Justice Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2022

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank our witnesses for being with us today.

My first question is for Ms. Gaudreault.

Ms. Gaudreault, in your testimony you said that collaboration among the provinces and territories was important.

What type of collaboration do you have in mind?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

First, there is a need in connection with data collection, as the Ombudsman wisely pointed out in her report. Information should be exchanged more widely among the provinces and territories.

It is not reasonable that seven years after the CVBR was adopted we do not have an idea of the complaints mechanisms in the provinces and territories, and we do not know what works and does not work, or what best practices are. There should be a special committee that brings together representatives from the federal government and from the provinces and territories to look into the obstacles victims encounter along their way and see what improvements could be made, on an ongoing basis.

We have the impression that the work is being done in a vacuum somewhat. There are duplications in funding. Some programs that are already funded by the provincial government are also funded federally. We do not have enough discussion about how things are done in our respective bailiwicks so we are able to make progress in improving our practices, in enhancing rights, and in pooling research. It is our impression that this is being done in isolation, with everyone working on their own.

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

Would you have an example of the duplication of programs between the provincial and federal governments?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

A lot of programs are being created to train workers. The federal government has made a lot of investments in the provinces and territories for training. It is important to do that, but there has to be general training and targeted training. What the federal government funds should not be funded by the provinces. There are also duplications in legal assistance services, for example. That is happening a lot.

At present, we are seeing all sorts of experiments and approaches. For example, criminology students or law students are giving legal information. They are supervised by professors, of course, but debatable practices are also being funded by both the federal government and the provinces. It would therefore be a good idea to look at what is already funded and deal with the problems that have evaded us or have not been documented.

We are currently working on a project to improve the recognition of the rights of people who make a statement before the Review Board for mental disorder. We are realizing that these people are very ill-informed. There are virtually no reports, and there are no mechanisms for cooperation among the organizations. There is a lot of work to do in this regard.

So we have to do a critical review. There are some very good programs for witness preparation in Canada, and it is good to see lawyers giving legal advice. We needed that.

There are also major gaps when it comes to victims' representation before certain tribunals, and we need to take the time to deal with these things. Analyzing how the CVBR has been implemented should make it possible to devote some time to this critical analysis.

The provinces and territories are responsible for implementing numerous rights, and they do a lot of other things as well. It is important to make the background we have acquired known, and the CVBR can be used as a lever to advance the rights of all victims. There are populations we have not been able to reach, for reasons that include language and geographic remoteness. We therefore need to analyze these problems so that these rights are accessible to everyone.

In addition, it is not reasonable that in 2022 there are still young lawyers telling us they do not know much about the CVBR. That is unacceptable. There is still a lot of work to do.

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

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreault.

I would have liked to ask more questions, but my speaking time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Madam Dhillon.

Now we'll go to Monsieur Fortin for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I almost want to apologize to Ms. Owens and Ms. St. Germain. We are not asking them a lot of questions, but not because their testimony is not important. We took a lot of notes during their testimony.

Ms. Gaudreault, I am going to take the liberty of talking with you again, if you don't mind. Like Ms. Dhillon, I am going to come back to quite a few subjects, but I am ask you about something else.

I would first like to address the question of collateral victims — for instance, children of the victim, as well as children of the attacker. I believe they are included. For example, I am thinking about a young boy or girl whose father has been convicted at a criminal trial. Those children may suffer significant harm.

In your opinion, should the CVBR not be adapted to give more weight to this aspect and make sure that children or spouses who are not involved in the crime, whether as victims or attackers, but who suffer the consequences, are better protected?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

That is a difficult question.

You have raised an important problem. We cannot help but be moved by the situation of these children and spouses. We have a responsibility to put programs in place to help these people, which might fall under Correctional Service Canada, for example. As far as including them as victims in the CVBR, we do not see that in other bills of rights or in other countries. It would call for more in-depth consideration.

At first glance, I would say that we first have to think of programs designed to help them and initiatives to implement locally and in all the provinces.

What you are saying does not really correspond to the definition of a victim. The definition of a victim would have to be reviewed and there would have to be a thorough discussion about this. There may be other solutions that could be used to reach the same goal without including them in the CVBR.

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

Thank you.

I am going to ask you another question, Ms. Gaudreault. That will probably conclude my speaking time.

On the question of funding...

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Unfortunately, Monsieur Fortin, you're out of time.

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

Already?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Yes. It's been two and a half minutes. I'm sorry.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Garrison for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to return to the question of relative resourcing of the various ombudsmen's offices. I'll give a chance, first to Ms. St. Germain and then Ms. Owens, to comment on that question of relative resourcing of the ombudsmen's offices in the justice system.

[Monique St. Germain]

Thank you.

In terms of resourcing, I think it's known to everyone that there are tremendous challenges in resourcing across the entire justice system. The level of funding, though, that is tied to the federal ombudsmen needs to be increased in order for them to have the role they should be playing in our communities and in our society.

[Kat Owens]

I would echo that. I would also say the ombudsman is a key part of the response to ensure that victims' and survivors' rights are respected. However, in the gender-based violence context, so too are a lot of frontline service providers.

LEAF has called for sustained core funding for these organizations and would echo that call here today as well.

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

You anticipated my next question to you and you've already answered it. All of us here acknowledge that we're in a peculiar situation where we ask the victims of crime to finance their own organizations and to finance many of their own programs for recovery, rather than have the public assuming that responsibility. I know that's the case for gender-based violence.

