Justice Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Diab.

We'll move next to Mr. Fortin for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for being with us today. It is a privilege to be able to look to their testimony to inform our work.

I am going to address Ms. Gaudreault first.

Ms. Gaudreault, in light of your testimony and the testimony of almost all the witnesses we have heard on this subject, there seems to be a major problem in terms of information. I am not making this up. You and other witnesses have said it in the past.

I would like to get your comments on that point specifically. What can we do to make sure that victims of crime are better informed about their rights?

You spoke quickly about restitution earlier, because your speaking time was almost up. If you want to come back to that, I would like to know your opinion on that subject as well.

How do we inform victims and get them restitution for the harms they suffer as a result of the crimes they were victims of?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

As I was saying earlier, we have to continue to produce information, whether in writing or otherwise.

Adequate training for service providers is also an important aspect to keep in mind. The information provided must be rigorous and kept up to date. We have to monitor changes to laws and practices. Victims also have to be referred to the right resources.

The information is complex and may involve various fields, whether it be legal advice, access to resources, or proceedings. Some organizations are more specialized than others, and it is crucial that the general public, and more specifically victims, know about them.

During the pandemic, there was high turnover among staff. The new staff sometimes consists of young people. So we have to be attentive to that and improve the training in universities. In law faculties, lawyers have to be better trained and informed about victims' rights.

I am now going to talk about the question of restitution.

Things work much better in the provinces where there are complaints mechanisms and where people are assigned to that work. For example, I am thinking about the staff in victim assistance services, who handle informing victims and working with young offenders. The situation is much easier when victims are supported by workers from a victim assistance service than when they are left to themselves.

It is deplorable to see that restitution orders have declined by 17% since the CVBR was adopted. That result is the opposite of what we wanted to get. It means that victims are not informed and the procedures are too complicated for them. Instituting a civil proceeding is very complicated for victims and adds to their burden.

In my opinion, we need to look at what is being done well in the other provinces, in order to transpose good practices elsewhere.

The federal government can play a role, because it funds a lot of projects. For example, $38 million has been granted to certain services for various projects.

Organizations in Canada all need to know about good programs and the results achieved. We have to be told about them so we can transpose them into our own practices.

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

Thank you.

You talked about training lawyers in law faculties, which is a good idea. We can see that there is a problem when it comes to information. Victims are not necessarily being informed, for all sorts of reasons.

Would it not be a good idea to have some provisions in the Criminal Code for victims to be treated more like parties to the trial, for them to participate in it in some way, and for them to validate the processes, particularly when it comes to plea bargaining?

Victims often think that plea bargaining harms their rights. They see it almost as a denial of justice. Personally, I don't agree with that. In my opinion, it is actually important for lawyers to engage in negotiations on the various sentences that can be imposed. It can help victims. Unfortunately, however, victims are not always adequately informed.

Given all that, might it not also be wise to provide for judges themselves to be better informed about victims' rights?

Might it not be wise to provide for victims to participate at each step in a criminal trial?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

Victims are witnesses in the justice system. They are on the periphery of the system. Victims have to be more familiar with the Victims Bill of Rights so they are able to exercise those rights before various bodies, for example, before administrative tribunals like the Commission d'examen des troubles mentaux, the CETM.

Victims should also be consulted and their expectations and concerns discussed with them, at the various steps in the justice system. I have to say that things are starting to change a bit in that regard. This is the responsibility of police services, of the prosecutors who interview victims, of the people who work at administrative tribunals, and of all the actors in the justice system.

Victims have to be given a greater voice. We say that victims may give their opinion about a decision, but that rarely happens.

A discussion of this subject needs to be initiated, but we can't change the system.

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

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreault.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

We now have Mr. Garrison for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. I apologize in advance if my lingering COVID symptoms overtake my questions at some point.

We heard quite a few witnesses talking about differences in approaches, support levels and other programmatic matters among provinces. We also heard, particularly in our last session, about the existence of clear best practices and minimum standards in other jurisdictions.

My question would be for Madame Gaudreault, to start with.

Do you think something like a national task force, with federal and provincial government and victims' representatives, could usefully establish best practices and minimum standards across the country?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

That would be a good idea.

About a decade ago, the Policy Centre for Victim Issues set up an advisory committee. It provided a place where very worthwhile discussions took place all across Canada. That is something we are missing, in fact: being able to exchange ideas with representatives of other provinces and territories about our work and the obstacles we encounter in putting solutions into practice.

In addition, we should look at the question of standards and maybe try to draw on a model charter like the United Kingdom's, which is based on commitments to victims by organizations and institutions. That might be a promising avenue that would be worth exploring.

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

As members of the justice committee, we're often focused exclusively on the legislative solutions or problems. Clearly, however, witnesses are telling us that it goes far beyond simply fixing the legislation. There's much more that needs to be done.

I would ask the same question to Ms. Owens about whether it would be useful to have some kind of national task force working on establishing best practices and minimum standards for assistance to victims.

[Kat Owens]

Thank you for that question.

I think it goes back to the point I raised earlier with respect to the national action plan to end gender-based violence. Thinking about minimum standards and how we respond to victims and survivors in a consistent and appropriate manner across the country is something that might fall quite well within the framework spoken about there. I think it also speaks to the need to look at it systemically, as opposed to piecemeal portions of this system. I certainly think looking at how this all fits within that framework, then moving that framework forward, is definitely something to be explored.

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

Thanks very much.

In previous submissions by LEAF—especially on the question of coercive and controlling behaviour—and again today, you talked about the unintended consequences of changes in the legal system. We've had many people suggest that there needs to be a provision for automatically informing victims of their rights and programs.

