Justice Committee on June 21st, 2022

[Jennifer Gold]

Unfortunately, I can't speak to that question. The senator had to leave, and it was his proposal. I can't say that I know the workings of the House of Commons and the Department of Justice well enough to speak on that.

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

Thank you, Ms. Gold.

Tell me about your own experience, as a lawyer and director of the Women's Law Association of Ontario, with the person in the position of “ombudsperson”, as it should be called. Until recently, a woman held that position. I imagine that you have had occasion to deal with the person in that position.

If so, I would like you to tell me what is working well and what is not. What is your opinion on this position?

[Jennifer Gold]

Unfortunately, I don't know the former ombudsman personally. I haven't had dealings with her in relation to the association. I could speak generally, perhaps, about my thoughts on that office.

It needs to be properly funded, first of all. It needs to be effective. If you're going to expand the rights of victims in the bill of rights, there needs to be a corresponding expansion and agency with that office. It's lovely to write all these wonderful things, but if it's not being seen in action and if it's not being experienced by victims, it's rhetoric.

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

Thank you.

You'll notice that I'm asking you my questions in French. It isn't that I want to snub English, but one of the missions of the Bloc Québécois is to ensure that Canada works in both official languages. For our constituents in Quebec, it's easier for us to be understood in French. I hope you won't be offended.

You spoke earlier about legal resources for victims. I'm sorry, maybe it was Ms. Lucier.

We can easily understand that a victim of crime can benefit from the services of a legal advisor—a lawyer, whatever—and also need psychological services from time to time. It's a good idea.

Given your experience with the Women's Law Association of Ontario, do you have an opinion on the basket of services that should be available to victims of crime?

[Jennifer Gold]

Yes.

By the way, I love that you're speaking to me in French. We're in a bilingual country with two official languages. You're providing me with some challenges to recall some of my high school French, so thank you.

With respect to a suite of services for victims, I have many ideas about that, but they would require greater input from victim services and legal aid service plans—and also, obviously, the budget that's available to fund these services. I think continued conversation with victims on how resources get allocated is really important.

As a family lawyer, I represent survivors of domestic violence. Just as Ms. Lucier said, they do not know what's going on in the criminal process. Quite often as a family lawyer I need to advise them about what the next step is, what it means, when they may see a resolution, what they need to do and who they should contact. That's beyond the scope of my work. Quite often I wear a social worker hat as well.

These are resources that victims need in order to navigate the system, especially in light of the pandemic, when there's a tremendous amount of backlog in the courts. Ms. Lucier's experience is even worse now. Hopefully, that can be rectified with additional resources to the judiciary and other branches.

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

Does the crown prosecutor, or the person prosecuting the criminal, have a little bit of a closer relationship with the victims of a crime?

I've never practised law in Ontario, and you know it better than I do. Is there a kind of advisory relationship between victims and the crown prosecutor?

[Jennifer Gold]

I think it depends on the Crown prosecutor, first, but from my experience, there's a very limited relationship—hardly any. It's made very clear to the victim that the case is conducted by the Crown and they have very little say about the process. I think conversations with victims quite often happen right before the court appearance, because they're busy and overburdened. That's why there are victim services to help support victims through that process.

I don't think Crowns actually have the time to sit down with victims. I'm not necessarily sure that they're best suited to it. They may know the law, but they're not social workers. It takes some competency to work with victims.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Gold.

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

Mr. Garrison for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking all of our witnesses today for sharing their experiences as victims with us. I know we've talked about retraumatization in the court process, but I think as members of the committee we also acknowledge that your appearing here today is also part of that. I trust and hope that you have supports in place for that retraumatization that's almost inevitable.

I don't think any of us who haven't experienced it directly can fully understand the weight that comes with that, but I do want to thank all of you for trying to take that experience and turn it into something positive and turn it into positive change. I know from some of the victims I've dealt with that one of the things that's helped them move forward is trying to make sure that people don't experience the same thing they did.

My thanks here are really very sincere.

One of the suggestions we've heard already in this study is that we should move from victims having to request information to a system where information is delivered mandatorily. Some people have said there would be problems with that and that some victims might not appreciate it.

I'll start with Ms. Gold, just for practical reasons here for a second.

Do you think there's any problem, from the victim's point of view, with a mandatory notification?

[Jennifer Gold]

No, I don't.

