Bill C-489 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders)

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.

Criminal Code

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is never an easy thing to talk about a subject that concerns people who have been the victims of crimes such as violence or sexual assault. I can very clearly imagine the victims’ frame of mind.

Although the legislation permits a certain level of control over the accused or the person convicted of a crime, the restrictions with regard to the victim are not enforced immediately. At the moment, these restrictions are the responsibility of wardens, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, and the Parole Board of Canada.

Bill C-489 makes it mandatory to impose certain provisions, which until now have been imposed on an ad hoc basis. This should help the victims of crime feel safer while at the same time giving them the tools they need to know what is happening with their attacker once the sentence has been handed down. Unlike other measures that have resulted from the Conservatives’ “tough on crime” mentality, I must admit that the bill is just common sense and it should be allowed to continue its course. I will therefore support the bill at second reading.

That said, I recommend that the government hold all the necessary consultations—I repeat, all the necessary consultations—and listen to what all those involved have to say, in order to draft legislation that is truly appropriate.

I am in favour of the bill because I fully support measures that promote fairness and protect victims. I approve of this measure in the same way and in the same spirit as I would approve of subsidized housing, for example. It is a social justice issue. It goes without saying that some victims of crime have suffered immeasurably. My desire to help them arises not from sensationalism, but from the point of view of a world where everyone is treated fairly. From this perspective, it makes sense to try to offer greater peace of mind to those who have lived through difficult and disturbing events.

That being said, the NDP will consult with victims’ groups in order to find out whether Bill C-489 really responds to their needs or whether it will only apply in rare cases. We have an opportunity to listen to them and draft a bill that is based on fact. We must seize this opportunity at any cost, and work together with the citizens of this country.

In addition to listening to what victims of crime have to say, I would also like to ensure the bill is scrupulously constitutional. Bill C-489 has all the elements for success, but we know that there is a weakness in terms of clause 1, the clause amending subsection 161(1) of the Criminal Code.

This reservation comes from the clerk of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, who expressed concerns about the constitutionality of such a measure, one of his reasons being because the offender is expected to know the address of the victim’s residence. It should be noted that the committee nevertheless deemed the bill votable. It is surely not a shortcoming that is impossible to correct, and I am convinced that we will be able to clarify the matter before third reading.

In order to give the victims of crime the best protection we can, I think it is important to consider these few reservations. We have before us an opportunity to improve Bill C-489 and give Canadians a bill that lives up to their expectations.

Furthermore, it is interesting to mention the point of view of Michael Spratt, of the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario. In Mr. Spratt's view, Bill C-489 may be difficult to enforce in its current state, because it may lead to disproportionate measures.

This bill is quite restrictive because of the mandatory nature of the measures it puts in place.

In addition, there are already provisions that impose a minimum distance of 100 metres between the criminal and the victim, and others that prohibit contact between those on probation and their victims. We know that it is not always a simple matter to ensure this is respected.

Mr. Spratt concluded that Bill C-489 would be difficult to enforce in small communities, as well as in urban areas, as the distances are smaller. In his view, the fact that the bill could technically be used in an extreme way in the case of relatively minor offences threatens its constitutionality.

These are interesting issues that have been brought forward by someone who knows what he is talking about. We will therefore have to consider the bill in greater detail and ensure that everything is correct. After all, if the Conservatives are defending the constitutionality of an institution as antiquated as the Senate, surely they will not have any problem refining Bill C-489.

I will not go as far as to say, as Mr. Spratt did, that the bill is a disproportionate response to very specific cases, but this is my own opinion. I think that there is in fact room for providing better protection for victims of crime. For instance, the bill could allow victims to have more information about the stages in their attacker's correctional process.

It may well be very worrying for a victim to be unaware of what is happening to the person who caused him harm, once the sentence has been handed down. Will the offender be getting out of prison soon? What is his behaviour like? Has he begun the rehabilitation process? For a person who has suffered enormously from someone else’s actions, it may be reassuring to believe that it is possible to correct deviant behaviour.

Furthermore, this is the underlying principle of our correctional system. I am pleased to see that the Conservatives all believe that a person can change and correct his behaviour, as it partly opens the door to many options that the core of their “tough on crime” approach obsolete.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I support Bill C-489 at second reading because I believe we must help victims of crime for the simple reason that it is fair to do so. However, I urge the House to listen carefully to the recommendations made by those who are the most affected by considering the recommendations made by groups representing victims of crime.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-489, a bill that proposes to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I would like to begin by recognizing the member for Langley for his hard work in bringing this important bill forward.

I would like to start by commending the hard work done by the member for Langley to introduce this bill to the House.

Like others in the House, I am a relatively new member here. However, in the few years I have been the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, I have already encountered the very challenging situation on which this bill proposes to take action. I suspect I am not the only parliamentarian who has encountered these difficult situations.

When a victim who has been violently sexually assaulted learns that the criminal responsible seeks to return to the very same neighbourhood where these crimes were committed, serious challenges arise. Likewise, when a child predator desires to return to a neighbourhood, there are similar challenges.

These are not hypothetical situations. In fact, there have been three such incidents occurring in my riding over the past few years. These situations re-victimize and create legitimate fear. In some situations, it is even worse. No citizens should be forced to live in fear within their own neighbourhood.

When these situations arise and fearful citizens meet with their elected representatives, they need our help. They need action. That is why I commend the member for Langley, as his bill creates new tools that would help find the solution to these challenging situations.

This bill would enhance the safety of victims, children and the public when an offender is released into their community. Specifically, the bill proposes to amend existing provisions that provide authority to impose conditions on offenders who are already subject to probation orders, conditional sentences, child sexual offender prohibitions, child sexual offender peace bonds and conditional release orders made pursuant to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which include parole and temporary absences from federal penitentiaries. These five different orders cover the vast majority of situations where criminal offenders are released into a community.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-489 would ensure that courts take into consideration the implications that contact could create between an offender and victims, their families and witnesses. As an example, some of the proposed amendments would create mandatory non-contact conditions, while others would create new legal tools for the court to impose similar conditions on a discretionary basis.