Could you comment on possible unintended consequences or concerns LEAF might have with respect to that automatic information systems proposal?

[Kat Owens]

I think it would be—and other witnesses have shared this—very important to consult with survivors and victims in order to get a sense of where they're coming from. The challenge with anything automatic is that survivors and victims all have different needs, so a one-size-fits-all approach can be challenging when it comes to meeting the needs of survivors. I appreciate the administrative clarity it provides, but it is certainly challenging to meet individual needs when you're taking one approach to all survivors.

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

I will go back to Madame Gaudreault on the same question.

Madame Gaudreault, you mentioned, at the beginning of your presentation, that many people lack basic information about what their rights actually are and what the possibilities are. Could I get your response, or your organization's response, to the idea of some kind of mandatory information provision for victims of crime?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

I agree with Ms. Owens, because it does not meet all victims' needs.

Some victims want to follow all the proceedings, including when the sentence is being served. Others do not want to follow them, because it is too complicated for them and they are not psychologically up to it.

Some victims, after sentencing, want to move on to other things and move forward. Needs vary from victim to victim. So I think that making information automatic for everybody is not the right path to take. It is important to conduct a broader consultation with different categories of victims to see what their needs are.

There is also a question of resources. If we put a system in place that would facilitate this work, it will need resources, it will need funding.

As well, a lot of information involves the provinces, and so discussions would have to be held with them, I think.

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

Thank you very much.

As one last quick question, maybe to all three of you, there's been a lot of concern about the under-resourcing of the office of the ombudsman for victims of crime. Do you have any comment—maybe starting with you again, Madame Gaudreault—on the relative resourcing of the office compared to other similar ombudsman offices?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Give a very brief answer, please.

[Arlène Gaudreault]

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime does not have a lot of employees, as compared to the Office of the Correctional Investigator. Its staff would need to be expanded so that it can fulfil its mandate and reach everyone.

Particular attention also needs to be paid to the question of language. There would need to be enough bilingual personnel, and francophones who contact the Office of the Ombudsman would need to be able to get speedy access to someone who speaks French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

Next we go to Mr. Richards for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

In the meetings we've had on this topic, every time I'm struck by, usually, several things that we hear from those of you who come to speak with us, things where I just shake my head and say, “How can the justice system put victims, and their needs and their rights in such disregard?” Certainly, today was no exception to that.

I want to follow up a little bit on a couple of things. One of them, Ms. St. Germain, is that you mentioned restitution and how it's often not being ordered and certainly not being enforced. We'll do that first.

I also just want to mention, Ms. Owens, that I do want to ask you a little bit more. You talked about the publication orders and what's happening to some victims in terms of breaches of bans there.

However, we'll start with you, Ms. St. Germain. Maybe just talk a little more about the restitution orders. Give us some sense, if you have stats that tell us, of how rarely that's happening, how often it's happening and why they're not being enforced. If you have suggestions on what can be done to improve that, we'd love to hear those as well.

[Monique St. Germain]

I don't have any stats as they connect to the restitution issue. What I do know is that our organization monitors reported case law, so that's all the decisions that are publicly available to lawyers regarding sentencing and other matters that are going before the courts. Restitution is almost never mentioned in the offences we monitor, which are the online child sexual exploitation offences—like what is called child pornography in the Criminal Code, online luring, agreement or arrangement, those types of offences that tend to involve technology.

In the few cases we are aware of where restitution was requested it wasn't granted because the judge's sense was that the individual was going to jail for a long time, so he wouldn't be able to pay. It's similar to the reasons judges use for not imposing a victim surcharge. To that, our organization would say that people in this country don't go to jail forever. They do come out. They do get jobs. They do work. There's no reason there couldn't be a restitution order that is there and that is payable at some point in their lifetimes. It doesn't have to be, obviously, the moment they're incarcerated.

Our other issue is with the wording of the Criminal Code itself, which requires that the restitution be readily ascertainable at the time of sentencing. For victims of online crimes, the damage and the full cost and impact on the person's life is often not even remotely known at the time of sentencing. You don't know whether that person's child sexual abuse material is going to go viral within offender community circles. You don't know what other offenders are going to target this person because their imagery or their personal information was placed online.

Those are some challenges we see with the restitution issue.

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

That's great. Thank you very much.

I certainly hope that the committee will make those recommendations and that the government will take those up. I think they are very wise recommendations, and I think they will mean a lot to victims.

Ms. Owens, I don't imagine we have a lot of time, but I'll turn to you for what we do have. If you do get cut off for whatever reason, maybe you can send something in writing to the committee so we can benefit from your recommendations in this area.

In regard to the breaches of publication orders and seeing victims being prosecuted for those, could you give us a bit more of a sense as to what you've seen happening here and what the result is for victims? Also, what could be done to improve that process and give victims the right to make a choice that best suits them in these scenarios?

[Kat Owens]

Certainly, and I would commend to the committee Morrell Andrews, who will be appearing on Thursday and who really is a leader and an expert in this area.

I would just note that the most important thing for moving forward is for survivors to be able to have meaningful choices in terms of whether or not a publication ban is implemented and when one is removed. The ban is put in place to protect their identity, and that is what matters.

I see that I'm out of time. Thank you.

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

Just very quickly, if I could, I'll ask Ms. Owens if she could—I know she didn't have much time there—and would like to present in writing how that might look in terms of providing choices to victims.

Thanks for indulging me on that, Chair.

If you could send it in writing, that would be appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Next, we go to Ms. Dhillon for five minutes.