Public Safety Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece that is too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Members, your subcommittee met on Wednesday, December 6, 2023, to consider the business of the committee and agreed on a number of items. You all received by email last Friday, a copy of the sixth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Does the committee wish to adopt the report?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee will commence consideration of Bill C‐320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I would now like to welcome our witness today, the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Colin Carrie, member of Parliament for Oshawa.

Mr. Carrie, welcome. You have up to five minutes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank my colleagues of all parties for speaking in support of this bill at both first and second readings, as well as for voting unanimously in support of Bill C‐320 at second reading.

I also want to thank Lisa Freeman, the person who inspired this bill.

As stated before, this bill is intended to help families who are plunged into unfathomable situations, demoralized and retraumatized by the actions of the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada, institutions that say they are supportive of victims of crime. As an example of how victims are retraumatized due to a lack of information, allow me to tell you a little bit about Lisa's story.

Lisa's father was tragically bludgeoned to death by an axe murderer in 1991. It's also worth noting that this murderer was out on parole when this horrific crime took place. She was caught off guard when her father's killer was eligible for early parole only 20 years into his 25 years to life sentence. She believes, and I agree, that a lack of transparency regarding how parole dates and eligibility are determined causes the victims of crime to experience confusion, frustration, trauma and resentment towards our justice system.

It's the responsibility of the government to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity. This legislation makes a simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding the disclosure of information to victims that would provide such respect and dignity. It would require that information regarding the review and eligibility for all forms of parole be communicated in writing to the offender's victims, including an explanation of how the dates were determined for parole and explaining this process in an effort to be as transparent as possible. We can't argue with the logic of the bill.

Sadly, victims don't have any support compared to the support our government gives to criminals. A murderer's rights should never trump a victim's rights, yet they seem to every single time.

A sentence like life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years is meant to imply severity and punishment. This is simply not true. It is misleading to families, and it's also misleading to the public. Offenders serving a life sentence without parole for 25 years can be released on other forms of parole well before for personal development or temporary absences and community service work. What we are trying to correct with this bill is simply victims' access to this information as well as an explanation.

A recent update from Lisa Freeman exemplifies this. She said, “I was notified in July that: My father's killer's day parole was extended for 6 months and when it goes up again for renewal in January of 2024 and even if he doesn't request full parole, he can be automatically granted it at the same time. No hearing I can attend, and no opportunity for me to object...just an in-office, paper decision. Also, at the same time I was notified that the 'conditions on parole' that I have in place—no transfers to the province of Ontario, and parts of BC—can be lifted at any time his Case Management Team feels that he 'would benefit from attending courses in these areas'. What an outrage that the only comfort for me and my family from this axe murderer can be lifted at whim of his team. The system needs to be recalibrated. The rights of victims should be made equal to, or better than, the rights of the offenders.”

Here we have it colleagues. A killer can be released into a community where his victims live at the whim of his case management team. There is no need to explain to the victims how the decision was made and when the release will take place. I know you will agree that this is unconscionable.

Families that have suffered because of an offender's action don't deserve to be revictimized by the parole system. Victims of crime have enough to carry.

Under the guise of rehabilitation, victims of crime often have to stand back and watch while violent offenders exercise their rights, which, as most victims of crime find, are nothing more than a mockery of justice and basic common sense. Victims deserve better, colleagues. At the very least, they deserve accurate and timely explanations and information.

With that, I'm happy to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

Mr. Motz, I believe you're up first.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Carrie. I've never called you “Mr. Carrie” before, but I will in this setting.

Thank you for bringing this forward and for advocating on behalf of victims in our justice system.

I'll start my questions with you this morning.

Can you take a couple of minutes to give us a deeper dive into the inspiration behind this bill and provide some background? I know you talked about Ms. Freeman. This has been in the works for some time.

Can you give us some background on how this came about?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Motz.

It was a personal thing. My father knew Lisa's father. We attended the store he worked at. Lisa came to me and explained her trauma and retraumatization.

This bill is a simple bill. It's for transparency. Really, it's about the mental health of victims. When something like this happens, it's a forever trauma. Every time there's a change in sentencing, parole or anything to do with the offender, it brings this up again. I'd like to ask you to imagine this for a moment: You think the killer of your loved one has a life sentence, with no eligibility for parole for 25 years. Then, you find out that, after 20 years, he's given day parole and certain abilities. He's going to be released within 10 kilometres of your sister. Imagine that you're in this community. What might the likelihood be that you're at a grocery store or out in the community, and you run into the person who killed your father? When she talked to me about the trauma, the retraumatization and the lack of information and transparency, I felt we owed it to her and other victims to do better.

