Justice Committee on Sept. 29th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on February 8, the committee is meeting on its study of the government's obligations to victims of crime.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute it when you're not speaking.

For interpretation 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 the earpiece and select the desired channel on the mike.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” feature. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I want to thank our member Mr. Cooper, whose bill was passed in the House yesterday. Thank you. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses, Sheri Arsenault, Irvin Waller and Jo-Anne Wemmers.

You have five minutes each. Just so you know, I'll give you a 30-second cue card when you're in the last 30 seconds, and then I'll give an out-of-time card at the end. I ask that you try to comply with those. If you haven't made your point, try to flesh it out in one of the questions afterward. The same applies when questions are being asked.

I'll begin with Sheri Arsenault for five minutes.

[Sheri Arsenault, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

I'm the mother of a murdered child.

Brad was just 18 years old when he and his two friends were horrifically killed, through no fault of their own. Three years later, and after over 30 court dates, the offender was convicted of manslaughter times three, plus six other charges. He was sentenced to eight years and served just over two.

I have experienced first-hand every aspect of our justice system, and much needs to be improved. In dealing with the criminal justice system, victims are in the dark, with only one right. Little information is provided, and whether your case is assigned with a prosecutor who will even engage you is the luck of the draw, whereas criminals have many rights, including that upon entry, they are assigned up to five support systems.

I will focus on parole board hearings as, based on my family's experience, they are very heavily biased in favour of the criminal.

First, the victim impact statement gives victims their only right, and that is to prepare a statement. That's not easy. You are made to feel like this is a privilege, when in fact no weight is put on it. You are allowed to participate with this great hope and optimism that you have a chance of keeping the offender in prison for more than one-sixth of their sentence. It's ludicrous that victims have to fight tooth and nail to have an offender fulfill a small fraction of their sentence.

On week one, criminals are given the parole package: how to apply for day parole, eligible at one-sixth and, three months later, for full parole. Most are successful.

My experience as a victim participating in parole hearings has been an exercise in futility. There is a serious imbalance of power created by the present rules for the dissemination of information between the parole board, the offenders and the victims. Victim statements must be prepared under strict rules and submitted several weeks in advance under the threat that they could be denied if handed in late.

It is understandable that the board needs these statements in advance for review, but why are they also made available to the offender? What is disturbing is that the criminal has the right to read the statements well beforehand, study and analyze them and get advice from family, other inmates, their case manager, etc. They have the opportunity to prepare their answers. There is no impact.

Furthermore, it's incomprehensible, as there seem to be no rules on or limits to the offenders' families, friends, neighbours or relatives, who are allowed to prepare statements right up to the hearing date and submit them. Do they have to be registered?

These statements have no relevance to the crime or their rehabilitation. The victims have to listen and absorb these with zero prior knowledge, only notifications of the offender's weekend passes and their minor program participation records. The strict criteria limit victims to writing about emotional and financial pain and to keeping it short.

Why are there strict rules for victims but not for the offender? There must be a better way to balance victim input and obtain meaningful conclusions simply by broadening the consideration of the victim's perspective.

Second, there are very strict, rigid rules pertaining to parole hearings. We are told that we are just observers, as if we don't have a considerable stake in this. The offender's family members sit directly behind the offender, all facing the parole board members.

The victim's family is then escorted in and sits at least five rows back, behind the offender's family and friends. You have to strain for hours to hear. It's especially difficult for seniors. It's demoralizing, tense and exhausting. You are then given the opportunity to read your statement to the backs of their heads.

I am told that this rule is in place to protect the victims, but just as I have also been told by many prosecutors, “no two crimes are alike—same outcome, but different circumstances”, I would like to say that no two victims are alike. Many would like to face the offenders, observe their facial expressions and their body language and possibly look for a glimpse of remorse. This rigid rule should be changed to fit the victim. Victims should have the choice.

As it stands, the process is far too comfortable for criminals, while the victims are at the mercy of the rules. In the same vein, a parole hearing should not allow the criminal to fill the room with relatives, friends and neighbours and have dozens of statements in support. The large presence of those who support the offender is intimidating to the victims, and it gives a very false impression to the parole board. It's not relevant to the crime committed. The whole parole hearing arrangement reduces the status of the victims in comparison to that of the offender.

In addition to the challenges of the parole hearing itself, it is extremely difficult to get information from the Correctional Service of Canada. Prosecutors appear far too busy to care, and parole board members seem like they've already made their decision. For example, the decision in my case was literally identical to many other cases, including the Marco Muzzo decision. It's copied and pasted.

How can such serious decisions—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Ms. Arsenault, I'm sorry to interrupt. You're going to have to wrap up. We'll try to get some of your answers out in the questioning.

I apologize, but it's in the interest of time.

[Sheri Arsenault]

Okay. I have just two more sentences.

How can such serious decisions for such serious crimes be so generic? To me, that's a red flag.

In conclusion, it's high time the victims who have been harmed are given consideration at least equal to that of the offenders. I have many recommendations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Arsenault. We really appreciate it. I know it must be difficult to relive some of the aspects of what you've been through.

