Justice Committee on June 17th, 2022

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

Thanks, Heidi.

Heidi, Aline and I all recently returned from a conference in Spain with the World Society of Victimology, where a large emphasis was on the application of restorative justice and how it's being applied in different countries around the world. I think the evidence is very clear that restorative justice provides better options for victims. They get to participate meaningfully and often, and they get more from the process than just the traditional outcomes of the criminal justice system itself.

We see in Canada this patchwork fabric where government talks about restorative justice but doesn't back it up with funding. Funding is really important.

We have an exceptional program in Ottawa that's done severe cases of violence to the minimal...and they struggle from year to year to pay their two primary staff. That's very common across the country. I think for restorative justice the evidence is very clear. We need to better provide options within the justice system to participate, and we need to provide funding for those programs, which provide incredible benefits not only to victims but also to the accused who participate in those processes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you very much.

Have you heard about the programs in Spain? Do you have any concrete examples of how they proceed over there?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

In countries like Belgium it's a legislated process for the youth justice systems that all cases are automatically referred to restorative justice as the primary mechanism of criminal justice. We heard about applications of restorative principles and responses to armed conflict, but really I think there's very established work about the need for it to be victim-centred.

I think what we did hear clearly was that there are ways to meaningfully apply restorative justice in cases that are sensitive, like partner violence and sexual violence, whereas in Canada sometimes we're hesitant around some of those types of offences because we talk about power imbalances. I think it's important to recognize that those power imbalances continue to exist in relationships regardless of whether there's a safe, facilitated process. Actually, I think we have room to explore the broader application in all types of violence. If it's done safely with facilitators who can meet with both parties in advance and afterwards to provide that follow-up care, I think a lot of work can be done in that process, which creates a much safer society.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you very much.

Do you think victims are sufficiently aware of their rights and of what exists in Canada to ensure their protection?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

In keeping with what Heidi said, it's questionable whether victims actually have rights in the Canadian experience. If they can't follow up with meaningful recourse, if they can't challenge it in the courts, then it's more of a statement of what we'd like to see.

No, I don't think people understand restorative justice sufficiently. I don't think we advertise it particularly well. I think we can do better. We also need to strengthen access to meaningful rights.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Who should inform the victims and when should they be informed?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I'll stay with this thread, if that's okay.

I think just like if something were going to proceed to trial, the police would inform the victim that they've been requested as a witness and the offender would be informed that they're required to attend. I think just in the same process and in the same mechanisms of communication, the option for restorative justice, which should be voluntary between both parties, can be offered at the same point in time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Madame Brière and Mr. Roebuck.

Next we'll have Monsieur Fortin for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by welcoming the three witnesses.

I am happy to be hearing from you today. All three of you are eminently capable of answering any questions we may have. That's pretty obvious. It's very helpful to have such knowledgeable people come before us when we have such important issues to consider.

Having said that, Ms. Illingworth, I understand that you were an ombudsman, but that you have been out of office for a few months now.

What impact do you think the absence of an ombudsman for such a long period of time has on victims' rights and the management of the victims' rights program?

[Heidi Illingworth]

Thank you for the question.

I do think it is concerning that the position has been vacant for this period of time. It's really an important position to ensure that victims feel that there is someone in the federal system who is there to hear their concerns. As Aline said, it becomes an issue that stresses victims out further. They understand that the office has staff, but when the position is vacant there isn't somebody to actually oversee those complaints that are coming in, to perhaps make recommendations or to start systemic reviews to look at those emerging issues that are coming forward. It's frustrating not only for victims and survivors but for service providers as well, who are dealing with clients who need to make complaints sometimes.

We understand these processes take time. We're hopeful that the process is moving forward to having someone appointed soon.

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

Thank you.

From the testimony of the three witnesses today, it appears that one of the major shortcomings of the program, if not the major one, is the lack of adequate information available to victims about their rights.

Ms. Illingworth, as a former ombudsman, do you believe that the person in that position has the power to improve the information network for victims?

Could your potential successor do anything to improve the information available to victims?

[Heidi Illingworth]

That's probably tricky given the size of the budget of the office. It's a very small budget.

There needs to be a massive public education campaign around citizens' rights should they become victims of crime. I think that is something that one of the federal departments, whether it's Justice or Public Safety, needs to undertake. Perhaps it will coincide with the review of the Victims Bill of Rights. I think that's really important.

Citizens simply don't think that they're ever going to be affected by violence and crime, and when they are, they often don't know where to go, who to turn to or that they have rights in the system. We need a more robust public education and social media—

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

Thank you, Ms. Illingworth. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be impolite, but we don't have much time.

I would like to put a question to Mr. Roebuck.