There are a lot of things I could talk about in terms of the parole system and how we could improve it. I think, if we went around the table, people would have suggestions. This bill is just a small change. It would allow victims of crime to be better prepared for changes occurring with regard to the perpetrators of these horrific crimes, so they can deal with them better.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you for that.

Obviously, that was the impetus behind doing this.

You consulted victim services groups, I understand.

Can you share with the committee the type of support this legislation received from the victim services organizations you may have been in contact with?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Yes, and I think committee members might have received a letter from Victims Services Durham Region. I've also heard from many families who have been victimized by some of the most horrific crimes out there. Maybe what I could do, Mr. Motz, is just read a little bit from that letter into the record. It says:

I'm writing on behalf of Victims Services of Durham Region to voice support for Bill C-320, an Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act....

Our agency has worked extensively with survivors and witnesses of violent crime, and their families, including those impacted by homicide. We have seen firsthand the indescribable effects of trauma and the triggering and re-traumatization to those impacted as they navigate years of involvement with the criminal justice system. At every intersection with the system they are reminded of the violence experienced and the irreparable harm done, no matter how much time has passed.

I could read through the whole thing, but it's basically about when victims should know. It says:

All changes to a sentence related to a loved one's death or their own victimization can re-traumatize. Conditional releases, pardons and transfers that impact offenders, also impact their victims.

I could read from the stakeholders. There's a letter I have from Daniel Silcox. I don't know if you remember this case, Mr. Motz, but his father, James Silcox, was the first victim of killer nurse Elizabeth Wettlaufer. She injected him with a lethal dose of insulin on August 12, 2007.

The news of that murder sent his family into extreme trauma and a downward spiral, and the offender was sentenced to eight life sentences, four seven-year sentences and two four-year sentences and was eventually sent to Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener-Waterloo. He is a registered victim relative to the crime. In October 2018, it came to his attention that the offender had been moved, but his calls to Victim Services of Kingston were met with indifference, and he was informed that, due to confidentiality reasons, her new location couldn't be disclosed.

Again, I could read through the whole thing, but he basically said that he strongly believes they have the right to know exactly where their father's killer is located and her movements and that they certainly should not only have the knowledge but also input into the parole proceedings when they take place. He complained about an extreme offender bias, and that's what I heard over and over again from victims' families.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much.

My time is extremely limited. I just want to make a statement, and hopefully you can get that out in the response a little bit further on. I couldn't agree with you more that more information is always better when it comes to helping people through trauma, and that disclosure to registered victims is woefully insufficient. Hopefully you can weave some of that response into that through some of the other questions.

I think my time is up, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Mr. Bittle, go ahead, please.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Carrie, for bringing forward this legislation. I think it coincidentally ties in well with what we've been discussing as a committee, given our previous study and hearing from victims and victims' friends of a notorious serial killer. It's good that someone has brought this forward and taken the initiative, so thank you so much. It's not often that we have unanimity on something, and it's good to see in the second reading that we have that here.

Just building on one of Mr. Motz's questions with respect to people consulted on this bill, you mentioned speaking with victims and victims' rights organizations.

Did you meet with anyone else beyond that, such as academics, parole board representatives, former employees or anyone like that? If so, could you let us know about those stakeholder meetings?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I did meet with mostly law enforcement and more or less victims' families.

Mr. Bittle, I want to thank you for your comments because very rarely do we get a bill in front of us that we do all agree to.

One of the things I considered when I was first researching the bill is what I could do, what I could put in, to make a difference in the system that would be significant for victims' families. One of the challenges we have, and I had this conversation earlier, is that when you want to make a change sometimes you want to make a big change. It could be arguable. When you talk to lawyers—I know you're a lawyer—but if you ask seven lawyers for opinions, you get 10 or 20 different opinions on it.

I really did try to narrowcast this bill, and through my discussions and conversations with people who were affected and also people in the field, the idea was to make a small change and hopefully, with a minority government, this is something that all of us can hang our hats on and say that we're making a very small change. I think it's 10 words that are added. It's not taking anything away, but it will make a huge difference in victims' lives in how they work with the system.

