Justice Committee on Oct. 6th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 30 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, 2022, the committee is meeting for 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 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.

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Chair, some of the witnesses are having a hard time hearing you, but do they know about their earpieces?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I was just getting to that.

There are headsets. Unwind them, put them on and change the channel to whatever your preference is. If you're bilingual, you can probably go with “floor”, but English and French are there too. At the bottom, going left and right switches the language preference. The top part is the volume.

Wave if you can't hear or if there's an interpretation problem. Just put up your hand and let us know. We'll immediately stop and it won't take away from your time.

As for interpretation for those on Zoom, they're all members so I don't think I need to repeat that. Use the icon at the bottom to select floor, English or French.

As a reminder, all comments should please be addressed to the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will try to get to you right away.

Before I introduce our witnesses, I would like to inform the committee that due to the study on our agenda, some may find it difficult to listen to the testimonies presented and/or experience discomfort, given the nature of the topic being discussed. I would like to remind our witnesses, who agreed so kindly to appear in front of the committee either in person or via Zoom, and members and staff, that if needed, resources are available to them here in Parliament. The clerk will certainly contact them, and you're more than welcome to ask for them either during or after, if need be.

I will allow, if necessary, a little pause for our witnesses so they can deliver their statements in the best environment possible. Our present study will certainly be emotionally challenging for our witnesses, and we admire their courage in coming forward and sharing their very personal situations. I'm sure that all members agree with that.

I don't like interrupting, so when there are 30 seconds remaining in your statement, I'll raise a 30-second card, and when your time is up, I'll give the time's-up card. They're yellow and red. Then just try to wrap up. I don't want to break your train of thought, but that's how we go. It's the same application for members.

It's five minutes for your opening statement. If you don't get all of your information across in the five minutes, I'm sure some members will allow you to speak to it in their questioning, so feel free to do so then.

Our first three witnesses are Morrell Andrews, Dianne and Mike Ilesic, and Sharlene Bosma.

I will begin with Morrell Andrews, for five minutes.

[Morrell Andrews, As an Individual]

I would like to thank our host, the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I hope your study incorporates the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, notably call to action 36 on culturally relevant services, call to action 41 on addressing the victimization of women and girls and call to action 57 on training for public servants regarding the legacy of residential schools, UNDRIP, treaty rights, indigenous law and aboriginal-Crown relations.

I cannot speak for all victim complainants today, or convey the reality of those facing systemic burdens due to their sexual or gender identity, race, class or disability, but I will do my best to honour their experiences.

It is impossible to express the anguish and stress of a victim-complainant of sexual assault.

How can I properly explain what it means to have your case dropped, to be excluded from proceedings, to have lawyers too busy to talk to you, to know that your abuser will never have a criminal record, or to spend nights crying while trying to interpret the law on your own?

When I asked other victim-complainants what I should say today, these women often used the same words. They want you to know that the legal system is paternalistic, that it is traumatic and that we feel we are being left out.

Victim complainants of sexual offences have the right to request a publication ban under section 486.4 of the Criminal Code. This ban enforces privacy and eliminates any negative consequences of being publicly identified.

Publication bans serve a critical function, and they should remain available to anyone who wants them, but there are considerable issues with respect to how we are informed of our publication bans and how we are given information in order to comply with them and lift them, if we so desire.

On April 7, 2021, during the sentencing of my sexual assault case, I learned of the publication ban on my identity. Immediately, I knew that it was not in my interest. While in court, I asked the prosecutor to lift it, but she didn't know how to. Shortly after, I interjected myself and asked the judge to lift it, but she told me she was no longer functus and couldn't help. Later, I was told by victim services that I would have to bring my own application to the Superior Court and figure it out on my own.

Nobody ever told me about my publication ban. Nobody asked if I wanted it, and nobody explained that if I breached it I could be fined up to $5,000 and spend two years in jail. They said this ban was in my best interest, but I felt trapped.

After significant self-advocacy, the Crown agreed to bring an application to the Superior Court, and I was able to ask for my right to speak on May 14, 2021. This was not a painless task. The offender's attorney opposed my application and tried to delay the hearing by over two months.

Begging for my right to speak was humiliating. The court's dignifying the offender with an opportunity to argue why I should be permanently silenced was infuriating, dehumanizing and traumatizing. I told myself to remember what it felt like to be shattered by the legal system, and that one day—for myself, for others I have met and for those who would come after us—I would try to do something about it.

Not only is the current requirement that the judge supervise a victim-complainant's ability to speak about her own experience paternalistic, but it reinforces a sense of stigma and the notion that victim-complainants only need to be protected rather than represented, informed and helped.