Currently, section 161 of the Criminal Code does provide sentencing courts with the discretion to impose post-release conditions on offenders convicted of child sexual offences. These conditions can include prohibitions from attending a public place such as a park, playground or community centre where children are present; seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment that involves being in a position of trust toward a child; having any contact with a child; and using the Internet. In contrast, Bill C-489 proposes to add two new conditions to this list that would allow a geographical condition restricting the offender from being within two kilometres of a home where a victim might be present without a parent or guardian, and the ability to prohibit an offender from being in a private vehicle with a child.

Bill C-489 also proposes important amendments to the list of mandatory conditions imposed upon an offender released into the community under a probation order, a conditional sentence order or a conditional release order made pursuant to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

In particular, it is proposed that sentencing courts or the Parole Board of Canada be required to prohibit offenders from communicating with victims, witnesses or other persons named in the order. This could also include a prohibition from going to any specified place.

What I view as important in Bill C-489 is that these conditions are considered mandatory. In other words, it becomes the default standard that in these situations offenders are prohibited from making contact with their victims.

However, Bill C-489 also recognizes that if exceptional circumstances exist, the court or parole board may choose not to impose them. In other words, there is still flexibility. However, the default standard is to protect the witness and not the offender. In these exceptional circumstances, the court or parole board would be required to provide written reasons for not imposing such a condition. This would bring increased accountability and transparency to the process.

Bill C-489 also proposes to amend peace bonds, as defined under section 810.1. Currently, peace bonds are court-imposed orders that are issued when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual may commit a child sexual offence. These orders may be in effect to a maximum of two years and can also be renewed. Currently, these orders contain conditions that a judge believes are appropriate in the circumstances to prevent an offender from committing a child sexual offence.

Bill C-489 proposes to add new discretionary conditions that could prohibit communication with a person identified in the order or prohibit going to any specified place identified in the order. These new conditions would not be mandatory, and as such, would maintain the current discretionary approach that could be used by judges in issuing these orders. Ultimately, I believe that the measures proposed in the bill would help to ensure victims were better protected from offenders.

There is no question that Bill C-489 would strengthen the tools of our justice system that could be used to prevent offenders released into a community from contacting victims or from travelling to other locations where such contact could occur. In other words, it would eliminate loopholes that can be exploited under our current system.

These proposals would also ensure that, by default, victims had protections that often can only occur under the present system after an unfortunate incident has occurred.

Victims of crime, their families and witnesses deserve this default level of protection from offenders. People deserve to feel safe in their communities. That is why I will be supporting Bill C-489 moving forward to committee for further review and study. I believe these amendments are important in helping to close existing loopholes and to better protect victims.

I sincerely believe that these amendments are essential to improving the Criminal Code's current provisions and ensuring better protection for the victims of crime.

I also believe that increased clarity and enhanced public safety provisions in the bill would be of benefit to offenders' long-term interests as well. The current system, in my view, allows too much potential for conflict and has too many loopholes. These amendments would increase public safety by better protecting the rights of victims and their loved ones.

I had the opportunity to teach martial arts professionally for 15 years. During that time I trained hundreds, if not thousands, of young persons to better protect themselves from child predators, to look out for themselves. One of the things I did during that time was to give them the tools to help protect them.

Recently, a child asked me if I missed teaching martial arts. I certainly do miss elements, but I am devoted to helping make sure children get the protection they need.

The member for Langley has put together some very important amendments that I feel would help close these loopholes and better protect these children. There are also the members for Kootenay—Columbia and for Brampton—Springdale. All of them have brought forward important amendments to help protect children.

I ask all hon. members to join with me and with the member for Langley and support these important changes that would help keep our families safe.

The House resumed from May 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-54 on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. Last week, in the debate on Bill C-489, I spoke about the impact the proposed legislation could have on victim rights. Today I will speak about it again but in the context of Bill C-54, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act.

Bill C-54 would modify the legislative framework in the Criminal Code and National Defence Act that applies to trials that result in an alleged offender being deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The bill presents a timely and very important discussion on mental health issues, victim rights and public safety. It is clear, in the wake of several recent highly publicized cases, that we need to examine the current legal instruments to ensure that adequate protection is awarded to the public and that victims' needs, particularly in relation to psychological healing and safety, are being considered and given the utmost priority.

However, as with any discussion in the House, we must carefully weigh the balance between perspectives. Many mental health professionals have already voiced their concerns about the effect the bill will have on people with mental health issues. Those concerns are legitimate and deserve the chance to be explored in depth. This is a fragile issue for victims, families and communities, and we must be careful that we protect the interests of all Canadians in our deliberations. Bill C-54 proposes to amend the current legislative mental disorder regime by putting public safety first, creating a high-risk designation for certain offenders and enhancing victims' involvement in the justice process.

Obviously, as members of Parliament and legislative decision-makers, we need to place Canadian interests and security as paramount in all our evaluations and resolutions. From this perspective, the public-safety-first focus Bill C-54 proposes should be reflective of the majority of Canadian legislation, and we should welcome its relevance to the common good. However, this must be met with balance. The concerns of mental health professionals are that Bill C-54 might create mass panic, resulting in increased prejudice and decreased understanding of mental illness. We need to be cautious that we are not perpetuating an unwarranted stereotype that all people with mental illness have the potential for violence.

Furthermore, Bill C-54 proposes that some offenders deemed not criminally responsible may be categorized as high risk when the person has been involved in a serious injury offence and there is a considerable likelihood of further violence that would endanger the public. High-risk offenders should be subject to an increased amount of time between review board hearings. It would be 36 months instead of the 12 months it is currently. They would also have escorted community visits, and in some cases, community visits would be eliminated.

There is a concern that some defence attorneys may avoid seeking a mental illness defence because of the limits of this designation, limiting the treatment and resources available to their clients and potentially exposing their clients to harm in traditional detention facilities.