Currently, the ombudsman who advocates for victims ultimately reports to the Department of Justice. Senator Boisvenu previously recommended that the ombudsman should be under the jurisdiction of Parliament. Mr. Roebuck, I would like to hear you on that.

In your opinion, should this responsibility be transferred directly to the House or left to the Department of Justice?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I think there are benefits to both approaches, but I think that reporting to Parliament provides a stronger mandate for the office.

The intent of an ombudsperson is that it's an independent authority that has the right to bring a challenge to the current approach. There's a power imbalance if that reporting can be stopped at the Minister of Justice, who's approaching issues in a particular way, rather than the wider body that represents the interest of Canadians.

When we look at something as significant as criminal justice, input of governance from a wider body is appropriate. As Heidi said, I think a move in that direction would also necessitate a stronger portfolio of funding. Even if it's not a substantial increase, some increase to bolster that capacity would be an added benefit that would significantly help victims of crime.

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

Should the ombudsman's mandate also be reviewed, or should they simply report to Parliament?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

Similar to the office of the correctional investigator, there needs to be some policy leads that can help with systemic issues.

We know that many people who experience violence in Canada never progress to the point where they're a victim with a federally sentenced defender. To uncover some of those aspects, looking into racialized disparities, the barriers that Black families experience with gun violence and this almost reverse onus to prove that their victim wasn't involved in gang violence....

There are a lot of these issues that need to be disentangled, and we can do that better with some added capacity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Dr. Roebuck.

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I'll next go over to Mr. Garrison for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all three witnesses for appearing today, not just for appearing here but for the work they do each and every day on behalf of victims. I don't think we acknowledge the amount of work that's done with the slender resources available in this country, and I think that's important.

I heard a few things today I would like to ask about, but I don't think they're questions for our witnesses, because all three of them talked about the need for mandatory information sharing with victims. All three witnesses have talked about the need for legal remedies and the need for adequate resourcing. I don't think those are questions for our three witnesses. They are questions, first of all, for us as a committee and, second, for the government.

I also want to say that probably every member of this committee has raised with the government the need to fill the position of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime in a timely manner, and we're well beyond the timely manner. We wait, as do victims, for this job to be filled.

I have three questions I want to ask.

First, I'll ask Dr. Roebuck a question as the academic, and I always confess to being a recovering academic.

Do we have any idea of the reach of victims services now? In other words, of all the victims we have in the system, how many victims get any kind of services? Is there any way for us to judge the size of that problem?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

We do have some measures.

Previously, Stats Canada had a survey of victims' services. The provinces that are running provincial victims' services have metrics where they're recording, and the services are reporting back on the number of people served. If we were to compare that with the GSS data, the victimization surveys, we know that the number of people who access services doesn't come close to the number of people experiencing victimization, so there's certainly a gap.

What we see in those pockets is that we need better race-based data, because there are discrepancies as to which communities benefit more from victims' services. There's work to be done, but we need better information. We're just starting to see the impact of race-based data to help us address systemic inequality.

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

I'm not going to try to tie you to a figure, but what is the magnitude of that gap? How big is it? Are half not receiving services or three-quarters or 10%? I know that's an unfair question to an academic, but can you give us an idea of the scope of that gap?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I can say large and complex, of course. I think there are lots of reasons that people don't go through the justice system, and sometimes the supports that we offer for victims of crime are tied to that system.

We hear certainly from people who are underserved in terms of, say, something as severe as a murder-suicide. If both the perpetrator and the victim die, the family members are left without lots of the services that other people might have.

There's such a wide discrepancy, but it's certainly an area for more focus.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Vlasceanu, when victims of crime approach the resource centre, what are the main services or assistance they're looking for?

[Aline Vlasceanu]

We normally act as a kind of systems navigator for victims of crime in Canada. A lot of the time folks come to us because they don't necessarily want to report to the police, so they're trying to figure out what rights and what services they can access, given those circumstances.

Unfortunately, within Canada, things like compensation programs and victims' services are done provincially. Therefore, they vary vastly from province to territory. A lot of the time they're left, as Ben mentioned, somewhere in the middle, and they're not sure what to do.

Also, sometimes victims are not getting informed of their rights if they are reporting to the police. They're not told that they can bring someone with them when they're going to the police. They're not told that they're able to do a victim impact statement, or that there is a deadline for that statement or that there are lots of rules they have to follow when writing that. Even navigating post-trial agencies...because their journey doesn't end when the accused is put away. That journey continues, and not just the healing journey. If it's a federally incarcerated offender, it's hearing after hearing after hearing. We can act as a support person during those hearings, and we can help them write their statements. We can also read them on their behalf, because we know it can take a really big toll on victims.