My recommendations are not complicated. Amend section 486.4 of the Criminal Code so that it is no longer an offence for a victim to attribute their own experience. Educate prosecutors and judges on publication bans and our right to choose if we want one. Ensure that prosecutors explain the purpose and scope of a publication ban, and seek our consent before asking for one. Simplify the removal process, making it clear that the offender or accused is not a factor. Provide accessible and multilingual information about publication bans, how to comply with them and how to lift them if we want. Finally, edit the victim impact statement form under subsection 722(4) of the Criminal Code to allow us to opt out of a publication ban at the conclusion of a case without having to justify this decision to the court or the offender.

Of every 1,000 sexual assaults in Canada, only three will result in a conviction, but publication bans remain on the name of those complainants who have not had a finding of guilt in their case. This is a painful burden for those who want to speak out, and it gives the impression that our abusers are protected and actually benefit from unwanted bans.

There is no justice in an unwanted publication ban.

I have done everything expected of me. I reported. I went to court. I have been vocal about this issue and I have come here today with recommendations. I ask that, at minimum, you show persistence in championing this much-needed change and that you are audacious in demanding something better for us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Andrews.

I will now go to Ms. Bosma for five minutes.

[Sharlene Bosma, As an Individual]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the invitation and the opportunity to speak here today.

Thank you to Mr. Brock.

As I am a victim and have gone through our justice system, I believe that victims' rights and the lack thereof are in great need of review.

My name is Sharlene Bosma. On May 6, 2013, my husband Tim was taken from our home and shot in his own truck across the road from our house. His body was eventually taken to Waterloo airport and then burned in an animal incinerator.

We spent eight days searching the province for him, not knowing where he was. On the eighth day, my world fell apart and I learned one of the most horrifying phrases in the English language: “His body was burned beyond recognition.” It took another three years before I was allowed to know what that meant.

Through the excellent work of the Hamilton police department, in conjunction with police forces from surrounding areas, two arrests were made shortly thereafter, and in 2016 we spent six months at trial in Hamilton. The team of Crown attorneys worked extremely hard and were victorious, with not one but both offenders being convicted of first-degree murder. The investigation into my husband's murder led to further charges being laid for the deaths of Laura Babcock and Wayne Millard, both of which also resulted in first-degree murder convictions.

I cannot convey the overwhelming amount of joy and relief that we as a family shared when the court determined consecutive life sentences in each case—75 years and 50 years for cold-blooded, heartless killers. As the mother of a little girl who was not quite two and a half when her father was murdered, I was extremely thankful that she would never, ever have to face the monsters who killed her father for no reason other than they simply could.

In comparison to many other homicide families that I have had the unfortunate privilege to meet in the last nine and a half years, our case, our convictions and our sentencing were the absolute best that anyone in our position could hope for. It allowed hope for other victims that yes, perhaps in the Canadian justice system, justice might actually be served and offenders sentenced according to the crimes they have committed—a true life for a life.

Some may say that because of the overall positive experience that I had with the police departments and the Crown attorneys' offices, I'm in no position to comment on victims' rights. They may be right, but it does not diminish my ability to stand here before you and fight for my daughter's future and for those who were unable to benefit from the same positive experience that I had. Everyone needs and has the right to the same justice system that was bestowed upon me.

In May of this year, our government took away one of the very few things that we as victims had to hold on to, which was consecutive sentencing. It was one of the greatest blows that the Canadian government has ever dealt to victims of violent crime. It says to us that someone can kill as many people as they want here in Canada because sentencing will not change. It says that Canada only places value on the first victim, with the lives of any other victims not mattering—not here in Canada.

My daughter was two and a half when her father was murdered, as I mentioned earlier. She has no memories of her own of her father. She was never given the chance; it was ripped away from her. All she has are stories and photos that I and others close to him share. Some may say that it's enough, but it's not. She had a right to know her father. She had the right to be raised by him and know him for the loving man that he was, just as much as anyone else.

Now, because of the ruling in May, when my daughter is 27 she will be asked to carry on the fight that I thought I had already fought for her. The parole hearings will begin. She will be called upon to state why these monsters should not be offered any sense of freedom and why they should stay in prison. She will have to face the soulless psychopaths who scarred her life before she even knew that it was her own.

In those moments, she will be the little toddler begging for her daddy to come home, but in the body of a woman. She will be defending her father’s life and the lives of Laura and Wayne to keep those men in jail.

It will not only be up to me, but up to my daughter to continue the fight, because this government puts more value on the life of the criminal than of its law-abiding citizens. Our nightmare will start all over again. We will be revictimized and will relive all of the trauma each and every time they apply for parole.