One of the things I'm hoping for as well with your questions today is perhaps that this bill will trigger more conversations, because if I go around the table there are probably some great ideas that we have right here on improvements we could make to the system. I think all of us have families, friends and loved ones who've found themselves in this situation. As Mr. Motz said, you'll never go wrong by being more transparent and giving more information to people.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I appreciate that, and it was one of the things we heard from the previous study, that the lack of information or information at the last minute was retraumatizing and particularly difficult. There's very little that I think we can do as a society for individuals who have suffered some of the most heinous crimes, or their family members who have been through the most heinous crimes, but we can take whatever steps that we can.

Information is something that should be easy to provide.

Did you have the opportunity to meet with or speak with the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime about your bill?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I did not.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Okay.

When appearing before our committee last month, the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime said victims need clear information that explains how they can register to be informed about an offender and their sentence and how to provide input for consideration before decisions are made.

I was wondering if you could speak to how Bill C-320 will provide greater clarity to victims about the crime and their role in the criminal justice system.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'm actually quite happy to hear that the ombudsman said that, because I do believe from their standpoint there's a realization that more needs to be done.

This bill, and if I can take the opportunity to read from the start of it, will make a big difference but it's not a lot.

The summary states:

This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that information that is disclosed to the victim of an offence regarding eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole must include an explanation of how the dates were determined.

In my opening, I mentioned the experience of Lisa Freeman, my constituent. She basically said, “How in heaven's name did they decide to allow this person to be released, but even be released into a neighbourhood close to my sister?”

As things progress, like victim impact statements, things along these lines, if the victims have some of that information, it allows them to at least prepare mentally for the day when they may be confronted.

Also with this bill, what's really important is that it's about giving victims the choice, because some victims are different from other victims. Some victims want to know a lot of information. Others don't want it. They just want to put it past them.

This really carves out a very small change that's going to make a big difference. I'm happy to see mostly unanimous consent for it, and hopefully it moves forward. Like I said, if there's any other dialogue that can be stimulated by the bill, I'm really open to that as well.

Thank you for that, Mr. Bittle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie and Mr. Bittle.

We'll welcome Mr. Perron to the committee.

Mr. Perron, you're up for six minutes.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for having me at committee.

Mr. Carrie, thank you for bringing this important bill forward.

I've been listening to you from the outset. Obviously, I'm not an expert on this issue; I'm filling in here. So you'll forgive me if I say things you've heard in other studies.

I'm very interested in the victims' trauma and the impact that can have. In your last answer, you mentioned giving victims a choice: Do they want to be notified? Would they prefer not to be? If I understand correctly, you have already looked into this.

Have any evaluations been done? Is it good for victims or not? Do they really base notification on the preference of the victim's family or the victim themselves?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

That's an excellent question.

I'm not aware that this has been studied in any detail. What I know, by talking to numerous victims and their families, is that it's unique to every individual. When I said earlier on that it seems the perpetrator's rights are put ahead of the victims' and the victims' families' rights, what I've heard from families is that with this unbelievable trauma, they see the perpetrator getting assistance through the correctional system, but they don't get it. It's not necessarily something that they have access to as well.

I can't even imagine what these families go through—and not just individually. When one person dies in such a horrific way, it definitely affects the central family. We've seen it with the whole neighbourhood. We've seen the interviews where people said, “I knew this guy and was really surprised by whatever is going on.” It's a psychological hit to the entire community and, sometimes with some of these more horrific ones, the entire country.

Everyone deals with these traumas in their own unique way. By allowing them to have a choice of when they're ready, whether it's a year from now or 15 or 20 years from now.... Lisa got more involved, even though it was 20 years later. In her mind, it was supposed to be a life sentence with no eligibility for parole for 25 years. The fact that it happened earlier...she was taken by surprise by the trauma and the uncertainty of the system.

To Mr. Bittle's comment about the ombudsman coming before you and realizing there are things that we are aware of that we need to do, we're learning more and more. These things don't go away. These are life-changing events, and how each and every victim and their family adapts to them is something we have to be very cognizant of and respect. We have to allow them as much transparency as possible and as much transparency as they're able to digest at that time.