Bill C-54 also enhances victims' involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime. They would be notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. The bill would provide for non-communication orders between the accused and the victim and would ensure that the safety of the victim was paramount in the judicial decision-making process. This element of Bill C-54 could be particularly important for the healing process of victims and their families. It might be essential to the development of a safety response strategy.

Obviously, I have reservations about the proposals in the bill, but we must equally weigh the balance of arguments of any proposal that comes across the floor of the House. Specifically, in the discussion around Bill C-54, we need to be conscious of the fact that only a small number of cases are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, the rate of reoffending for an accused found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder is only 2.5% to 7.5% compared to a reoffending rate of 41% to 44% for federal offenders in the regular justice system. That being said, our focus in this debate must be public safety as well as justice and support for victims. We need to explore Bill C-54 in detail to ensure that it offers effective solutions for victims and adequate protection for the public. At the same time, we need to be respectful of the challenges that face people with mental health issues. We must keep the focus on prevention, treatment and support resources.

I will be supporting Bill C-54 so that it can be studied extensively. I am looking forward to the opportunity to hear from mental health professionals, legal professionals, victims' rights groups and the families of victims to ensure that we are making informed decisions that will be valuable to Canadians and will have their best interests at the core.

I would encourage my Conservative colleagues to not only listen to the professionals but to make the appropriate amendments needed to make this bill even better than its current state. I know that the Conservatives hesitate to add amendments, as we have seen over the last year or two, when 99% of the amendments introduced by my NDP colleagues have been rejected by the sitting government. I would encourage them to listen to the front-line workers and the people providing these services.

The Correctional Investigator, Howard Sapers, pointed out today in the media that he has some concerns. I am hoping that the Conservatives will listen to the concerns of not only government workers but of the people on the front lines so that we can further enhance this bill.

It is important to note that, in its current form, Bill C-54 would rest all financial obligations with the provinces. The federal government should ensure that adequate financial support is provided so that provinces have the financial capacity to carry out these responsibilities.

Bill C-54 presents an opportunity for us to review how underfunded mental health services are in Canada. In fact, recently I spoke to social service providers in my riding who have expressed their frustration in not being able to provide adequate mental health resources to their clients due to funding challenges. We must ensure that adequate funding is provided for mental health services, as their work is invaluable to prevention, treatment and advocacy for accused offenders deemed not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.

In closing, I hope the government will seriously consider the amendments proposed by the opposition parties as well as the advice and stories of mental health professionals, legal professionals, victims' families and rights groups. As policy-makers, we must be open to institutional changes that are productive and effective. We cannot present grandiose ideas with little to back them up. We must ensure that potential legislation we debate is critically explored and presents effective remedies for its intended focus.

Justice

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Langley, families have been forced to endure constant turmoil when the sex offender of their child was permitted to serve house arrest in their neighbourhood.

In one case, a sex offender served his sentence across the street from the young victim. In another case, it was right next door. This is why I introduced Bill C-489, the safe at home bill. This bill would prohibit child sex offenders from coming within two kilometres of their victim's home.

Will the Minister of Justice please inform the House as to the government's position on this important bill?

Criminal Code

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I would first like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Langley, on his initiative. We in the NDP understand that steps have been taken for both victims and witnesses. We understand where he is coming from on this. We know he met with people in his riding who went to see him to explain what a real problem this is.

As long as I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, along with my hon. colleague from Gatineau, we have seen a great deal of discussion and many bills on this matter. Quite frankly, having moved over to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights from the Standing Committee on Finance, we can understand much better and see the concrete impact this could have on victims.

The NDP has always been in favour of victim protection and we still are, which is why we are supporting the bill. We want to study it at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Why do we want to study it? We are seeing more and more private members' bills being used to advance the government's agenda. We are not the only ones to say so. It is being widely reported in the media. Why is the government doing that? That is what we want to know and we think it is worth looking into the process. Again, this is not about taking away from or attacking the member for Langley's bill, but about how the process is being used.

This bill addresses something rather important in that it would amend the Criminal Code and related legislation. In this case, we know that the Conservative government is being sued by Edgar Schmidt, who used to work at Justice Canada. He claims that the government was not obeying the law and not fulfilling its obligations to ensure that government bills are consistent with the charter.

What is more, with the Conservatives, the cost of justice is at a record high because the government has to defend its bills in court. We are talking about $5 billion. That is quite a bit of money just to get the government to fulfill its legal obligations.

Again, we want to know why a private members' bill is being used to introduce something that is already part of the government's law and order agenda.

The Minister of Justice has really pushed this agenda. It is not necessarily the government doing this. It is backbenchers who are introducing these bills.

To come back to Bill C-489, I want to say that it has good intentions in that it seeks to protect victims. The bill would ensure that a judge hearing a case is required to impose certain obligations. The judge would have to make an order prohibiting certain offenders from being within two kilometres of a dwelling house where the victim is present without a parent, say, the father. This is very important, as it was something that was raised by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

In his report it was mentioned that “...it might help a victim to feel more at ease if they were informed of a local instruction placed on the offender that prohibited him or her from going within a certain distance of the victim's residence.”

One thing that we will need to look at is how the two kilometres would apply. I heard the member of Parliament for Langley mention that he went from five kilometres to two kilometres. When we look at what happens specifically in certain regions, two kilometres basically means that the person would have to be evacuated from where he or she lived. This is something we need to look at in the justice committee.

Again, I applaud and commend the member for thinking of victims. On this side, we also understand that we need to protect victims and we will look at the bill in more detail in the justice committee.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I speak today about Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders). It is a privilege to speak on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North about this important bill. As my hon. colleague, the member for Gatineau, has pointed out in a previous speech, it is rare that we as MPs have the opportunity to discuss something that has a tangible outcome for our constituents. It is a privilege to be able to bring a Surrey North perspective to this debate.

The NDP has a solid history of advocating for survivors of violent crimes, particularly in reference to gendered violence and violence against children.

In my own riding, offenders who are released from detention have moved into neighbourhoods where constituents are worried for their safety and the safety of their families.