As victims in our current society, we are treated as pariahs in our schools, our places of worship and our work. In many people’s minds, it is easier to believe that we have done something wrong to deserve this, rather than to accept that really, truly, there are monsters in human form in this country. If it can happen to us, it can happen to you.

As a victim, I can tell you that Canada does not care about us. I ask this committee to prove to me and to all other victims of violent crime that I am wrong. Stand up for us, as we have fought to do so for ourselves. Show me that I am wrong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Bosma.

Next we'll go to Mr. and Mrs. Ilesic.

[Mike Ilesic, As an Individual]

Thank you for allowing us to speak as witnesses before the justice committee.

Our son Brian was brutally murdered while working for an armoured car company in 2012. Two other workers were also murdered. Another co-worker survived, but his life changed immensely after the incident.

The victims were betrayed by their co-worker. All were shot in the head at close range. In fact, Brian's funeral was delayed for a week so that his face could be reconstructed to allow a viewing of the body before the celebration of life.

The Edmonton victims service unit was a blessing to us, as they guided us through the journey of grief. Dianne and I also joined the Victims of Homicide Support Society, which had a huge impact, and we continue to be involved in this group. It has helped us maintain our strength.

The recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada to strike down the consecutive sentencing law was a very bad decision. This decision impacts all victims and devalues the value of life.

When a parole hearing is scheduled, I want to face the offender and not be subjected to looking at the back of his head. If the offender is not willing to co-operate, a hearing shouldn't be allowed to take place.

[Dianne Ilesic, As an Individual]

Our son's murderer was the first offender in Canada to be sentenced under the consecutive sentencing law. He was given a life sentence with no possibility of parole for 40 years. There was a sense of relief in knowing that we would not have to attend a parole hearing for 40 years.

Forty years would mean that we would never have to go, in all likelihood, to a parole hearing. Now with the Supreme Court's decision, the murderer has applied to have his 40-year sentence reduced to 25 years. That means the murderer could be eligible to apply for parole in just 15 years from now.

To call this possibility distressing is an understatement. When we discussed this decision with family and friends and our MP Michael Cooper, we recognized that the majority of people do not support the Supreme Court's decision. The Liberal government should have invoked the notwithstanding clause to override the decision of the Supreme Court.

Please listen to the people of Canada. As a victim, I am mystified and terribly disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision and the government's lack of response. Jail is not cruel and unjust, but murder is.

Recommendation number one is that the government should have invoked the notwithstanding clause to override the Bissonnette decision. I'm disappointed that there has been no response from Minister of Justice David Lametti other than he respects the decision by the Supreme Court.

Recommendation number two is to please not allow mass murderers, like our son's murderer, a chance to get parole after 25 years.

Recommendation number three is that parliamentarians should visit penitentiaries and learn. Jail is not a cruel place to reside. Inmates enjoy many benefits for which taxpayers pay. All their meals are free. There's no fee for room and board. Inmates are offered education. They could possibly end up with a bachelor's degree or a master's degree, but what about the victims left behind?

As to recommendation number four, when this incident occurred, I happened to be in a deep amount of sorrow and grief. I recognized that I needed counselling. Could counselling sessions be paid for by the government? In 2012, the fee for counselling was $185 an hour. Who can afford that?

Recommendation number five is to please sponsor a way for victims to navigate the justice system. A victims' advocate should be established to help victims navigate the system and arm them with all the information they need and deserve.

In closing, we want to let you know that we have registered for victim notification through Corrections Canada, but we are not receiving updated notifications as promised. The updates would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We have been through the journey and we're still going through it too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you to all the witnesses. It's not easy sharing your stories, and I'm sure you've had to share them over and over again. I urge all members to keep the sensitivities in mind when asking questions.

I will begin with Mr. Brock, for six minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start by thanking all of the participants today for their courage in coming forward and sharing an extremely difficult chapter in their lives. You are all to be commended for having the strength to come forward and advocate not only on your and your family's behalf, but on behalf of all the victims who exist in Canada. Thank you so much.

Ms. Andrews, I listened very carefully to your words. We had an opportunity to speak prior to your attendance today. I want to assure you that your voice has been heard very loudly at this committee, that your voice will be heard nationally and that your voice will be shared with the Government of Canada.

I looked at some of the material that we talked about in preparation, and I want to comment briefly on the decision that the judge made in the case in which you were a victim, from just over a year ago. Her closing statement to the offender was directed to you: “I'm sure, going forward, your voice will have great impact.” What a foreshadowing of where you are today.

