Public Safety Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

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

Thank you.

This is just about two of those points.

Ms. Gagnon, you indicated that a letter goes out. Based on the concern with moving to “proactively”, how do you send out your letters? You're doing it proactively. You said you send them to everybody, unless a victim has already informed you that they don't want to be notified. How do you know they don't want to be notified until you send out a letter?

I don't understand then, how “proactively” can interfere with the process you have if you already sent out a letter unless you've been notified. It just codifies it, if you will. It ensures that it occurs because currently it doesn't say.

I understand that you want to be consistent with Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. I'm not sure that having this in the act would prevent or cause any conflict or incongruency with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

[Kirstan Gagnon]

The way I read the proposed bill, what it would do is provide additional explanation to victims who wish to receive it.

I know that sentence calculation can be incredibly technical, so the important thing is to make sure our people are trained to provide a trauma-informed approach and also to explain it in plain language.

How we come to those dates is a bit of a mathematical calculation. Right now, we do give the dates, but I understand this as providing a more thorough explanation of how we arrived at those dates as a more systematic practice, for those who wish to receive it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Mr. Garrison, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Having been the one who raised this question as a result of the justice committee report, I'm just going to say that I'm a little bit concerned about making an amendment to this bill on the fly. In the justice committee's report, we go back to the Victims Bill of Rights and sort of start at the crowning piece of legislation over victims rights and try to make consistent changes through it.

I do worry that if we simply change it in this bill, we will have contradictions written into the legislation, which could cause problems for victims. It will certainly cause problems for the public servants who have to interpret the legislation when it says one thing in one place and another thing in another place.

I am concerned that we probably need a bit more of a systematic look at how to do this, rather than just trying to amend this private member's bill today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Ms. O'Connell, go ahead, please.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

My concern is about making amendments on the fly without having the benefit of hearing testimony or studying it. Mr. Garrison rightly pointed out that it would then be inconsistent with an act that has had all of that work done, such as listening to victims services and the ombudsperson specifically to talk about this.

It's not that I'm opposed to proactive notification, but it's not for me to decide what's right for victims in terms of the way they receive information, what the most appropriate forum for them is or how we make the process better. I think that kind of top-down approach of telling people what is best for them is what has gotten us a little bit into this situation of forgetting the trauma-informed process that is needed.

That being said, Ms. Gagnon, I'm just curious. At the top, you were mentioning the information that is already sent out in the letter. You were speaking quickly because of the nature of this committee. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. Your interpretation of this bill is to just provide more details, as Mr. Carrie spoke about, of that calculation with a better plain language explanation.

Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes these decisions come as a result of, let's say, an offender's lawyer filing something in the courts to have a different calculation or to have a different ruling, and it's not just X, Y and Z and nothing ever changes within that formula.

Would there be that opportunity? How do you see the implementation of this act, notwithstanding this amendment, for that clarity around how these decisions are made? Even if at the time of sentencing it might be one thing, sometimes changes can happen over time.

[Kirstan Gagnon]

Currently, we would provide the information to the victims. In terms of sentence calculation, I don't know if my colleague wants to add anything on how that occurs, but right now, our victim services officers would go speak to sentence calculation and ask for more details for the victims, because some of them do want to further understand.

Sometimes the information doesn't come across the first time. It requires additional contact with the victim, or it requires a different mechanism to be able to make sure they have the information. Because of the trauma they experienced, sometimes it requires two or three contacts to be able to get into the details. We're happy to do that. It's more of a resourcing question, as you raised earlier, of additional contact time with victims, explaining and making sure our people continue to be trained and retrained for that trauma-informed approach and take the time they need to convey the information.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

That initial contact is done through a letter, but what we certainly heard at our last study—the classification study—is that a trauma-informed approach, frankly, can't be done through a letter.

In each case, where the victim or their family is at the time of the trial and sentencing versus years later into the sentence where changes might start to happen, that approach can't just.... In my opinion, and based on what we've heard, victims really want that contact with a human who can explain it to them in a way so they understand the system. Frankly, it is a case-by-case basis.

That's why, at its core, I do support this legislation, because any improvement to share that information...but it can't just be to send an additional letter. I would think it needs to have those additional resources.

In my last round of questioning, I brought up the numbers that Commissioner Kelly...and thank you to my team who scoured the blues. I think there are 40,000 contacts and 8,000 registered victims. Would this bill change anything? The big question we have is who those registered victims are and how they know to register. Even with this amendment, if it's a proactive reach-out, you would still have to know to register as a victim. Is that correct?

[Kirstan Gagnon]

Yes, and just to clarify, the first contact letter is for those who wish to come forward and register with us but haven't done so yet, or maybe we haven't processed the registration. It starts, “Further to our recent telephone conversation, here's all of the information that you're entitled to receive. This is how you can receive it. This is how you can sign up for our portal.” It explains everything from location to confidentiality to preferences, etc.

In what you're speaking to, I think Bill S-12 will help with that, because with the courts now being able to convey the victim information to us directly, that will help us ask them if they wish to receive our services. Part of the difficulty is often knowing where the victims are. Sometimes they go to court, and then we don't know how to find them. I think that will help in terms of conveying that information. Then if they don't wish to receive further contact up front, we'll be able to know that.