My predecessor NDP MP, Penny Priddy, along with other MPs from British Columbia, previously proposed measures to assist municipalities in the management of violent offenders. They have called for federal funding for communities that must pay extraordinary costs to monitor these offenders, to support mental health facilities and addiction services, and to provide appropriate housing for the reintegration process. Lack of funding has not prevented hard-working professionals from addressing this concern. We have seen from the federal side, over the last number of years, a downloading of a number of services to the provinces and, eventually, to the municipalities.

However, Surrey's crime reduction strategy has been heralded as the most comprehensive community-based initiative intended to reduce delinquency and re-offence. It builds community capacity to address crime while providing rehabilitation and reintegration assistance to the offenders.

Surrey's program has been particularly successful because of the extensive collaboration between law enforcement and correction services, non-profit organizations, the Surrey school board, the Surrey Board of Trade and other community organizations. I am also grateful for the professionals who work in rehabilitation and half-way house services, and I encourage a perspective of rehabilitation and social integration in our justice system.

The bill proposes restricting certain offenders from being within two kilometres of a house where a victim is present without a parent or a guardian, or from being in a vehicle with a person who is under the age of 16 years old without the presence of a parent or a guardian. It also would potentially prevent certain offenders from communicating with any victim, witness or any other person identified in a probation order, or from going anyplace specified in the order, except in accordance with specified conditions.

This is an important bill for violent crime survivors' rights, and it must be examined with the needs of survivors in mind. Along with my NDP colleagues, I am in favour of Bill C-489, as we are in favour of any proposal that would protect vulnerable members of our society.

Although well intentioned, the structure of the justice system often retraumatizes the very people it is trying to protect. It is well documented that witnesses and survivors, particularly of gendered crimes and cases involving children, are revictimized throughout the justice process, particularly when the victim must confront the alleged offender at trial.

Once the ordeal is over, survivors can begin their healing journey. However, imagine a survivor's shock when the offender returns to the neighbourhood. The retraumatization of having to see this person every day could undoubtedly lead to increased mental health issues and challenges to the healing of the survivor.

Although victims understand that offenders will eventually be released, it is imperative that they be informed of the release and the relocation.

Research has proven that knowledge about the offender and the rehabilitation of such can be incorporated into the psychological healing journey of the survivor. The knowledge that the offender is taking steps to address the reasons for his or her crime could be relieving to some survivors.

Furthermore, information on the offender's relocation is essential to the development of a safety plan and a general feeling of security.

However, as with any proposal that would affect Canadian lives, we need to ensure that the bill would offer suitable solutions.

The NDP proposes that there be extensive consultations with victim rights groups to ensure that Bill C-489 offers adequate and appropriate protection for survivors of violence. I am particularly interested in gaining the perspective of organizations in my community, such as the Surrey Women's Centre, The Centre for Child Development and Options Community Services. By talking to these front-line service providers, families and local enforcement agencies, we can gauge whether the bill, in its current form, would address the needs of the most vulnerable.

Throughout our discussions today, we need to be conscious of the fact that most crimes are unreported, particularly sexual assaults, and if they are reported, often survivor stories are not believed. Contrary to the “stranger danger” myth, the University of Toronto reports that in as many as 85% of sexual assault cases, the survivors know their attackers. As found by Calgary Communities Against Sexual Abuse, if children are the target of violence, in 75% of the cases they know the offender, who is usually a relative or family member.

Power imbalance between the victim and offender and even the victim and justice services, as well as societal reception of certain crimes, often averts survivors from reporting. This means that many survivors are forced to relive their trauma without closure, justice and adequate support services. If the offender is a close relative, friend or community member, the survivor may be forced to continue to see the offender on a regular basis, reliving the trauma first experienced and making him or her increasingly vulnerable to further violence.

Today we may not be able to change the lives of survivors of unreported crimes. However, through a debate in the House, we have the power to make a real change in the lives of those people who we can help. We need to do what we can here in the House to say that the retraumatization and revictimization of survivors of violence, particularly women, youth and children, is not okay. We need to protect survivors and empower them to continue their journey of healing.

I encourage my hon. colleagues in the House to reflect on these ideas while remaining conscious of the power we have in our positions as members of Parliament. We need to use this power to support survivors of violent crimes and continue to support tangible solutions for prevention, the justice system and protection of victims rights.

I encourage members of the justice committee to examine this bill further, to look at ways we can protect victims and provide services to victims of crime.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to rise today to speak in support of private member's Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders), introduced by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Langley.

I want to begin by congratulating the bill's sponsor for the work he has put into this very important piece of legislation. I believe it is entirely consistent with our government's commitment to making our streets and communities safer for Canadians and to better meeting the needs and concerns of victims.

The bill's objective is clear. It proposes to enhance the protection of victims and witnesses and to prevent their re-victimization when an offender is released into the community. It addresses concerns expressed by victims and witnesses across Canada that they should not have to feel threatened by the prospect of an offender watching them, following them, phoning them, or attempting to contact them in any way once they are released into the community. The bill meets this objective by targeting existing provisions that currently provide authority for conditions to be placed on offenders after they have been convicted of a criminal offence, or in some cases, if there is reason to believe that they will commit a child sexual offence.

Generally speaking, the purpose of these types of existing conditions is to ensure public safety and the successful reintegration of the offender into the community. They are imposed at various stages of the process, such as at sentencing; for child sexual offender prohibition orders, probation orders and conditional sentence orders; just prior to release from prison on parole or conditional release orders; and before someone is charged, but there is a reasonable belief that he or she may commit a child sexual offence while under a peace bond.

Statistics Canada data indicates that about 105,000 or more orders per year may be affected if Bill C-489 becomes law. Our government will be supporting the bill while proposing amendments to ensure clarity and consistency and to take into account recent Criminal Code amendments.

I would like to take a few moments to consider the first order Bill C-489 proposes to amend, section 161 of the Criminal Code prohibition order. Under this section, at the time of sentencing an individual convicted of a listed sexual offence against a child under the age of 16, the court must consider imposing listed prohibitions, such as not attending public parks, school yards and other places where children are often present. While the current provision makes it mandatory for the court to consider these conditions, the court retains the discretion not to impose the order. The prohibition order takes effect upon the offender's release into the community and can last up to the lifetime of the offender.

