begin to test mechanisms for victims' rights.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

[Heidi Illingworth]

You're welcome.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Perhaps I will move on to Dr. Roebuck on that particular question.

What sort of path do you envision to empower victims to pursue charter violations?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I think when we come into these areas we actually have a lot of the expertise already to respond across the board, because we're already doing it with people who are accused.

I think I see the “out of time” sign.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I'm sorry about that, Dr. Roebuck. Hopefully we'll be able to extract that in the next round.

The next round goes to Madame Brière for six minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't know whether you can hear me. Our power went out here, and my headset does not work on my telephone. If I am told that the interpreters can hear me, I will continue.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-François Pagé]

It seems to be fine.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Great, thank you very much.

My question is for you, Ms. Illingworth.

I want to begin by thanking you for your testimony and for your commitment to supporting victims of violence.

I know that you have advocated for stricter gun laws in the past. Of course, this is a very important issue for our government. As you know, we recently introduced Bill C-21 on firearms. I hope that it will be passed quickly, so that we can continue to protect the constituents of my community of Sherbrooke and of communities across Canada.

I would like to hear your views on the red flag law provisions, which the government is specifically proposing in Bill C-21.

Can you tell us a bit more about that?

[Heidi Illingworth]

Thank you for the question.

I wasn't prepared to respond fully on gun control and red flag measures. I did make recommendations when I was ombudsperson on those issues in support of a quicker ability for police to remove firearms and for medical folks to be able to intervene to remove firearms when there was a concern. My understanding is that the process can be delayed somewhat now. I think that's all I'll comment on for now, but I certainly support increasing the ability of officials to remove firearms from persons who may be at risk.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

We also know that research has shown that restorative justice can benefit victims and offenders and improve public safety.

Can you talk about how conditional sentence orders and the repeal of some mandatory minimum sentences can lead to more restorative justice programs in our communities?

[Heidi Illingworth]

Go ahead, Ben.