I really want to thank you for the resiliency and the strength that you are showing to advocate in an area that is in such desperate need of reform, and I want to ask you, specifically, a couple of questions. I basically have a minute.

You talk about a lack of trust. You talk about a lack of communication. You talk about a lack of participation in the process. All of these issues are enshrined in the current version of the Victims Bill of Rights, but clearly you did not have that experience.

Can you be more specific as to how we can ensure that victims like you, other victims who come before the courts, victims from marginalized communities and victims whose first language is not English can receive just treatment by all justice participants?

[Morrell Andrews]

There are three parts to the Victims Bill of Rights—information, protection and participation—that I look at particularly as a victim. Throughout the process, as I navigated the legal system, I felt that those did not apply to me.

I was not protected, due to either malice or negligence on the part of the Crown, from having a publication ban placed on my identity without any knowledge. I could have lost my job. I am a public servant and I have to maintain a security clearance. If I am charged with a crime, my job is gone.

Regarding information, it was like pulling teeth to try to understand how to navigate the legal process. I tried to go to legal aid. I tried to access sexual assault centres. Nobody could help me. I really felt that I was alone. I had to scour CanLII by myself to try to find case law. There was simply no one to lean on, and the Crown didn't really have the time of day to speak with me. I understand resourcing issues, but as a victim at a time of need, there was really no support.

As for participation, I felt that I had a right to be asked whether or not I wanted a publication ban. That seems like a very foundational element of participation that nobody ever involved me in. I didn't even know that I could be involved. That's the case for many victims with whom I have been connected. I hope to share their stories today.

Quite frankly, the entire Victims Bill of Rights has 2,011 words. My victim impact statement, which has a number of critiques and comments on our system, has 2,300 words. It can definitely be expanded.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Andrews.

Ms. Bosma, my sincerest condolences for your horrific and tragic loss. Words cannot describe what you and your family have gone through, and my heart goes out to you.

I have a very limited amount of time. I have about a minute and 30 seconds. I want to focus on an aspect that you did not indicate in your opening statement but that I know you experienced. That is the participation of your right to file, and speak directly to the court to make, a victim impact statement.

Can you expand upon that and tell me how you were treated? Was it fair? Were you allowed to use all of your words without any editing, without any sanitization and without any challenges by the defence and/or the accused? Can you share that, please?

[Sharlene Bosma]

Sure.

In our particular case, because we had first-degree murder convictions with an automatic 25-year sentence before parole, the Crown attorney actually recommended that we not file victim impact statements. We were able to go immediately to sentencing. Otherwise, they would have delayed the process.

We were given forms to submit to the courts so they could be reviewed. I think it was at three different levels. The accused were going to have an opportunity to review our statements as well and make any recommendations or corrections they so chose before we would be able to read them in court.

In our particular situation, we bypassed the entire thing, so the day we got the conviction, we sent them to prison.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I think I'm out of time, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

We'll go to Ms. Diab for six minutes.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To all of you here today, I want to commend you for appearing before us, for your bravery and for sharing and advocating through the pain and sorrow you have experienced. Whatever we say here won't do justice. This is the justice and human rights committee, but it won't do justice to the pain you've experienced and to the pain that you continue to experience from the fact that you have lost your loved ones—Mr. and Mrs. Ilesic, your son; Sharlene, your husband; and your daughter, her father.

I want to ask Ms. Andrews a question.

Thank you for the conversation we had earlier today regarding publication bans. I want to put this on record. I asked you on the phone if you recognized the name Rehtaeh Parsons and you said you did. In my home province of Nova Scotia, Rehtaeh Parsons was a 17-year-old victim of child pornography. In 2012, she was victimized by four boys. Pictures were taken of her and circulated online. Rehtaeh ended up taking her own life as a 17-year-old high school girl who lived in Dartmouth and was known in her school and in her community.

When I entered public life as a provincial member of Nova Scotia, I was handed the task of being minister of justice and attorney general. The case came to my desk in 2014. A publication ban had been placed on her name under subsection 486.4(3) of the Criminal Code. The ban was in place despite the wishes of her mom, her dad and all the supporters.

I remember that just before Christmas in 2014—it had taken weeks; it was a very challenging time—I issued a ministerial directive to the Public Prosecution Service, one I was told at the time had never been done before, that said that no breach of the publication ban on Rehtaeh's name in any form would be prosecuted. I added that this applied unless her name was used in a derogatory way. This was probably me as a mother, as a woman and as a person who had not really been in politics before.