I think that will be helpful, because for us...and we've increased our outreach over the years, especially to marginalized groups and populations, to be able to make them aware of our services. However, if they don't come to us, we often can't find them.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for.... It is Bill S-12. I think I referred to Bill S-211 before, but that's what I was referring to.

In terms of the amendment then, again, notwithstanding the fact that it's inconsistent with another piece of legislation and some other work that the justice committee is doing.... In terms of resourcing, I would hate to see a reallocation of resources taken away from this trauma-informed approach to simply send more letters. Are we in a position yet to be able to provide that without taking away from that one-on-one, case-by-case contact?

[Kirstan Gagnon]

We would have more contact with victims, if this were to come into force the way it's worded.

If there's an amendment, I believe it would affect all of section 26, which I don't have in front of me. There could be other impacts to consider. It'll have training impacts, etc., for trauma-informed approaches. We do that regularly as we get new staff or with existing staff for any changes.

Sure, it will have some impacts, but we're currently doing it today. We're not turning victims away if they want the information.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

Those are all of my questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

I feel as if there has been somewhat of an explanation for my questions about this.

From the testimony we heard and the justice committee's review, I have a greater fear that victims would not be disclosed enough information and be very upset, than I have that they would get too much information. Although it is a possibility that they'll get information they don't want to receive, I think it's far more traumatizing when people feel they're forgotten and not even included in the process.

You spoke about Bill S-12 and how, very early on in the process, you wanted to make it so that people could tell you what information they want to receive.

Is that correct? Would you say there isn't a major threat that people will be disclosed information they don't want to receive, if such an amendment requires proactive disclosure?

[Katherine Cole, Director, Citizen Engagement, Correctional Service of Canada]

We have, in the past, sent victims information proactively that they did not ask for. This has raised issues in the past with victims—where they've asked us not to send this information.

As Ms. Gagnon said, we try to tailor the service to what the victims want. We have proactive discussions and share with the victims all of the information available to them in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) under subsection 26(1). Then, we identify what information they want, how they want it and when they want it. It's all tailored specifically to meet their needs.

A change to the legislation to proactively share that information would perhaps impact all those different paragraphs, which, presently, give the victim the choice of receiving it. If they don't want to receive it.... Some of it is quite detailed, like the correctional plan progress report, which provides a lot more information than some victims want to receive, including the sentence calculations.

Some of it is more information than they want and, perhaps, need to understand. Unpacking and understanding that information is a step beyond just receiving it.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Once a victim has requested they not receive the information.... Has there ever been a problem with sending people information they previously told you they did not want to request?

[Katherine Cole]

I'm not aware that we've ever done that. Usually, if a victim calls with questions, we can identify a means to provide that information. We will ask them if they want to receive it.

For example, if they have lots of questions about the offender's rehabilitation and participation in programs, we'll suggest they might want to proactively receive the correctional plan progress report, but we don't automatically send it based on previous feedback to the program.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

My next line of questioning may be my last.

It has been said that this is in contradiction to what's written in the Victims Bill of Rights, which says victims have a right that, “on request”, they can receive this information.

Does it contradict somebody's right to request something, if they have that thing proactively disclosed to them? Is that a contradiction of their right? Does it cancel out their right?

To me, it seems like a common-sense enhancement of their right. Even if they don't know they have that right, they're going to be provided that information. Then they'll have the right to opt out if they choose not to receive that information.

What are the potential pitfalls of adding an amendment like this, which isn't exactly in congruence with the Victims Bill of Rights? Is there really any risk? If there isn't a risk, I don't see a problem moving forward with this, but I want to get....

[Kirstan Gagnon]

Currently, out of respect for victims, when we make contact with them initially, we ask about this and respect their not wanting to receive the information. That's what we currently do. If they change their mind down the road, they can come back any time and ask us to provide information. Sometimes they're more ready at that point in time, or their situation has changed.

That's currently what we do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, but I have one more question. To clarify, you proactively reach out immediately, not with all the information, but as soon as someone is deemed a registered victim, you reach out to them to make them aware of their rights. Is that correct?

[Kirstan Gagnon]

That's correct.

There's an initial letter that goes out, and it's quite lengthy. It provides all of the things we do provide. In addition to that, the public safety department has a number of guides available for victims and resources, as does the Parole Board. We try to work all together so it's more streamlined for victims.

I'll add that in the new committee we struck in November to look at issues related to victims, we're looking at a whole range of topics. Any feedback we get from that will be used to make further enhancements as well to the program.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you for that clarification.

I think it's important to know there is a proactive outreach. If you're a victim, you're not sitting there wondering what your rights are or what information might exist. You have the choice of what you're ready to hear and what you want to receive, and you can at any time change that based on your needs.

I wanted to know that a pre-emptive outreach happened initially.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

We have Mr. Lloyd, please.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

One quick aside is that one of the reasons I put forward this amendment is the study we just came out with on security reclassification. I do know there's a distinction between parole and security reclassifications. However, we do know, from ATIP materials, that the families of the victims were not informed until the day the transfer took place. I think it was roundly agreed in this committee that this wasn't up to the level that Parliament expects in terms of disclosure to victims.

I do know this is somewhat of a distinct issue, but my amendment wants to ensure that victims are always disclosed the information that they have a right to receive in advance of any decisions or meetings taking place.

Thank you.