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.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Exactly.

In clause 1, the first change in this amendment would add the words “or any other distance specified” of the victim “or of any other place specified” immediately after the words “two kilometres” in proposed paragraph 161(1)(a.1) of clause 1.

This amendment would still require courts to consider the geographical restriction of two kilometres, but would allow the courts to impose greater or lesser geographic restriction where it is reasonable to do so. For instance, it may be inappropriate to impose a two kilometre prohibition where an offender lives in a small town. Such a restriction would effectively prohibit offenders in such cases from returning to their homes. In other cases a greater geographic restriction than two kilometres may be appropriate. Now this somewhat addresses the concern of one of our witnesses, who I think was on track.

The second proposed change to this condition would amend proposed paragraph 161(1)(a.1) of clause 1 to delete the reference to the requirements that the offender knew or ought to have known that the victim is or could reasonably be expected to be present unless a parent or guardian is also present.

That's troublesome from an enforcement point of view and from an informational point of view. As introduced, this part of clause 1 would make the enforcement difficult, because it does not provide the offender with a realistic ability in many cases to comply with the condition. Alleged breaches would be difficult to prosecute, and it does not provide sufficient certainty to ensure the victim will be protected by the conditions.

The second new condition that Bill C-489 proposes to add to section 161 is prohibiting the offender from being in a private vehicle with a child under 16 years of age without the parent or guardian.

In essence, the government proposes to delete this, given that paragraph 161(1)(c) of the Criminal Code—which recently came into force in August 2010 with Bill C-10—already addressed this issue to prohibit any unsupervised acts with a child under 16 years of age. It's already addressed, so it's not necessary.

[Susan O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-489, which seeks to further protect child victims of sexual offences and to help ensure that victims are not re-traumatized through unwanted contact with their offender.

I would like to begin by providing you with a brief overview of our office's mandate. As you may know, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created in 2007 to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this through our mandate by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims, by promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crimes, by providing information and referrals, by promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime, by raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy-makers about the needs and concerns of victims, and by identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact victims. The office helps victims in two main ways: individually and collectively. We help victims individually, by speaking with them every day, answering their questions, and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively, by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, and programs to better support victims of crime.

I would like to begin my comments today on Bill C-489 by saying I support the intent of the bill and commend Mr. Warawa for his efforts to further recognize victims of crime within the Canadian system. This bill has two components that I will speak to today: the addition of further conditions under section 161 prohibition orders for offenders who have committed sexual crimes against children under the age of 16, and reducing or eliminating unwanted contact between victims and the offenders who harmed them.

With respect to the first section of the bill, I certainly support measures to protect child victims and the intent of this modification. There are, however, two areas I would like to flag for consideration. The first is the wording of bill, in that it prohibits offenders from coming within two kilometres of the dwelling of their victim in cases where a parent, guardian, or other person who has lawful care or charge of that person is not home. Clearly, the intent here is to protect the victim, both in terms of his or her safety and from further trauma. In reading various transcripts and debates of this bill, I have heard Mr. Warawa recount a story from his own riding of a family who felt constantly re-traumatized, knowing that the offender who harmed their child was living close by. It is important to note in these cases that it's not only the person directly attacked or harmed who suffers from the trauma of seeing or expecting to potentially see the offender, but often family members and other loved ones suffer. With that in mind, I would suggest that while the intent of this clause is to be commended, it could perhaps be made to go further to protect victims, by stating that offenders shall not be within two kilometres of the dwelling, period, regardless of the whereabouts of the parents or guardians.

We have had several similar cases at the office, including cases not related to children, where the proximity of an offender was a very serious source of anxiety, discomfort, and recurring trauma for a victim. In this fiscal year alone, since April we have had 10 cases of victims who have had concerns regarding the proximity of the offender who had harmed them, and of their own personal safety. Though I realize it may be outside the scope of the potential amendments of this bill, I would like to provide for the committee's consideration the point that many victims, not only those under the age of 16, could benefit from this clause and that it should be applied more broadly.

In addition, I would also like to raise for consideration that in a scenario where an offender is advised not to be within two kilometres of a victim's dwelling, especially where the offender has no prior knowledge of the victim's address or residence, he or she is going to have to be advised, to some degree, of where the victim lives. This point is not a minor one. While I absolutely support the intent, there are details contained here that provide for how an offender will be advised of which areas to avoid, and to what degree the victim's privacy and location can or will be protected. As such, it will be imperative that in the implementation and further elaboration of these changes, strict procedural safeguards be put in place to ensure protection of victims' privacy, especially in cases where an offender had no prior knowledge of the victim's address or residence.

