It started as one of the sweeping Covid-19 restrictions. In March, victims were unilaterally barred from attending parole board hearings. It was the decision of Liberal MP Bill Blair to do so despite its contravention the Victims Bill of Rights.
Then on April 29th Blair announced in the House of Commons that his government had since recognized the importance of the victims ability to participate, and that “the decision has been made” to allow them to be included in the video conferencing that had already been available to offenders and staff.
With the limited number of House sittings, it wasn’t until June that he was asked why he had told the public that victims would have the opportunity to participate in the hearings by video conferencing when in fact, they did not?
“When will the Minister finally give victims of crime the same rights to parole hearings via video conferencing as he gives convicted inmates?”
But the Minister had ducked out of the House of Commons beforehand leaving an ill informed colleague to field the question for him.
Still, no real answer was given.
Fast forward to the past week…
Lisa Freeman was just one of the names on a growing list of victims banned from attending these hearings. In her case, it was the parole hearing of her father’s murderer.
She, has since led the fight in an effort to prevent this suspension of established rights from becoming the new normal. But judging by her most recent correspondence with the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime it appears to be a losing battle.
The Ombudsman takes the stance of an apologist for Blair saying that, “We have also followed up on the statement made by Bill Blair in regards to the implementation of video conferencing. Essentially, this idea was being considered around the time this statement was made.”
To the Ombudsman, it wasn’t a lie. His words in the House of Commons were merely the result of a spit-balling session. Nothing a non-offender awaiting a hearing should have taken seriously.
The office goes on to state about the Parole Board, “they have found that teleconferencing has been working well for both the PBC and victims thus far, and will continue to rely on this method.”
(Teleconferencing in this case is fancy talk for listening in by phone.)
In other words, if its good enough for the Parole Board of Canada, its good enough for victims of crime – even ones like Mrs. Freeman who have gone to extraordinary measures to say its not good enough.
The letter concludes that, “given the circumstances, we believe it would best to cease communications with the Board at this time…”
It was a complete reversal of their stance in March.
Is it possible that the Ombudsman, Heidi Illingworth, believes her job as a civil servant depends on her compliance with the government despite the conflict with the mandate of her position? Is she gas-lighting victims to save her own job?
If the Ombudsman is advocating for Blair and the Parole Board who is advocating for victims of crime?
Whatever may be the case, if this is what the “new normal” looks like, its more bad news for the many Canadians marginalized by violent crime.