I'm next going to ask Mr. Irvin Waller, who's in the room, to take his five minutes.

[Dr. Irvin Waller, Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee on the government's obligations to victims of crime.

It's good to be doing this after the federal government finally appointed a qualified and energetic federal ombudsman for victims of crime, but this appointment is a long way from enough to meet the obligations to victims of crime and standards equivalent to what has existed for some time in other comparable democracies. I've set these out in my book, and I will leave one copy of it. The book is Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice.

The book identifies a series of fundamental rights—if you like, obligations for victims of crime—and shows how police can be first in aid, services can help victims to cope and recover, reparation can restore and victims can be heard. As you've heard, they're not always well heard in our parole system. A comprehensive model and budget are in the book and could be very influential with regard to what I'm going to propose.

The book also asserts that the prevention of crime before it happens is as important as rights for victims. Indeed, today we have the knowledge that we could reduce victimization in Canada through both property and violent crime by 50% in the next few years, and this would be consistent with Canada's commitment to the UN sustainable development goals. My book, Science and Secrets of Ending Violent Crime, sets this out, using proven strategies from other democracies and sometimes even from Canada.

Every year, millions of Canadians are of crime, suffering losses, trauma and a lot more. Cumulatively, these tangible and intangible losses are estimated to be in the tens of billions. Unfortunately, we continue more of the same and, as such, do not get different results.

We allow violent and property crime because we fund short-term projects in pilot areas instead of sustained and adequate investments in smart prevention, where they're most needed. The services and justice after the victimization exist some of the time in some of the provinces for some of the victims, but they're generally not consistent across Canada or adequate to meet enough of the needs.

The current groups in the federal bureaucracy and the bill of rights are totally inadequate for what is needed. The units in the bureaucracy are too low and rarely have the skills needed. They certainly don't have funds or a mandate. In sum, we need a “prevention and victim justice services Canada”, not just a Correctional Service of Canada. I'm going to propose that.

I'm recommending that you look at developing legislation and funding federally so that victims of crime in Canada can have effective policies to prevent victimization and be provided services and justice after the victimization. These must be consistent across Canada and comparable to what exists in other democracies.

I'm recommending a crime prevention and victim justice act. It would establish an office for crime prevention and victim justice, headed by a deputy minister and reporting to the Minister of Justice and/or the Minister of Public Safety. Clearly, it has to work in collaboration with the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders. The federal government must provide this office annually with the equivalent of 10% of what it's currently spending on policing, courts and corrections. Half of that funding would go to prevention and the other half would go to improving services.

The office would develop national standards—which we need—train officials and others, fund research and development and ensure that data collection is focused on results. What gets measured gets done. It would also share costs, so that provinces, territories and indigenous leaders could expand their own planning and implementation of effective prevention, services, reparation and other components of victim justice.

The act would also legislate the role of the federal ombudsman, which would be strengthened and would report to Parliament with an annual budget similar to that of the correctional investigator.

I'm recommending that you go for it and make a difference to how victims are protected through prevention and how their basic rights are met through funding, legislation and leadership, which come from the federal government.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

That was in time and on time.

Next we'll have Jo-Anne Wemmers, from the Université de Montréal, for five minutes.

[Dr. Jo-Anne Wemmers, Full Professor, School of Criminology, International Centre for Comparative Criminology, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you, and thank you for the invitation. It's a pleasure to be here today.

I'd like as well to congratulate the government for choosing Professor Ben Roebuck as the new ombudsman. It's wonderful to finally have someone in that position, but there is still a lot to do.

To begin with, victims of crime—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Ms. Wemmers, may I interrupt you? I think the interpreter is having a difficult time listening to you. Can you maybe move the boom a little bit up?

[Dr. Jo-Anne Wemmers]

Okay. Is this better?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I don't know. As soon as I find out, I will convey that.

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, perhaps I can direct Madam Wemmers.

Have you selected the microphone at the bottom left of your screen?

[Dr. Jo-Anne Wemmers]

I can. Is this better?

[The Clerk]

If you can continue speaking, we can do the sound check at the same time.

[Dr. Jo-Anne Wemmers]

Okay. I will continue speaking.

Let me know if I have to change this.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

Before starting the meeting, is it possible to confirm that sound checks were done with all witnesses and that they were satisfactory?

[Sheri Arsenault]

We did not do a sound check before the meeting today, because I was unfortunately not available.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Monsieur Fortin, they did try. She was not available at the time. The other two were tested, but unfortunately she was not.

It is now corrected. We're on track.

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

Mr. Chair, you understand that it is important for each witness to be understood in both official languages. Unfortunately, most of the witnesses testify in English, even if they speak French. I take exception to it, but that is the situation as it is.

You understand, we must ensure that everyone can fully understand all the testimony. Very respectfully, I insist that in the future, we systematically conduct sound tests before each meeting.

Thank You, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Will do. Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

Ms. Wemmers, start from the beginning, please, if you don't mind. Thank you.

[Dr. Jo-Anne Wemmers]

Okay. Thank you so much.