First, the bill would require the court to consider imposing a geographical condition restricting the offender from being within two kilometres of any dwelling house in which a victim could reasonably be expected to be present without a parent or guardian. Second, it would require a court to also consider prohibiting the offender from being in a private vehicle with any child under the age of 16 without a parent or guardian.

It is possible, however, that this two-kilometre limit may be challenging to implement, something I believe the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights should consider when it studies the bill.

I also agree that a child sexual offender should not have unsupervised access to a child. In fact, members will recall that the Safe Streets and Communities Act amended section 161 of the Criminal Code by adding two new conditions: prohibiting the offender from having any unsupervised contact with a child under age 16 and prohibiting the offender from having unsupervised use of the Internet.

The bill before us would also amend both the probation and conditional sentence provisions of the Criminal Code by prohibiting the offender from communicating with the victim, witnesses or any other person identified in the order or from going to any place specified in the order.

These proposed new conditions would be mandatory whenever a sentence included a probation or conditions sentence order, with two exceptions. First, the court could choose not to impose the condition if the identified person in the order consented. Second, the court could decide not to impose the condition where it found that exceptional circumstances existed. In the latter case, the court would be required to provide written reasons explaining this decision.

This proposed approach would provide the court with some flexibility, which I believe is needed. It is possible, however, that requiring written reasons for declining to make the order in exceptional circumstances may have some impact on the day-to-day operations of the courts. I am also aware that similar provisions exist elsewhere in the Criminal Code and instead require reasons to be stated on the record. This, too, is something I believe the justice committee will no doubt take into consideration and look at when it is studying the bill.

The bill also proposes to include similar conditions for section 810.1 of the Criminal Code, recognizing orders often referred to as peace bonds. These are imposed where it is reasonably feared that the defendant will commit one of the enumerated sexual offences against a child under the age of 16. The bill proposes to amend this provision to require the court to consider imposing a condition prohibiting any form of communication between the defendant and any individual named by the court, or prohibiting going to any specified place, unless the named individual consents or unless the court finds, as I mentioned, exceptional circumstances exist to permit such contact.

I agree that the court must consider these types of conditions, and I look forward to this proposal being reviewed in more detail at the committee to ensure that the provision will function as the sponsor of the bill has intended.

Finally, the bill would also provide the authority for imposing specific types of non-contact conditions under conditional release orders pursuant to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which includes parole orders, statutory release orders and orders for temporary absence from federal penitentiaries. Specifically, the bill proposes to amend section 133 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require the Parole Board of Canada or other releasing authority to impose conditions that prohibit contact with a witness, victim or other specified person, or from going to specific places unless there is consent or there are exceptional circumstances for not doing so. For the same reasons I have already mentioned, I do support the proposal in Bill C-489.

The sponsor of the bill, the member for Langley, has explained why he introduced the bill, namely because the safety and well-being of victims in his riding were not being taken into consideration. Indeed, if it is happening in his riding, we know it is happening in other parts of the country.

The victims were not being taken into consideration when decisions were being made regarding the release of offenders into his community. I agree that Bill C-489 responds to these concerns and would help to enable victims, their families, witnesses and other individuals to feel safe in their homes and in their communities when these offenders are released back into the community.

Moreover, the bill is consistent with our government's commitment to make Canada's streets and communities safer by holding violent criminals accountable and by increasing the efficiency of our justice system. It is also very consistent with our government's commitment to giving victims of crime a stronger voice, one that can be heard, listened to and given consideration in our criminal justice system.

We support Bill C-489. I look forward to other members of the House supporting it. We can study it further in committee.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enumerate some of the goals of the justice system, because it is important that we place legislation dealing with criminal offences and so on within the context of the principles that guide the justice system. We could say that the point of the justice system is, first, to reinforce acceptable norms of behaviour; second, to protect society from those who have proven that their actions can cause harm; and third, to ensure that only the guilty pay for their crimes and that the innocent are not convicted. These seem to be, in general, the overriding goals of our justice system, a system that has evolved slowly but surely over centuries.

It turns out that because the justice system is focusing on these three principles, often the interests of victims are ignored, albeit unintentionally. Bill C-489 would attempt to provide some assistance to victims.

Bill C-489 would deal mostly with sexual offences, though not exclusively, as I understand it. Sexual offences create a unique kind of vulnerability among the victims. They are a unique kind of violation compared to, for example, car theft or house break-ins when individuals are not at home. Both of those crimes create a terrible sense of vulnerability as well, but we are talking here of sexual offences and the particular sense of vulnerability they create.

I agree with the hon. member that the interests of victims of sexual crimes have often been overlooked in our criminal justice system. Liberals support the intent of Bill C-489. We are not certain that the bill would bring about meaningful progress in all cases for victims or prospective victims of sexual crimes. I say “prospective” victims, because the bill would also deal with recognizance orders, where an individual has not committed a criminal act but poses a threat to another person.

We support sending the bill to committee to ascertain its merits in attaining a goal that, obviously, we all share in this House.

I understand that the bill is motivated by the MP for Langley's particular experience with some victims in his riding. In fact, the member stated:

[A] sex offender...was permitted to serve House arrest right next door to his young victim. In another case, the sex offender served House arrest across the street from the victim. In both cases, the young victims lived in fear and were re-victimized every time they saw their attacker.

Obviously, that situation, which the hon. member for Langley described, leaves all members in disbelief and with a view that something should be done.

Bill C-489 would introduce two prohibitions through amendments to two laws. Number one, it would amend the Criminal Code, and number two, it would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

In terms of Criminal Code changes, as I understand it, the bill would deal with subsection 161(1) of the Criminal Code, which allows conditions to be placed on offenders who receive conditional discharges for sexual offences. This discharge is sometimes granted in cases where the offence carries no minimum sentence and a maximum possible sentence of less than 14 years. In this case, as I understand it, the accused would not have a criminal record if all of the conditions imposed as part of the conditional discharge were respected.

