I'd like to acknowledge Jo-Anne for her testimony and Kimberly's family and others for working so hard and advocating for this bill to come before committee.
We're on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I begin there because this discussion is about more than sentencing. It's about whether families whose loved one's life was taken through violence can encounter justice systems that respond with dignity, safety and care. That question is especially important for indigenous families, who must, too often, fight to have their loved ones seen, named, protected and remembered.
The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime receives complaints from victims about federal departments and agencies, including the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. We don't review the merits of Parole Board decisions to grant or deny release, but we do review how victims and their families experience the federal parole process and where systemic barriers cause preventable harm.
Bill C-235 responds to real harm. I support action to reduce unnecessary cycles of retraumatization for families affected by these serious offences.
Once parole eligibility begins, families may face mandatory parole reviews every two to five years, sometimes for the rest of the offender's life, and sometimes for the rest of their own. The impact on families is not limited to the hearing itself. It's the repeated cycle of notice, preparation, fear, postponed hearings and renewed exposure to what was done to their loved one.
Bill C-235 recognizes this type of harm. Delaying the first parole hearing may give some families a longer period of stability, safety and distance from a process they experience as deeply painful. What we hear from families is that the harm of parole is not only about timing—although that matters—but also about the experience of the eventual hearing.
We reviewed 60 of our case files, from 2019 to the present, related to the Parole Board of Canada. Families describe the emotional labour of preparing victim statements; the uncertainty when hearings are postponed, waived or changed; the difficulty of arranging travel, work leave, child care, cultural supports or emotional support; the fear when protection concerns are not included in release conditions; the frustration when they don't receive enough information to plan for their safety; and the exposure when the intimate impact of the crime described in victim statements is shared with the offender.
Some families value the opportunity to attend and speak. Others want distance from the process. Different families have different needs. That's why I encourage this committee to view Bill C-235 as one part of a broader conversation, not the whole answer.
If Parliament accepts that the repeated exposure to parole hearings can retraumatize families, then the next question is how to reduce that harm before and after the parole eligibility begins. In practical terms, as the committee studies this bill, I'd like to highlight three issues.
The first is information. Families should receive clear information early. They should understand registration, parole eligibility, temporary absences, work releases, day parole, full parole and what participation rights exist at each stage. A family should not discover too late that the parole eligibility date was not the first relevant release-related milestone.
The second is time frames. The committee can also consider whether longer intervals between reviews are appropriate in this narrow category of cases, while also safeguarding a meaningful possibility of release.
The last is complaints. Concerns raised by victims about their rights to information protection and participation under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights need to be supported by an effective complaints process. At its best, accountability helps systems listen and improve. The federal ombudsperson for victims of crime needs legislation or regulatory support to ensure that our office can access the materials relevant to victim complaints about the parole process.
In closing, this is not an argument against the right to parole review. It's an argument for adjusting the frequency and management of those reviews so that the system does not impose needless and foreseeable harm on the people it is legislated to protect.
Thank you.