I began by congratulating the government on the nomination of Professor Ben Roebuck as the new ombudsman. It's wonderful to have that position filled. However, there is still much to do for victims. Victims of crime in Canada can still not fully rely on their rights. Addressing this problem starts by better applying victims' rights in practice. We need to strengthen victims' rights. That means enforceable rights for victims of crime. The crime victims bill of rights is a great beginning, but there is no recourse, really, and that needs to change.

In the crime victims bill of rights, we talk about reparation and restitution orders in particular for victims of crime. I think it's important as well that the burden shift from the shoulder of victims, who have to chase after their money from the offender if ever their restitution order is imposed, to the state. Already the state is responsible for gathering fines. Restitution orders are very much like a fine. From a victim-friendly perspective, if we really wish to do something for victims, that would be an easy fix that would make restitution orders a lot more feasible for victims and shift the burden from them.

It's also important, I think, to include other forms of reparation, such as restorative justice, victim-offender dialogue and victim-offender encounters, as they can offer reparation to victims as well.

The current focus is largely on the offender's responsibility for the harm to the victim. It's important to recognize that in addition to that, there is an obligation of the state that is unfortunately too often ignored. There is an obligation of the state to victims to promote healing and to provide services—for example, facilitating victims' access to compensation programs. Unfortunately, victims across Canada do not all have access to compensation programs. Even when they are available, they are often limited to victims of violent crime, ignoring the tremendous impact on victims of such non-violent crimes as cyber-victimization, fraud and identity theft. As well, victims of terrorism are not always included. I would include domestic and international terrorism in that.

Victim support and healing are very important. I think this is something that together we should work to facilitate and promote in order to reduce vulnerability and, with it, the risk for victimization in the future, and to build resilience in our community. From the research on multiple victimization and polyvictimization, it's clear that people or certain groups can have an increased risk and become more vulnerable. It's very important to offer victim support, which can actually reduce the risk of victimization in the future through building resilience.

There is an issue of victim protection and safety. There's a fundamental need for victims to feel safe and for all of us to feel safe, not only victims of crime. It's required for the healing process to begin. It should be a priority. Unfortunately, victims are often left feeling unsafe. What can we do to improve safety and better protect victims of crime? I can point out that the European Union, for example, is considering measures to strengthen victims' protection by introducing minimum standards on victims' physical protection throughout the European Union.

As well, especially in a country like Canada, I think it's important to work together for victims' rights. Strengthening collaboration and coordination between all relevant actors is something that we need to do. We do it at our university as well with our project that looks [Technical difficulty—Editor] and law students working together to serve victims. We need to promote and facilitate communication and collaboration across disciplines and across professions to provide victims with support across the country. We need to promote access to justice for victims and share best practices.

There are things in place, such as the Victim Justice Network. Unfortunately, they are underfunded. They don't have the funding necessary in order to be the service that they can be. I think it's important to promote communication and the sharing of best practices across Canada. The Victim Justice Network, which is a virtual, e-based, online-based service, is an important tool that would allow us to do that for stronger collaboration on victims' rights across the country. It would enhance resilience, facilitate communication and help us to develop a national victims' rights strategy from the bottom up, ensuring a coordinated approach for victims' rights across Canada so that victims across Canada would have access to at least minimum standards, meeting the criteria of the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.

I think it's important to recognize that crime, yes, is a wrong against society, but it's also a violation of the human rights of the victim, and we should be giving victims' rights that importance, that status and that recognition that we give to fundamental human rights—for example, the right to dignity, to privacy, to liberty and to safety.

Thank you. I'll end there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Wemmers.

We'll now go to our first round of questions for six minutes. We'll begin with Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all of the witnesses for appearing this afternoon.

I'm going to direct my questions to Ms. Arsenault.

Sheri, I know it's not easy to appear before a parliamentary committee, especially as a mother who lost a son in a horrific crime, an impaired driving crime that resulted in the murder, as you've said, of three young men—two at 18 years of age and I think one 21-year-old.

It's tough to be able to put oneself in your shoes. I know that we've had conversations over the years about the challenges of navigating through the justice system and in particular parole hearings. You've gone to Winnipeg to attend them.

As we undertake this study, at the conclusion we're going to put a report together with recommendations on how to improve supports for victims, so maybe at the outset I will ask very broadly if you have any recommendations that would help victims better navigate the system, specifically as it pertains to parole hearings, or anything more broadly than that.

[Sheri Arsenault]

Thank you. I hope you can hear me.

Right off the bat, with regard to the justice system, there are resources out there, but nobody tells you about them. If you don't have someone among you who digs deep to find resources, you don't even know that you have to register for parole hearings. A lot of times, in fact, people don't even know when the next court date is coming up, because the prosecutors may not engage.

My recommendation is actually for a government entity that takes care of that to make sure that every victim—especially of serious crimes—is given all the resources and help to navigate through that. Not everybody can fill out forms and paperwork. A lot of times, people are in very deep grief. There needs to be actual help. You cannot just rely on the prosecutors.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you for that.

I know that we've discussed in the past the fact that these hearings can be quite intimidating from the standpoint of a victim. Can you speak to that and to perhaps any recommendations you would have on how these hearings could be made a little easier for victims?