I think victims can choose whether they engage with that information or not, but at least people are being reached, especially people from historically marginalized communities who may not feel comfortable approaching government or various agencies.

In the family law system there is a mandatory information program for people going through separation and divorce, at least in Ontario. I don't see why a similar program cannot be available, but be voluntary for victims.

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

I'll ask the same question of Ms. Kaulius. I'm just trying to get it on the record here. I think I know your answers, but because some people have raised those concerns, I'd like to hear from victims organizations how they feel about a mandatory program of information.

[Markita Kaulius]

I think that would be wonderful for families. Families have so many questions, and so many questions never seem to be answered. I think people will let you know the information that they're looking for, what they want and what they need.

To basically be kept out of the loop of everything is even more traumatizing for families. They just want to be kept up to date with information and know what's going on and where this path of the criminal justice system is taking them. I don't think they'll ever get the full amount of answers they need, but there's definitely more that needs to be done.

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

Mrs. Lucier, would you have a similar attitude toward mandatory information?

[Holly Lucier]

I think so.

I know that with victim services, sometimes they will call and ask you if you want the support. A lot of families say, no, but they actually don't recall having those conversations and so I think the mandatory provision of information would alleviate that burden.

In my case, I actually told victim services that I didn't need any support and I have no recollection of ever having that conversation, because it was right at the beginning. Having it be mandatory and having things follow up, I think, would alleviate a lot of the later concerns that come.

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

I think you've just given us a very important insight into where some of those possible objections came from.

[Holly Lucier]

Yes.

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

I thank you for that.

One of the other things we've heard, and we heard again today, is the necessity of mental health supports. Sometimes we get a response and people say, “These are available to victims just like they are for anyone else”, and so I would like to ask about your experience. I'm not saying we don't need special services, because I would support those, but I'm trying to debunk the view that it's easy for victims to go to get mental health supports elsewhere.

I'll start maybe in reverse order.

Mrs. Lucier.

[Holly Lucier]

It wasn't easy.

In fact, my therapy didn't come until this year. I went three or four years without the proper supports, without any sort of mental health intervention or the ability to even process the trauma. I ended up in an emergency state this year and going through a community program in my neighbourhood—in my community—that supports victims for different reasons, but mainly to do with violence and sexual assault. I was able, because of a past trauma, to get the supports from the program that I needed. It was because of a past trauma, not because of this, when this should have been the priority to treat and to support.

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

I'm sorry that it took a past trauma to get you assistance for the current one. That's probably too often the story.

[Holly Lucier]

That is true.

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

Ms. Kaulius, can I ask the same of you?

[Markita Kaulius]

For me, it took three years to get some therapy. It didn't work out well with the first therapist, and I had to find someone else for a second try.

When your loved one is killed by an impaired driver, there's really nowhere to turn. Families just don't know what to do. Their whole world has just collapsed, and there doesn't seem to be much out there for them. That's the really sad part about this. The death of our children and loved ones is not a normal car accident.

Impaired driving is a choice. It's made by people who are reckless in their decisions, and they make the choice to drive while impaired. All of our loved ones die these very violent deaths. That's very hard for families and parents to process. There are not adequate resources, or even therapy out there, to deal with this, because most people don't have to deal with it. It's amazing, on the other hand, that we lose between 1,200 and 1,500 people a year to this crime.

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

Thank you very much. I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

In the interest of time, we'll condense the next round into two rounds of three minutes each, if that's okay, beginning with Mr. Richards, for three minutes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to start with Ms. Kaulius, and maybe Ms. Lucier, as well. You both made statements that really struck me. I've heard statements like that before, but they struck me, especially when combined with your telling your very personal and tragic stories. It really pulls at our hearts, and I hope it did that for everyone. I'm sure it did.

Ms. Kaulius, you said it feels like the accused has more rights than victims. Ms. Lucier said something similar, talking about the rights of offenders being more valued than those of the victims. You both kind of elaborated on those statements by indicating the injustice, whether it be short sentences that don't really seem to fit the crime, or the complexity and confusion around the legal and court processes, or lack of information. There were many factors that played into that.

I want to give you both a chance to respond—and I guess it will have to be brief, unfortunately, with the time I've been allotted. How does that make the victim's families feel? What sort of an impact does that have on a victim's family, when you feel like the accused has more rights than you do as a victim?

Ms. Kaulius.