The committee continued its study of Bill C-221, a private member's bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that victims receive an explanation of parole eligibility and review dates, hearing first from sponsor Dr. Colin Carrie and victim rights advocate Lisa Freeman, then from officials of the Parole Board of Canada, the Correctional Service of Canada and Public Safety Canada during clause-by-clause consideration.
Dr. Colin Carrie, appearing as an individual, recounted the 1990s murder of a Good Samaritan in Oshawa and the decades of retraumatization endured by the victim's family, arguing that the bill makes a small but critical change by forcing the Parole Board to explain the rationale behind decisions that seem irrational to the public. He said the bill has been introduced four times, passed unanimously more than once, and died with Bill C-320 when Parliament dissolved; he asked members to enact the ten-word change rather than wait another fourteen years, and noted that although Bill C-16 contained the same measures, they have not been brought into force.
Lisa Freeman, a victim rights advocate appearing as an individual, described her father's murder when she was in her early twenties and more than three decades of navigating the parole system, including a transfer she learned of only twenty-four hours after the fact, pandemic-era exclusion from in-person hearings, and a full parole hearing scheduled on her sister's birthday and the eve of the murder anniversary. She said she is the norm rather than the exception, that victims receive only "crumbs" of information, and that the onus should never fall on victims to ask, chase or beg; she endorsed a member's suggestion that notification be automatic with an opt-out, while cautioning that victims' readiness to receive information can change over time.
Monica Irfan, Acting Director General at the Parole Board of Canada, told the committee that the Board and Correctional Service Canada share responsibility for victim information, with CSC handling eligibility and release dates and the Board handling review dates. She said the Board has already revised its victim communications and guidance to regional officers to explain review dates more clearly and consistently, and that it has no feasibility concerns with the coming-into-force date proposed in the amendments.
Kirstan Gagnon, Assistant Commissioner at Correctional Service Canada, said the bill poses no implementation problem because the service already provides this information to victims through letters and calls, and that the change would simply enshrine existing practice in legislation. She noted that Bill C-16 contains about nine measures requiring policy and operational changes that will take time, and while she had no objection to the amendments, she wanted to ensure changed wording does not create inconsistency or confusion during implementation.
Suzanne Wallace-Capretta, Acting Director at Public Safety Canada's Crime Prevention Branch, testified by video that adopting the amendment requiring clauses 1 and 2 to come into force alongside subsections 190(4) and 194 of the Protecting Victims Act would create redundancy in the CCRA, since both bills do the same thing, potentially leading to inconsistent application or unpredictable court outcomes; she confirmed her advice came from legal counsel and that the department was aware of the coordinating amendments in Bill C-16. A member countered that subsections 204(4) and 204(6) of Bill C-16 deem the corresponding provisions of the other Act never to have come into force and repeal them if they commence on the same day, so the redundancy was foreseen; another member, who sat on the justice committee during Bill C-16, agreed there was no issue and supported the amendment.
Procedurally, clauses 1 and 2 carried without debate, and on clause 3 the committee considered two Conservative amendments moved by Mel Arnold: one replacing lines on page 2 to preserve the order-in-council treatment of unrelated Bill C-16 provisions, and a second adding a coming-into-force clause tying sections 1 and 2 to the commencement of subsections 190(4) and 194 of the Protecting Victims Act. After debate over the alleged redundancy, members indicated agreement and the committee proceeded to votes on the amendments.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.