Justice Committee on Sept. 29th, 2022

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

We are just about out of time here today, but you talked about the minimum standards several times in your opening and in the discussion. Do you believe that this issue of minimum standards for victim services is well enough developed that, for instance, something like the justice committee could make recommendations to the government very easily on what the standards should be in every province and in the federal system for victims' rights? Do you think it is sufficiently developed that we could do that?

[Dr. Jo-Anne Wemmers]

Yes, I do. I think that if we look at organizations like Victim Support Europe, for example, we see wonderful examples that we can follow. I can tell you that the Conseil de l’Europe, as well, is working right now on new recommendations for victims and bringing up to date those that came out back in the eighties.

As Professor Waller said, it's time for us to catch up. There are wonderful examples out there that we can learn from, and yes, Canada has an obligation internationally to do so, given our responsibility in the UN.

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

I will leave it there, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses once again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

For our last round, we have Mr. Richards for five minutes.

It's over to you.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'll start with you, Ms. Arsenault.

First of all, let me say—I know it's been said, but it can't be said enough—thank you for your courage, frankly, in being willing to step forward and take what's obviously a tragic and terrible situation that you and your family have gone through to try to do something to help others. What you are doing today—and, I'm sure, many other days—is trying to make this process a little easier on other people who, unfortunately, are put in the circumstances that you and your family were put in.

I know it won't do anything for you, but it will hopefully help many other people to not have to experience the same kind of frustration and pain that you had to experience going through the so-called justice system in our country. Thank you for stepping forward and doing that, first of all.

Second, a lot of the things you had to say and some of the recommendations that you made speak to the problem we have with our so-called justice system in this country. You spoke to it, and I think you even said that it feels like criminals have more rights than victims. I don't think it just feels that way; I think that's the way it is. Certainly, that's borne out in many of the examples you gave us.

One thing that you mentioned in your opening statement was section 101, the principles guiding parole boards. You mentioned that briefly, and you mentioned the need to add that the parole board should consider the impact of conditional release on the offender's victim. It makes a lot of sense for that to happen.

I wanted to hear from you why you think that is important. Are there other things that can be done in the same vein to make sure that the offender doesn't have their rights put ahead of the victim's over and over again? How do we make sure that victims' rights are not only considered but made a priority, because they should be?

[Sheri Arsenault]

Yes, there's no doubt about it. Offenders have many, many rights. They can't even compare to the rights of a victim. From what I can tell, we have one right, and that is to write a statement, and that's about it.

Section 101 outlines the principles that guide the parole boards to consider the impact of conditional releases on the offender's victims. I really do believe that could be amended to have them look at their decisions a little differently to see what kind of effect that would have on the victims.

When they do these incredibly early releases, a lot of times the offenders do not demonstrate or show any kind of remorse. That needs to be looked at seriously. They need to take consideration of all the information available to them, including the reasons and recommendations from the victims as to why the early releases would be harmful to them.

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

Are there any other recommendations that you can think of that you would make along that same line that would ensure that victims and their circumstances, rights and feelings and what they're going to experience as a result of decisions that are being made by bodies like a parole board are put as a much higher priority in our justice system? Are there any other recommendations along that same line that you can think of?

[Sheri Arsenault]

I would recommend that the victims, in their impact statements, be allowed to say exactly what they want to say. It shouldn't be scrutinized and looked over, hacked, whacked and redacted. You're the victim. If you need to say something, you should be allowed to say it.

I do believe that all victims should have the choice of whether they want to face their offender or not. The parole board should really start limiting the number of people that offenders are allowed to have support them. It's about the crime and the rehabilitation; it's not a popularity contest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Arsenault.

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

Thank you very much, by the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

The last round goes to Ms. Dhillon for five minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

I will give my time to Mr. Naqvi.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I wasn't expecting your time, but thank you.

Let me start with Professor Wemmers.

I think this question was asked earlier, and I think Ms. Arsenault has spoken about no two victims being alike. They come from different backgrounds. I think the question was asked regarding victims who are women and what kinds of different strategies need to be deployed there.

