This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
This bill was previously introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session.
Mark Warawa Conservative
Introduced as a private member’s bill.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends section 161 of the Criminal Code to require a court to consider making an order prohibiting certain offenders from being within two kilometres of a dwelling house where the victim is present without a parent or guardian and from being in a private vehicle with a person who is under the age of 16 years without the presence of the parent or guardian. It also amends subsection 732.1(2) (probation) to ensure that the offender abstains from communicating with any victim, witness or other person identified in a probation order, or refrains from going to any place specified in the order, except in accordance with certain conditions. It makes similar amendments to section 742.3 (conditional sentence orders) and subsection 810.1(3.02) (conditions of recognizance).
The enactment also amends section 133 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to add, as a compulsory condition of the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence of an offender, the condition that the offender abstain from communicating with any victim, witness or other person identified in the order, or refrain from going to any place specified in the order, except in accordance with specified conditions.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
There being no motions at report stage on the bill, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Some hon. members
Agreed
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the House today, on this side and the other side. I was quite impressed with the way that the justice committee seriously considered the benefits of Bill C-489, the safe at home bill. I started from the beginning with a willingness to have amendments to strengthen the bill. The committee participated in that, and there were some important amendments that were installed into the bill. Therefore, I want to thank everyone.
Initially, this came to my attention, as I shared with the House, from the story of a mother who came to my office saying her daughter had been sexually assaulted by the neighbour across the street. After six months in jail, the neighbour was able to serve the rest of his sentence at home. It was horrific to hear from witnesses, particularly the family of the victim, of the horrific experience of having an offender live right across the street from them. They eventually had to move out of that neighbourhood. They just could not take it anymore.
The bill is an important step to deal with this issue of the needs of victims to be able to heal. The courts would retain the important discretion to decide on an appropriate distance. The bill asks for two kilometres, or what the courts would deem as an appropriate distance. The other big improvement with Bill C-489 in our Criminal Code would be with the administrative bodies, Corrections Canada and the National Parole Board. They would then have to carry through with making sure that if the courts deemed a distance was needed, then the distance would need to be maintained throughout the sentence, including after sentencing, through section 810 of the Criminal Code if necessary.
We need to protect the victims and give them a chance to heal. That is what Bill C-489 does. The witnesses we heard at committee unanimously said it is a very good step.
Again, I want to thank the House. I would like to keep my comments short so that debate can collapse in this hour and we can move on to a vote as soon as possible.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
We do have a period of five minutes for questions and comments.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing I was not too late this morning, for I would have missed my chance to ask my colleague a question. I would first like to congratulate him on his bill and on all his efforts. It is always quite the achievement for any member to get the support of the House for his or her bill.
My question for the member is quite simple. It is important to give victims a voice in our justice system. However, this new bill would bring in additional changes, particularly concerning parole and courts of law.
Can my colleague tell us if the government fully understands what is needed in terms of justice and support for victims? Can we expect the government to commit to investing so that the justice system is more accessible to victims, particularly regarding delays?
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, as the member pointed to, it is important to make sure that victim services are being provided, and ensuring that falls under provincial jurisdiction. Our government is committed to a system that works to protect the rights of victims.
All too often, we have heard in testimony that it is the offender who has court-appointed representation. Then, there is the prosecution. However, the victims are left in the lurch with nobody to help them through the process. They often see themselves as observers to the process.
Therefore, this is a big first step in the right direction to providing protection for the victims. Victims need rights too. Hopefully, we can work as a Parliament to make sure that victims have rights provided to them and that they are no longer observers but participating in the system. Hopefully, the courts will hear their input, and that the impacts of sentencing on them would be considered.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is great to see a higher sense of co-operation and recognition of value and effort, as we saw the bill go through a certain proceeding that normally would have taken a bit longer.
I do have a question. When we talk about victims, all members of Parliament are concerned about the victims. However, as a general rule there is an area of restorative justice that government could move more toward wherever it can. I sat on a youth justice committee, and we found that when victims and perpetrators of a crime sit together there is a higher rate of resolving issues.
Although that would not have been possible in the crime cited by the member that precipitated the legislation, if he would not mind sharing it, I am interested in knowing the member's thoughts on the whole idea of restorative justice.
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, restorative justice is very important, when used appropriately. Both parties, the victim and the offender, have to be willing to participate. Also, the offender has to take full responsibility for his or her actions and be willing to be accountable for what he or she did.