Bill C-489 seeks to add to the list of conditions that may be imposed by a judge. This is a very specific list, and as I understand it, the judge cannot impose conditions beyond this list. It is important that a specific point be made in adding this condition, because it is not something the judge could impose if he or she saw fit. We are talking about the condition that an offender must be no closer than two kilometres from the house where he or she knows or ought to know that the victim is alone. Similarly, another condition would be that the offender would not be allowed to be in a private vehicle with any person under the age of 16 without his or her guardians' consent.

It is important to note that the list of possible conditions in this instance is finite. There is no flexibility here for the judge to impose other conditions beyond those listed. Therefore, this is the only place where adding conditions might make sense, since it gives the sentencing judge the ability to prohibit the offender from living near the victim. As I said, it is important to specify the condition, because there is no latitude for the judge to impose it.

In the bill there is also a restriction on contacting victims. I am not sure if it pertains to those who have committed sexual offences. The bill extends the list of conditions the court must, or shall, prescribe for offenders on probation.

At the moment, section 732.1 of the code has two sets of conditions. One set is conditions the judge shall impose. The second set is conditions the judge may impose.

In this case, the bill would add a new “shall” condition. The court would have to impose this condition on an offender, for example, who is on probation or is under a conditional sentence. If it chose not to impose the condition, the court would have to explain, in writing, why it was not choosing to add this condition.

We understand the intent of this part of the bill. What I would say is that, at the moment, the list of possible conditions for probation orders and conditional sentences both include “such other reasonable conditions as the court considers desirable.” In other words, in this case, the judge has the latitude to impose conditions that are not specifically prescribed on a list. Presumably, the court could already order offenders not to have contact with their victims or not to visit certain places, if it saw fit to do so.

The point I am trying to make is that unlike the first amendment, about staying within two kilometres of where the victim would be residing, in this case, we have to ask ourselves if this particular amendment to the Criminal Code is necessary, given that the court already has the latitude to impose this condition.

I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this bill forward. I know that he is attempting to address a very serious flaw in our criminal justice system. I look forward to discussing and studying the bill at committee so that we can see and understand the extent to which the bill achieves its stated goals.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-489, introduced by the hon. member for Langley. This important bill certainly addresses a number of problems that many people have raised, including the ombudsman for victims.

The New Democratic Party does not play political games with bills amending the Criminal Code. We feel it is better to address serious issues and solve serious problems in a logical way that is consistent with the Criminal Code.

Since I like to get straight to the point, I will say to the member opposite that we are going to support his bill at second reading. We believe that everyone in the House should be concerned about victims, not for a political purpose, but because we really want to help them on the path to recovery—if there is such a path, because it is not always clear. Some horrible crimes cause such terrible harm that, regardless of what we can do to mitigate things, regardless of anything we can do, it will never go away.

To follow up on the question I asked my colleague about Bill C-489, I think the study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will help us see if the bill can pass the charter compatibility test. When the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business was studying the bill, the clerk said that it was not clearly unconstitutional, but that it could be susceptible to a constitutional challenge. That sends a message. The committee will determine if this passes the compatibility test.

When she asked her excellent question, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue clearly said that, for a number of reasons, it might be difficult to apply Bill C-489 in some cases. For one thing, it would prevent someone from moving to an area near the victim. That implies that the criminal serving a sentence would know where the victim lives, which seems problematic to me. Something about that bothers me.

However, as I told my colleagues when we were studying Bill C-489 before recommending that it be supported at second reading, I appreciate that some discretion was left to the courts. The committee will also have to verify whether the courts will be able to fully exercise their discretion.

This discretion should not be seen as some undefined power. The public sometimes sees it as being soft on criminals, to the detriment of victims. Here, it simply means that judges will look at the facts of each individual case.

In some circumstances, it may be difficult to set certain conditions. For example, it may be more difficult in a town than in a city, where the offender could live 5, 6 or 7 kilometres away.

I appreciate how my colleague from Langley crafted his bill. He did not strip the courts of all discretionary power, as the government opposite so often does. That approach jeopardizes bills, even those that the Conservative government passes, because there is a large black cloud hovering over their heads, and it leads defence lawyers to challenge certain provisions.

We cannot allow this legal game to even get started. We need to make it clear that the facts will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the best sentence will be applied in each situation, once the person is found guilty. The judge is in the best position to do that, or the jury in certain circumstances.

That is why this bill is so important. We have been saying that all along, despite what is being said at press conferences. I am tired of hearing it, particularly from the Minister of Justice. In my opinion, he should rise above the fray. The justice minister and Attorney General of Canada is not simply a political partisan, he is the keeper of Canadian laws. In that context, I feel that always bringing the debate back to “we're tough on crime, they're soft on crime” demeans his public office. It is a question of respect for the law.

All the NDP justice critics have taken this position. I would have liked to name them, but since I am not allowed to do so, I will just say that I am talking about the hon. member for St. John's East and his predecessor. I can never remember the riding names. What matters is that I remember the name of my own riding.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his Bill C-489.

I would just like to ask him a quick question. I understand that the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business studied the bill and deemed it votable, which is why we are now considering it in the House. However, the clerk stated that clause 1 of the bill, amending subsection 161(1) of the Criminal Code, could pose problems. He pointed out that although this clause was not clearly unconstitutional, it could still face a constitutional challenge.

I would therefore ask my hon. colleague whether he consulted with constitutional experts—other than the law clerks who help us draft bills—to ensure that the bill was indeed constitutional.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

moved that Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon for seconding this motion.

I am honoured to stand here and speak on my new Bill C-489, which is also called the “safe at home bill”. I do so on behalf of my constituents in Langley and other young victims who have lived in fear of their offenders. I am in awe of their bravery and courage to fight for the rights of future victims.

In my riding of Langley, two brave families lived in constant turmoil when the sex offenders of their children were permitted to serve house arrest in their neighbourhoods. In one case, the sex offender served a sentence right across the street from the victim, and in the other case, right next door. That is outrageous.