I also want to ask a similar question around victims who are new to Canada, who are immigrants and may not know the system well enough. What kinds of strategies need to be deployed in that regard?

[Dr. Jo-Anne Wemmers]

That's an excellent question. It's very broad as well.

You have to bear in mind, of course, that it's the individual and their situation, their victimization. All of this will determine exactly what their needs are. The impact of the crime is one thing, but their resources will determine, to some extent, the needs of the victim. For those who are new migrants, maybe even refugees, new to the country, their situation of vulnerability is often more precarious in terms of financial resources and not having the informal support network or family here in Canada to provide them with the psychosocial or emotional support that others may have.

There might be legal complications as well. There might be consequences for their status as a landed immigrant or as a refugee. In particular, I'm thinking of victims of domestic violence, for example, whose offender is a new immigrant, as they are, and not a Canadian citizen. This may have consequences for the status of the person and their ability to remain in Canada, and if it's a family, there will be consequences for all the family.

It becomes very complicated, if I can put it that way, and it requires us to bear in mind what the needs of the victim are. When are we helping the victim and when are we adding to their suffering, even indirectly? It requires us to bear in mind the complexities of the needs of new immigrants and refugees, and in particular people with a precarious status in Canada.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Professor Waller, I'm going to come back to you. I may, with all respect and affection for you, push back a little on your suggestion, your recommendation, of creating what you called a crime prevention and victim Canada act, a new department.

My question is this. Do you think, in your view, more bureaucracy is the answer to protect and provide better rights for victims?

[Dr. Irvin Waller]

I think more funding.... I think if you look at the victims of crime act in the United States, you see that it has definitely changed what is going on. It's not a huge bureaucracy; it's part of the U.S. Department of Justice. I didn't actually recommend a new department; I recommended at the deputy minister level. I think it's the only way to get standards from coast to coast, to get services that meet those standards, to get information out, to start making laws relating to restitution actually work, to experiment and develop a way for the victim to actually participate.

There hasn't been much discussion today, but I strongly want to see what you actually started in Ontario. We need to do a lot more to stop people being victims of crime in the first place. We know what will reduce victimization through street violence by 50% or more. We know what to do about a lot of sexual violence. We don't have all the solutions, but we have lots of solutions, and that requires money. I'm proposing funding in the order of 10%, of which roughly half would go to victims, half to prevention.

This is not creating a huge bureaucracy. This is promoting a way to make lots of things happen in collaboration with the territories, provinces and indigenous people.

I want to see results. I want to see stuff measured so that we actually focus on the stuff and we don't get more bills of goods. You can see this from the U.S. You have all these constitutional things, but once you actually put money into it and you do it seriously.... You can look at England, where a minister is responsible for victims, and you see action. You see this in Australia and in New Zealand.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Unfortunately, Mr. Naqvi, we're out of time. Thank you, Mr. Naqvi.

I want to thank all of the witnesses.

Before I adjourn, I just want to inform you of the progress we made on booking our witnesses. We went through the list, including those requested to appear. We still have six invitations left without a definitive answer.

We will be meeting on Monday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. I believe the confirmed witnesses are Madame Gaudreault from the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, Kat Owens from the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund and Monique St. Germain from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.

For the second hour, so far we have Madam Brenda Davis, and Madam Mélanie Sarroino of L'Élan, Centre d'aide aux victimes.

For Thursday, we only have witnesses for the first hour so far. The witnesses confirmed are Madam Morrell Andrews and Madam Dianne Illessic. We don't have witnesses for the second hour confirmed. If you have any witness proposed, maybe give them a call and nudge them so we can have them finish it. Otherwise, thank you, and for those who—

Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Is it possible to get a summary of witness testimony by Thursday, so that we can...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Yes. We can provide that to you, absolutely. We'll try to get it to you before then. We'll get it to you for Monday, before the Thursday.

Thank you. We'll adjourn and see you Monday.