In this case, when an offender has sexually assaulted a young girl for over two years and is then allowed to serve his sentence at home right across from the victim, it was a revictimization of that victim over and over again.
Could members imagine what it would be like to be the parent of a child who had been sexually assaulted and watching that child go through depression and all kinds of emotional anguish? Could they then imagine realizing that he or she had been sexually assaulted by the neighbour across the street and that the courts had allowed that sentencing to happen? Restorative justice does not work in that case.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill today.
I will be using the full 10 minutes that I have. It is not that I do not want to proceed to the vote, but I do believe that it is important to highlight my colleague's hard work. This proves to victims that we are here to listen to them and that all we want is to be able to help them get through those extremely difficult times.
All too often, a bill's shortcomings emerge only after a family finds itself in a certain situation. In the case of Bill C-489 introduced by my colleague, the shortcomings and problems related to the role of victims in the justice system will become known only after a particular case that will unfortunately reveal the work that still needs to be done and the steps that need to be taken to improve the legislation and enhance the role of victims in our justice system.
If I am not mistaken, the member who introduced Bill C-489 had the idea after meeting with families and people in his riding who went through extremely difficult situations. I commend him for wanting to change things.
I also commend him for listening to these families and making their voices heard in Parliament, because that is why we are here. Parliament is here to give a voice to the people who are too often silenced, people who are not necessarily heard or who feel no one is listening to them. I want to tell them they were very lucky to have elected a member who could speak up for them here. We are very pleased to be able to support his bill.
I would like to give a brief overview of the bill's provisions and the amendments that have been proposed. I think the amendments made the bill even better. There were a few gaps that we were able to address in committee. That is why we are here today and will support Bill C-489.
The bill amends both the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
I will refer to sections and subsections, but since I do not have their precise wording, I apologize in advance for speaking in vague terms. For example, section 161 deals with the prohibition order and conditions that may be imposed by a judge when someone is convicted. Subsection 732.1(2) addresses probation and section 742.3 concerns the conditional sentence order, commonly called house arrest. This can be thought of as an offender serving his or her sentence in the community. Finally, we have subsection 810.1(3.02), which deals with conditions of recognizance.
Since Parliament has not passed the bill yet, it is currently at the discretion of courts to issue one of these four orders. They have complete discretion as to whether to impose or not impose conditions.
Once Bill C-489 is passed and enacted, it will be mandatory to issue one of these orders, except in certain circumstances. Therefore we are still leaving some discretion to the courts and judges, but they will have the obligation to pay closer attention to this aspect and to issue one of these orders.
This provides the courts with some leeway to not impose this condition in exceptional circumstances.
Nonetheless, it is important to show that we want to fill the legislative gaps in order to protect victims and defend their rights without encroaching on the discretion of the courts. This is a good bill because it gives judges the room to justify their decisions. As legislators, we are telling them to take certain conditions into account, except in exceptional circumstances.
Bill C-489 amends the Criminal Code to that effect, and the second part of the bill amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in exactly the same way. It tells the courts to impose one of these conditions except in exceptional circumstances.
This bill amends the law and gives the courts and judges the discretion to impose certain conditions or not to do so in exceptional circumstances.
It is very important to mention that this bill came out of a number of situations, but one in particular, which received a lot of media attention. In that situation, a family had to live across the street from the person who assaulted their young daughter. They had to deal with this nightmare day after day. Implementing a mandatory distance measure is what this bill is all about.
When an offender is found guilty of a sexual offence involving a minor, the courts will be required to make an order prohibiting the offender from being within two kilometres of his victim. They will have the discretion to decide whether there are exceptional circumstances making it inappropriate to impose the condition.
I think this is a very important measure. That is why we are passing a bill that defends victims and prevents them from having to deal with extremely difficult situations. We are allowing them to cope with their ordeal in their community without any added stress on their daily lives.
I cannot speak from experience, but I can appreciate how stressful it must be for families who have to live so close their child's attacker. I do not have any children, but I can imagine how I would feel if I did.
This bill helps victims, defends their interests and gives them their rightful place in the justice system, all without unduly restricting the courts. That is what makes this such an excellent bill.
I would like to thank my colleague for bringing the voice of his constituents here to Parliament. However, there is a caveat. It is important that the government invest in our justice system so that victims are given their rightful place. For that to happen, we need funding, we need to lessen the burden and we need to respond to provincial requests.