Neither child felt safe in their home or their neighbourhood, which is the very place where they should feel the safest. Their doors were locked and the blinds were kept closed. Every time they saw the sex offender the entire family was re-victimized. The families lived in continual turmoil as they watched the offenders possibly looking for an opportunity to reoffend or hurt somebody else. Their homes in the neighbourhoods that they had loved were now places they dreaded because their attackers were there. One family could not take the stress any more, which forced them to move out of the neighbourhood they had spent so many years loving.

One mother came to my office and asked me, “Why should we have to move from our home when we are the victims?” That is a good question. Everyone should have the right to feel safe in their home, and victims of sexual assault should be no exception.

This is why I brought forward Bill C-489, which I believe meets these important concerns head-on. If passed, the bill would help to ensure the safety of victims and witnesses from convicted offenders. It would enhance the level of confidence that victims have in the justice system as well as help them feel that the justice system is hearing and responding to their concerns. The bill would achieve these objectives by proposing a number of amendments to the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Bill C-489 would prevent offenders, when released from prison, from contacting victims or witnesses. Specifically, the bill proposes that when an offender is convicted of a child sexual offence, the sentencing court would be required to consider imposing a specific geographic restriction of two kilometres from any dwelling in which the offender knows or ought to know that a victim may be present as well as a condition prohibiting the offender from being alone in any private vehicle with a child under the age of 16. Efforts to prevent contact between offenders and their victims should serve to increase public safety and victims' confidence in the sentencing process.

The bill would also require courts to impose conditions in all probation orders and conditional sentencing orders prohibiting an offender from communicating with any victim or witness, or from going to any place identified in the order. Although these conditions would be mandatory, the court could decide not to impose them if the victim or witness consented or if the court found exceptional circumstances, in which case written reasons would be required to explain the findings. I believe this would enhance public safety and confidence in the justice system by helping to ensure that victims and witnesses would not be contacted by offenders upon their release into the community except in exceptional circumstances or where the individual consents.

The bill also proposes to amend recognizance or peace bonds against individuals when there is a reasonable fear that they may commit a future child sex offence.

Specifically, the bill proposes to amend Section 810.1, peace bonds, to require a court to consider imposing conditions prohibiting the defendant from contacting any individual or going to any place named in the recognizance. As with the proposed probation and conditional sentence order amendments, the court could choose not to impose the conditions in the peace bond where there is consent of the individual or where the court finds exceptional circumstances. This amendment would also lead to enhanced public safety for victims and witnesses.

Lastly, Bill C-489 proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or the CCRA, to require decision-makers under that act to consider similar conditions. I would like to consider this amendment a bit more fully.

Currently under the CCRA, Parole Board of Canada tribunals and correctional officials are authorized to impose conditions on an offender when the individual is being released into the community under parole, stat release or temporary absence orders. This type of gradual and supervised conditional release into the community prior to the expiration of sentence is intended to help ensure public safety and successful reintegration of the offender into society. This is especially true where the offender has been imprisoned for many years and will have difficulty re-entering society without a carefully planned and monitored release strategy that includes tailored conditions and specialized programs that the offender must abide by at all times.

According to the 2012 Conditional Services of Canada annual report, there are currently about 22,000 offenders under the authority of the federal corrections system. About two-thirds of these offenders were convicted of a violent or sexual offence. About 38%, almost 9,000 offenders, are at any given time under active supervision in the community by corrections officers. All 9,000 of those offenders are required to abide by a mix of mandatory and discretionary conditions imposed by the authority of the CCRA. If offenders breach their conditions, they are subject to disciplinary measures, including having their conditional release revoked and being required to serve out the remainder of their sentence in prison. As the CCRA is currently structured, Section 133 provides the authority of the Parole Board of Canada, for example, to impose at its discretion any type of condition that meets the two objectives of conditional release. The first and primary consideration is public safety.

The second consideration is the successful reintegration of the offender into the community. Section 133 also references the regulations of the CCRA regarding mandatory conditions of release. Under this legislative authority, Section 161 of the regulations prescribes a number of specific conditions that must be imposed for all offenders in the community under conditional release, such as reporting as required to their parole officer, not possessing any weapons and reporting any changes in their address or employment, among other things.

While it is not uncommon for the Parole Board of Canada under the current regime to exercise its discretion to impose conditions prohibiting contact between offenders and victims when released, the point is that these are not mandatory conditions nor are these conditions that the Parole Board of Canada is required to consider under the current Section 133. I spoke earlier about the two cases in my riding of Langley where the victims and their families felt that their welfare had not been taken into account when these decisions were made by the Parole Board of Canada.

One of the objectives of Bill C-489 is to respond to these types of concerns. It proposes new mandatory conditions prohibiting the offender from communicating with any identified victims or witnesses and from going to a place identified in the condition. This objective is entirely consistent with the government's initiatives that have provided a greater emphasis on safer communities in general and victims in particular.

As with the bill's other proposed amendments, the releasing authority would not have to impose the condition if there were exceptional circumstances or if the identified individual consented. These two exceptions would ensure that the provision is flexible enough to accommodate the types of circumstances that would undoubtedly occur in practice.

Where the releasing authority does find that exceptional circumstances do exist, reasons for making that finding must be provided in writing explaining how it came to that conclusion. I believe this requirement would ensure that victims and witnesses better understand the Parole Board's decisions.

I expect that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will want to fully consider this bill and its operational impacts to ensure that it operates as intended and that its objectives are fully achieved.

Public confidence in our justice system is important. It pains me to hear from victims of crime that they have to speak out to say that they have been forgotten and that the justice system does not consider how sentencing affects them. This is a gap that Bill C-489 seeks to address and I believe it hits the mark.

I hope by tabling this bill that this House and this government will act to enhance public safety by holding criminals accountable, by enhancing the voice of the victims and by making victims feel safe in their homes and neighbourhoods. I ask for support from the hon. members in the House in helping to get the bill passed into law so that young victims and their families can feel safe at home and in their neighbourhoods.