At the time, that was difficult to do because the prosecution hadn't seen it and, needless to say, neither had the justice department and everyone else, but it was the right thing to do. I am sympathetic to what you're advocating for.

What you told me on the phone and what you shared with me is that through your activism you have encountered many other women with stories. I promised to give you the chance, for the couple of minutes I have left, to tell us their stories and put them on record for the benefit of this committee.

[Morrell Andrews]

Thank you.

In January 2020, Matthew McKnight was found guilty of five counts of sexual assault. His 13 victims in Edmonton have not lifted their publican bans, but I want to tell you about N.T. She said that sharing her story was an incredibly important part of healing. She fought for changes to reverse the UCP's Bill 16 and she helps other survivors today. She never consented to having a publication ban.

In Toronto, Maarika Freund applied to have her publication ban removed. She learned of it two years after her trial. She had to ask two lawyers to help her lift her publication ban. The ban on her name was not lifted until October 2021, because the former accused was granted an extra 70 days to come up with a valid argument for why the ban should remain in place. She never consented to having a publication ban.

In Victoria, Kelly Favro, who is in the room today, represented herself in court to have her publication ban removed. She learned of her publication ban four years after court proceedings concluded. She said the process took away her autonomy for a second time and she feels revictimized by the justice system. She never consented to having a publication ban.

In Dartmouth, Carrie Low had to retain her own lawyer to lift the publication ban that she didn't want. She said, “Someone took away my right to have my own name out there without telling me. Then I had to go through another court process to have [the ban] removed. It's very unfair and very unjust”. The judge noted that he would not have revoked the ban without the consent of the Crown. She never consented to having a publication ban.

In Barrie, Brandy, who's in the room today, lifted the publication ban on her name in May 2022, after reporting a historic sexual assault that happened 30 years ago. She said, “the Canadian [legal] system has now taken part of my voice and I'm truly disappointed in the...system's inability to support survivors.” She never consented to having a publication ban.

S. in Toronto still has a publication ban on her name. She said that the accuracy and transparency of information provided to her in the legal system were a problem. She said the victim services worker told her she needed money and a lawyer to lift her publication ban. This is not true. She said that the publication ban silenced her and protected her abuser. She never consented to having a publication ban.

In August 2022, a victim in Nanaimo named Jade had her publication ban lifted. The application to lift her publication ban was initially denied. She was told that she should have asked for it to be lifted before the matter was complete. She asked to have her publication ban lifted three times before it was finally granted and the matter was resolved. She never consented to having a publication ban.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Andrews and Ms. Diab.

Next we'll go to Monsieur Fortin for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the four witnesses who are here today.

I think your participation is important. Like my colleagues around the table, I sympathize with you. The events you have experienced are out of the norm, and no one would want to experience them. I have a lot of...

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Monsieur Fortin, can you pause? It looks like they're having problems with interpretation.

It's probably the volume. Just put the volume up.

I'll reset your time, Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was saying that I feel for you. I understand the pain that you have suffered. Like my colleagues around the table, I have a lot of compassion for you.

That said, in order to try to resolve the various issues, as far as possible, I would like to come back to a few things.

I am very interested in the point that Ms. Andrews raised in relation to the publication ban.

Ms. Andrews, I understand from your evidence that you would have preferred that there be no ban, but that it was imposed on you without your asking for it. First of all, why did you not want a publication ban? Did you have consultations with a Crown prosecutor or other lawyers who explained to you the scope of the ban? Were you given explanations as to how it might or might not be helpful to you?

[Morrell Andrews]

In terms of consultation with the Crown or any lawyers, I received literally none. The only reason I knew there was a publication ban on my name was that the judge mentioned it in passing during the sentencing hearing. I, as the victim, was on the call completely shocked, because no one had ever told me about a publication ban. I knew immediately that I didn't want it, but nobody seemed to know how to lift it or wanted to help me at all.

There were so many reasons why I wanted to lift the publication ban, and the biggest one was to simply be free. I knew that I wanted to publish my victim impact statement at the conclusion of my case on Instagram and Twitter. I didn't plan on ever being in this position, but when I found out that I was barred from speaking, I knew I had to do something to make sure this didn't happen again.

For the women I speak with who talk about why they want their publication bans lifted, it's anything from advocating for others who have been in the same situation to creating art that they feel is important for their healing. For me, I wanted the words to be put out into the world and to let people do with them what they would.

For some people it's really important to speak out. For others, publication bans are helpful tools, and they feel protected by that. That's extremely important to recognize, but some of us don't want them.

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

Have you been able to speak with the Crown prosecutor in relation to this, to request the ban be lifted?

[Morrell Andrews]

Yes.