Public Safety Committee on April 14th, 2021

[Nancy Roy]

You're absolutely right. Victims have to be given a greater voice, and more transparency is needed. I would like to see organizations like ours that support victims' families kept informed of restitution agreements that are reached in relation to victims or their families. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights gives victims the right to restitution, but unfortunately, victims have access to restitution in few cases. If the process were more transparent and if agreements were made public, more families could receive restitution and be better informed.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Do you have any other specific recommendations you would make in terms of honouring the voices and experiences of victims?

[Nancy Roy]

I have a number of other recommendations. For example, a public registry should be established, families should be protected and better informed, and offenders should have to submit to psychological follow-up. That would help families feel safer. They are often scared. Speaking out against the offender in a statement is harrowing. Even thinking about putting into words the impact the tragedy has had on their lives is difficult. They have little in the way of psychological support and help. The Correctional Service of Canada provides some assistance, but the Parole Board of Canada unfortunately provides no psychological help. There is no support once they've made their statements.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there, unfortunately.

I just reiterate to others—perhaps Ms. Campbell or Ms. Roy—who wish to submit further recommendations to the committee to please communicate through the clerk. That would be very helpful.

The final three minutes are to Madam Khera.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Campbell, I'll go back to you. Can you talk about what impacts the changes to the pardon system brought about in 2012 and what impact they have on the ability of people to integrate?

Also, did the change affect public safety?

[Mary E. Campbell]

Yes, I would say it did affect public safety.

One of the biggest impacts of those changes was the enormous workload pressure they put on the parole board. Requiring a parole board member to make a decision on each and every pardon has drawn those resources away from their regular decision-making on paroles. The parole board has always been under-resourced, and it really put huge pressure....

I think at one point—maybe even still—they were running four different pardon schemes: for the old people, who were grandfathered in; for the new people; for the old gay sex offence mechanism that came in; and for the drug pardon. It's a huge resource pressure. It means that there isn't the time to devote to other cases.

It also means that the people who really have done what they were asked to do, which was to turn their lives around and obey the law, are waiting and waiting. It means they're not getting a job, they're not doing the travelling, they're not doing whatever. That's an impact upon public safety.

Quickly on the registry of high-risk offenders, the government created it quite a few years ago. I don't think it's made one bit of difference to anything, but someday we'll talk about that again.

As to victims and their role at parole hearings, yes; again, it's partly case law. The role of the victim is to explain the harm that was done and any current safety concerns that they have; it's not intended to influence the actual decision. It's very similar to victim impact statements at the time of sentencing. You're Parliament, however, and if you want to change this, it's certainly within your purview to do so.

I would just say finally that if there is anyone who has not read the two parole board decisions or the full inquiry report, which is about 104 or 108 pages, I'd very happily email them to you. They're widely available.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have about 40 seconds.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I think Pam is back.

Pam, did you want to ask a question?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much. I'm sorry I had to pop away.

My question is for Ms. Campbell.

Do you feel that there has been a lot of misinformation put out during these...? I know you've watched it all, and I'm wondering what your comment is on it.

[Mary E. Campbell]

Unfortunately, yes: I feel that there has been a lot of misinformation put out. I'm rather old school, I guess; I'm very fact-based. I'm a researcher at heart, even though I'm a lawyer. I think that far too often we're hearing people's opinions. God bless you, you're all entitled to an opinion. I think there was an infamous statement from south of the border, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

Part of this, then, rests on the system, and we've always struggled with that: How do we do a better job of communicating just basic facts about the system to help people understand? We've done a handbook for judges and lawyers, a handbook for victims. We've.... We tried a TV show.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we're going to have to terminate both the facts and opinions at this point. “You are entitled to your opinion, you are just not entitled to your facts.” I thought that was Churchill, but that commentary certainly applied to President Trump. There's no question about that.

With that, I want to thank both witnesses, not only for your time here but for your patience with us and for your patience with the technology. Thank you for your—literally—lifetime of service. It's greatly appreciated by the committee and I think by the citizens of Canada.

With that, colleagues, the meeting is adjourned.