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for introducing Bill C-479, which the NDP will support at second reading. I must admit that we will support it without much reservation.

Not only does the bill talk about helping victims, but, in practical terms, it will achieve the desired effect. Sometimes in the House, we hear grand speeches, great oratorical rhetoric from the government benches. It gives the public the impression that the government is doing something, when in fact it is not. It does a little bit here and there, but does not necessarily achieve what we are looking for.

That cannot be said about this bill. Of course, we have to take a good look at it, because I rarely write a blank cheque, especially not when it comes to the Conservative government's bills. I would like for us to study the bills in committee, go over them in greater detail, and ensure that we come back to the House at third reading with bills that make sense.

We think it is safe to say that the bill is legal and consistent with the charter and the Constitution. Regardless of the political side of the matter, it achieves the desired effect and even if it does not achieve the desired political effect, it makes sense.

The bill finally truly addresses the issue of victims. Anyone who has practised law and who has been inside Canada's courthouses from coast to coast has noticed some very specific things, above and beyond the money that the justice system costs and the financial burden that many victims face.

According to the government, Bill C-37, with regard to the surcharge, will solve almost all of victims' financial problems. However, when we dig a little deeper, we realize that, once again, this is only a drop in the bucket when it comes to what victims need. What do victims tell us on a regular basis? What does the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime tell us? What recommendations did she make at the time?

In her 2010 report, among others, she recommended that the federal government shift the burden of responsibility to provide information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act from victims to the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.

The member opposite's bill addresses part of that recommendation. It responds to the recommendation to give victims the right to attend National Parole Board hearings through the use of available technologies such as video conferencing.

It also responds to the recommendation to take into account the needs of victims when it comes to the timing, frequency and scheduling of parole hearings. However, these are not the only things that the ombudsman asked the federal government to do.

The Minister of Justice is on a tour of Canada to try to talk to victims. I thought that he had done this quite awhile ago and that he had a good idea of victims' needs. I can give him some suggestions that could be included in a possible charter.

Clearly, this type of bill could set out fundamental principles that show the respect that Canadians and the Government of Canada have for victims' needs, including during court cases and trials.

The problems are not limited to parole. They are sometimes related to the trials themselves, which can often seem to go on forever. We can implement all the measures we like under Bill C-479, Bill C-489 or any other bill, but if we do not resolve the problems related to accessing justice and awaiting trial, then victims will remain victims for a long time yet.

Not only are they victimized during sentencing and at parole hearings, for instance, but they are also victimized in the very process of reaching a verdict. This is a fundamental problem.

Often they are not even fully aware of what is going on. Sentences are negotiated between Crown attorneys and defence lawyers. Victims—who may have been summoned three, four, five or even 10 times during some exceptionally long trials—could find themselves back at square one. On top of that, they are told they have to appear before the parole board, which also takes time, and they are asked to stand in front of the person who victimized them. Thus, they are victimized all over again.

With government bills, whether they come from the back benches, the government itself or the Senate, a piecemeal approach is often taken, when a comprehensive approach is required. It always breaks my heart a little, because I have so much respect for our justice system. I also have a very hard time seeing how the public perceives its judicial system. Yes, it definitely has some flaws, but we are trying to correct them. Basically, every time we correct just one little thing, we open up a new Pandora's box and create imbalances. That is the problem.

In the context of Bill C-479, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask my colleague to clarify these changes, like the one to revisit parole reviews for offenders serving a sentence of less than two years.

We need to keep in mind that these are vile offences, as he said. When it comes to violent offences, some victims and their families may prefer not to attend parole hearings. Some victims, for example rape victims, should not be called to appear at all, not even through videoconference. Some of them need to completely close themselves off from that part of their lives. We need to be very respectful of that, while giving those who want to speak the opportunity to do so, since that is what some people need. They want to face their aggressor. For them, it is a way to get over the events of their past.

There is so much we can do to support victims if we really want to and if we go beyond talking. I believe that words revictimize these people, because words seem to promise solutions to their problems. In the end, however, five or 10 years later, they will realize that nothing has changed.

As for the surcharges suggested in the bill, they are peanuts. They will only add a few tens of millions of dollars to our coffers. Let us look at the numbers. I did not come up with them; Senator Boisvenu did. He enjoys showing up everywhere to remind us of these numbers, and rightly so.

In 2003 alone, crime cost $70 billion. Victims assumed 70% of the cost of crime, or $47 billion.

Professor Irvin Waller appeared before the committee when we were studying Bill C-37, which the government bragged about at length as the solution, the way to do the right thing for victims. The government set aside about $16 million in the budget for victims.

Professor Waller said that it did not mean much. The government should work with the provinces and fund a study on the remaining gaps between services and needs. All these things have been recommended. All the government has to do is decide to act.

I think victims deserve a little more respect from their government. The government should move from words to action. It should do more than just pretend and hold press conferences for the fun of it. We need to try to find lasting solutions that get to the heart of the issue of justice system accessibility, first and foremost. We need to ensure that trials take place much more quickly than they are now.

Some provinces, including Alberta, think the answer is more judges. Let us make that happen. We need to, if we believe in a system of justice, law and order that works and that respects victims.

I thank my colleague opposite for his bill. The NDP will study it carefully in committee, and we will be proud to support it at second reading.

[Michel Bédard, Committee Researcher]

Bill C-489 would amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act respecting prohibition orders. It would prevent the offender from knowingly being within two kilometres of the residence of the victim. It would also make amendments to the provisions respecting probation orders, conditional sentencing, peace bonds, and parole provisions with respect to the offender communicating with the victim or being in a specified place.

The bill is clearly within federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to be clearly unconstitutional. There might be some amendments that could be made to the bill, but there is nothing that is clearly unconstitutional. There is no similar bill on the order paper, either a private member's bill or a government bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

This is meeting number eight of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Today we're dealing with one issue, to determine the status of non-votable items pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1). It's Bill C-489. It has been circulated.

I'll turn it over to the analyst.