Mr. Perron, you've brought up an extremely important issue. As I said, with this bill, I think we have good support around the table for it, but maybe it's going to bring up some other questions on how we can make improvements.

I thank you for your question.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Carrie.

I have another question for you. Your bill requires that the authorities notify the victims. Obviously, we agree on that.

Have you considered adding a minimum time frame so that victims don't find out at the last minute or after it's already been done? The way it's written is not entirely clear.

Can you tell me more about this? Does the legislation provide for a period during which the authorities must notify the victims before notifying the criminal in question? As you say, it's about reversing the priority in terms of law and privilege.

Between the two, who is better taken care of? Obviously, we all agree that more needs to be done for victims.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I agree with you 100%. We need to take care of the victims first.

The challenge with this bill.... Actually, when it started, it was a lot more encompassing, but then the decision had to be made: What was it that I thought we could all agree on? In a perfect world, in my view, we should give these victims the information ahead of time. My assumption, as well, is that, when you're dealing with a government service, it's going to be reasonable and timely in its disclosures and things like that.

However, even looking at a word like “advance” or “timely”, if you're a lawyer, what does that mean? Do you know what I mean? I could ask a lawyer what “timely” means. He might say, “within a day or two”. When I do talk to lawyers, they definitely say things like, “Well, it depends”. That argument really is beyond my scope. I'm a chiropractor by trade. I'm not a lawyer. I could play one on TV, I suppose, with my new goatee.

However, the reality is that these are the larger conversations. I know that Lisa, who inspired me on this bill, is hopeful that, if we can pass these small changes, it will make a big difference. It will also inspire us to maybe ask some more questions, simply, like you said, because I think Canadians would see it as reasonable that there's advance notice or a certain amount of time for people to be prepared in advance for some of this, especially if it's going to be so retraumatizing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Welcome, Mr. Garrison. You're up for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be back at the public safety committee. Some of you may know that I served here for, I think, seven years. I haven't been back for quite a while.

I want to thank Mr. Carrie for bringing forward this bill. I do want to point out that he's been working on this bill for quite a long time, and there are a few things that have happened in between.

In particular, the justice committee, where I now sit, conducted a very large study on the government's obligation to victims of crime, which was tabled in the House in December 2022, and it was concurred in by the House in June this year. That report has 13 recommendations on how to better serve victims, which were unanimously endorsed in committee and in the House of Commons. I think some of those larger questions you're talking about are addressed in that report.

I'm sure you've seen the report. As usual, our challenge is in getting action on those recommendations. I wonder if you have any comments on the issues that were addressed in that report regarding improving support to victims of crime.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

First of all, I'll correct you. I hadn't seen that report, but I should have seen it. It would be nice to see it. Maybe I'll talk to you about it afterwards.

You mentioned “getting action”. One of the things about this bill, Mr. Garrison, is that I think it's something we can get action on. I think it's something we can all agree on.

As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that words have particular meanings, and the words we have in this bill will give victims a little solace in ensuring they do get information so that they can actually prepare themselves, because it isn't something that's a stop-go thing. It continues for the victims and the victims' families. If we can make this one small change, it would be greatly appreciated by the victims' communities.

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

I think you're quite right in identifying that, while we may have differences on some larger issues, we do largely agree on what you're proposing in this bill. It's a good idea.

Recommendation four of the “Improving Support for Victims of Crime” report points out, though, that the way we operate with information to victims is still on request. Recommendation four in the report says that the key sections of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights should be amended so that information is automatically provided to victims and so that they can opt out if they don't wish to receive information.

What we heard then from victims was that quite often people don't have a good idea of when to make requests or what requests they can make. Therefore, the report recommends reversing that onus so that the system must notify victims, and if victims don't want to have that information, they can opt out. I wonder whether you took that into consideration when you were preparing this bill.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

No.

As you rightly pointed out, I've been working on this for quite some time. It would have been before that report. If you give me the opportunity to comment on that recommendation, I think that's an excellent recommendation. The work that you did in that committee to do a reverse onus would be extremely well received in the victims and victims' rights community.

I'll go back to when I first met Lisa. Victims don't know and families don't know what's available out there. They don't know what to do. They don't know how to stickhandle their way through the system. It's panic, when they hear of these changes.

Anything that would make it easier for information to be a channelled towards victims and their families, I think, is an excellent recommendation, so you have my full support for that recommendation, Mr. Garrison.