Perhaps, Ms. Owens, you have more to say on that topic.

[Kat Owens]

I would say there has been significant funding provided lately, which is very much appreciated and has allowed for increased capacity building in this sector. However, I think that sustained core funding not tied to individual projects is something that will allow organizations to provide more effective and accessible services to survivors across the country.

Thank you for the question.

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

I'll go lastly and very quickly to Madame Gaudreault on the same point about funding for victims' organizations.

[Arlène Gaudreault]

I would like to make a proposal. The federal government could re-examine its position regarding compensation. Until 1992, it support the compensation schemes throughout Canada. Then it stopped. If that support were restored, it would certainly meet the needs felt by many victims in terms of moral support as well as psychological consultations, and it would help the provinces perform their mandates better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreault.

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

That concludes our first round. We'll suspend for a couple of minutes to do sound checks for our next witness, and then we'll resume.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call the meeting back to order.

We're resuming the second round. We have one witness, Brenda Davis, who is here as an independent witness. She will have five minutes to make her opening statement, and then we'll go for a round of questioning beginning right after.

The floors is yours, Ms. Davis.

[Brenda Davis, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

Thanks, everyone, for the invitation to speak today on behalf of myself, my family and all victims of crime who want changes to help us better navigate the criminal justice system.

In 1987, my 16-year-old sister was murdered by Patrice Mailloux while she worked at my father's corner store. At the time he was on parole and living in a halfway house nearby. He was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life with no parole for 20 years. A number of years later he was again—while incarcerated at a maximum-security prison in Edmonton—given another 20-year sentence for a violent escape attempt, in which a prison guard was injured. Since that time, he has continued to commit many crimes while incarcerated and has broken parole conditions numerous times.

Since that time, my family has had to endure numerous hurdles to have our rights as victims respected. We did not choose to be victims, but the offender did willingly choose to murder my sister.

In 2007 we had to fight to receive translation services as the offender chose to have his parole hearing in French. As English-speaking victims, we deserved to be treated fairly and with respect, as we fought to ensure justice was served. In 2009 my family and I—including my aging parents—had just arrived in Montreal to attend the parole hearing when we were told the offender had decided to withdraw his request for the hearing. It was immediately cancelled and we had to return to New Brunswick. No reasons for the cancellation were given at the time. In 2020 in the midst of the pandemic, there was yet another parole hearing scheduled. We were informed that the only way we could take part was by teleconference, even though the offender was able to have video conference with the Parole Board for the hearing. The same rights should have been afforded to us as victims.

These are just a few of the struggles we have faced as victims since my sister was murdered almost 35 years ago.

On September 1, I was notified by the Montreal office of victim services for Corrections Canada that there was a Canada-wide warrant issued for Patrice Mailloux for breach of parole conditions. He had been unlawfully at large before they could execute the warrant. When we asked when his last known check-in was—as he was on day parole—we were told that they didn't have that information. We also asked what conditions were breached. We were again told that they did not have that information, and if they did then it was confidential. It was now a police matter, and victim services or the police would contact me if or when he was apprehended.

I contacted the RCMP, my member of Parliament and my local constituent to voice my concerns for my family's safety and the safety of the general public, as this offender is a habitual, violent offender. Even though there was a Canada-wide warrant for his arrest, I could not find publication of it anywhere. I was informed that the police were aware and that there were places they would look for him. If they were to stop him on the road, then they could find out he had a warrant. The RCMP provided more updates and assurances to me and my family than victim services did.

I personally used the offender's most current photo from the victims' portal and released it via Facebook with information about his conviction, the warrant and his last known whereabouts. I asked people to share it far and wide. I was then contacted by Corrections and told to remove the photo, because it was confidential. I did that, but it had already been shared hundreds of times. I also contacted a reporter with the local paper, a lawyer, CBC and CTV news to tell them the story. They didn't post the offender's photo until they had spoken with a legal expert. Once he was apprehended, the RCMP did let me know that they had received many tips on his whereabouts because of the photo that was shared through social media and the news.

Victims should not feel responsible for protecting themselves and the public.

Victims also feel revictimized when their victim impact statements are allowed to be addressed only to the Parole Board. They are shared with the offender prior to the hearing. Victims should be able to speak directly to the Parole Board members as well as to the offender. The statements should not be shared with the offender prior to the hearing.

The offender often uses these statements to prepare his responses at the hearings, which include the offender giving false answers that the board members may have no idea are untrue. We, as victims, are not able to question the offender when he makes false statements, and these false answers may sway the board into a decision that is not based on facts.

When a violent offender is granted any form of parole, they should be required to wear an ankle monitor so their whereabouts is always known. That will help determine whether or not the offender is adhering to the terms of their parole.

Parole board hearings should also return to being in person. That is important, as victims should be afforded the right to take part and observe the hearing. Being able to see the offender and the board as the hearing is conducted is a vital step in ensuring that justice is being done correctly. If the offender chooses to withdraw their opportunity to a parole hearing within two weeks of the scheduled date, it should be required that the hearing go ahead as scheduled and victims be allowed to attend even if the offender chooses not to.

Victims should not have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Ms. Davis, if you could wrap up, you're a little over time. Hopefully we'll be able to flesh out the rest of your statement from questions.

[Brenda Davis]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

If you're done, I will go over to Mr. Moore for six minutes.