Bill C-466 and Why the Liberals are Poised to Vote Against Disclosure for Victims

You likely won’t read about it in the news. There is no traditional controversy to be reported. It is a simple and reasonable change suggested in the form of a private members bill introduced by Conservative MP Lisa Raitt that would add a single line to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

It would make it so a registered victim of a crime could be told why an offender was getting out of prison before completion of their sentence.

Yes – murderers and rapists get out of jail early in Canada. It is common practice but not common knowledge to those who haven’t been directly affected by a serious crime. And, for those who have, it comes as a shock that creates the inescapable feeling that they’ve been deceived.

To make matters worse, no reason is offered for the decision.

The news reports on a judge’s determination, but seldom if ever, returns with a new headline when the expectation of that initial decree is not met. Violent criminals can be on the streets years before what the public was once told in the media.

And for the families of the victims no explanation is offered.

Bill C-466 does not seek to limit or remove the ability that Correctional Service of Canada has to override a judge’s words.

It would only make it so they would when they do they would have to give the victim the reason why they are doing so.

So why are the Liberals poised to vote against it?

The reason MP Karen McCrimmon gave at the first debate for the bill, in short, was that victims of crime already have enough information available. She said the Liberal strategy is to “prevent victims.”

It was as if she was speaking of eradicating a disease. I can only assume she meant that crime was the disease, not victims, though it was hard to tell.

She seemed to suggest that the Liberal policy of “inclusive, diverse and culturally adapted crime prevention projects right across Canada” would end violent crime all together, and therefore, negate the need to act on the request at hand.

She pointed to Bill C-83 – a bill is almost entirely designed to beef up the rights of federal inmates – as evidence of her party’s effort to “strengthen victims roles in the criminal justice system.”

That bill opens the door for alternatives to solitary confinement, promises less invasive cavity searches, paves the way for safe injection sites in prisons, and offers a slew of other comforts and special considerations to offenders.

Did she confuse the offender with the non-offender? Does she recognize the difference between the two? Or is she simply resting her laurels on that Bill C-83 included a single amendment to improve victims’ access to audio recordings of parole hearings?

Was she given the wrong talking points or was the conflation an intentional effort to deceive?

Not the only Liberal that seemed to mock the notion of victim’s rights

Chris Bittle and Kevin Lamoureux also signaled the importance of such issues, but joined in pointing to Bill C-83 as an example of their party’s success and dedication to victim’s rights in Canada.

Bittle went as far as to boldly proclaim that he was, “proud to stand behind a government that takes this issue seriously.”

It would have been laughable if it didn’t reveal such a disturbing and willful disconnect that demoralizes the everyday Canadians who have already faced such difficult circumstances.

What adds to the perplexity is that they claim to be in consultation with the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. Is the ombudsman aware that their office is being used as a type of cover to rationalize denying victims a greater transparency in these circumstances?

In the end, perhaps ironically, none of them gave a tangible reason why, but the Liberals undoubtedly signaled that they will use their majority to vote against the bill.

In contrast, MP Matthew Dubé, the only member of the NDP to speak on the matter that day, stated he would be supporting the motion to better inform victims.

He went on to state, “I urge the government to take this opportunity to ensure that we’re doing everything we can so that victims have their place in the process.”

Origins of the bill

Lisa Freeman’s father was brutally murdered when she was 21 years old. The murderer was was sentenced to “life” in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years.

In 2011, Lisa and her family were informed that the killer was granted a form of parole in spite of it being a full four years before his eligibility date. Correctional Services Canada would not give her any reason why her father’s killer was being given this leniency.

Since then Lisa has become an outspoken advocate for the rights of the non-offender and has fought to shine a light on what she refers to as the illusion of justice in Canada.

MP Colin Carrie, Lisa’s own member of parliament in Oshawa and supporter of the bill, read her statement into the record:

“Families such as mine are plunged unasked into unfathomable situations, and then further demoralized and re-traumatized by the actions of a government: i.e, the Parole Board of Canada, Correctional Services Canada, institutions that say they are supportive of victims of crime, which is, at best, an illusion.

“After dealing with Corrections since 2011, when I questioned why my father’s killer was granted multiple day passes a full four years before his parole eligibility date, I quickly tired of the scripted lip service and virtue signalling of the Correctional Service of Canada, which purportedly assists victims but in reality does the opposite.

“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, is nothing more than a mockery of justice and basic common sense. It was a quick realization on my part that any access to rights by the offender was in fact taking away from my rights, which has been proven time and time again.

“It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that victims of crime are treated with dignity and respect and to provide timely and accurate information in a transparent manner. With this legislation, it will avoid providing a sense of false comfort. Families like mine and indeed families coast to coast who find themselves trying to navigate the system at what is already a very trying time deserve more—and for the very least they deserve accurate information.”

How you can help support the bill…

Victim’s rights issues like these are often downplayed or omitted entirely in the mainstream media. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get this type of information out to Canadians who it might need to see it.

If you know someone who this might interest, please, show them.

And please take the time to send a quick message to your Member of Parliament asking them to support Bill C-466 to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

To find your MP click on this sentence and enter your postal code. Another click on their name or picture will give you their e-mail address.

Written letters can be sent postage-free to any Member of Parliament at the following address:

‘Name of Member of Parliament’
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

For any questions, comments, or suggestions you can email me at mollymatterscanada@gmail.com