The second part of this bill, which tries to eliminate unwanted and potentially traumatic contact between victims and the offender who harmed them, does an important job that is often lacking in our justice system: proactively considering and responding to victims' needs. While this condition could have been imposed previously, putting the onus on the releasing authority to consider the victims is, in my view, an important step forward. What is also important about this point is that it gives some judicial flexibility to allow contact where it may be desired: we cannot make assumptions on the behalf of victims. In reality, we know that the majority of crime is not carried out by strangers. According to the Department of Justice's multi-site survey of victim service agencies, using a one-day snapshot in 2006, 61% of sexual assault victims were a family member or former intimate partner of the offender. For violent offences, 80% of the victims were a family member or former intimate partner of the offender.

Furthermore, according to the survey, Canadians have a greater chance of being harmed by someone in their own family than by a stranger. Of homicides solved in 2009, 33.6% of victims were killed by a family member. With respect to contact with an offender, according to the Canadian Families and Corrections Network, roughly 30% of registered victims chose to stay in contact with the offender who harmed them. This is especially true when the offender is a family member.

When one looks at victimization with an understanding that it often occurs within a family context, the importance of providing some flexibility for restorative opportunities is key. What is unclear at this stage is what process would be in place for securing victims' consent for communication and whether that consent could be revocable at any time.

I would suggest that there must be a clear administrative process in place for victims to provide consent for communication and for victims to be able to revoke their consent at any time.

On this point, in reading the debates, I can see there have been some concerns about whether it is onerous to have judges provide in writing the reasons why they did not impose restrictions on the contact between the offender and the victim witness. In the case of judges, the option of reading their statement into the record does not unnecessarily limit the victims from obtaining this information, as court transcripts are available.

However, as you are aware, judges are not the only releasing authorities. In the case of an offender being released on parole on an unescorted temporary absence, or UTA, where the Parole Board of Canada has the authority, anything not provided in writing will not be discloseable to the victim, thereby reducing or restricting the information that victims have access to about the offender who harmed them and their own personal safety.

In the case of institutional heads as the releasing authority, no information is ever disclosed to victims except for the final decision, once rendered. This is a larger issue that my office is looking at. However, in respect of this bill, I believe that the institutional heads, otherwise known as wardens, should also be required to disclose to victims, in writing, the reasons for not imposing a non-communication order or geographic restrictions.

Victims should have the right and ability to know when these conditions have not been imposed and the reasons why in order to better understand how their safety has been considered and the risks they may face, including contact with the offender.

Finally, I have a couple of suggestions for amendments that relate to more technical issues with the bill. The first pertains to the absence of long-term supervision orders in the list of circumstances in which non-communication orders must be imposed. Long-term supervision orders apply to cases of sexually-based offences, including those against children. They are a special order imposed to allow for some supervision for up to 10 years following a warrant expiry of an offender who is deemed feared to reoffend.

Given the intent of this bill, I bring this forward for your consideration as an amendment to include long-term supervision orders within the bill going forward.

The second point relates to the clause that prohibits offenders from having any direct or indirect communication with any victim witness or other persons identified in the order, unless the victims consent to communication, or refrain from going to any place specified in the order.

In this scenario, because of the use of “or”, as long as the offender complies with one part, he or she would not necessarily be legally bound to comply with the other condition. I think it might be more effective to strike the “or” and replace it with an “and”, allowing for circumstances where both non-communication orders and geographic restrictions have been applied.

In summary, I support the passage of Bill C-489 and would encourage the members to consider the points that I have raised today in making some minor but important amendments to the bill.

I would like to close by emphasizing the critical importance of ensuring that victims' privacy and safety be a priority when the practical realities of implementing these clauses come to pass. We must absolutely ensure that in implementing these new measures the appropriate procedural safeguards are in place and that victims are considered and protected.

Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call to order meeting number 4 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. According to the orders of the day, pursuant to the orders of reference of Wednesday, October 16, 2013, we are considering Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders).

As you see by the agenda, we have a couple of witnesses for the first hour, and then it's been indicated to me by a couple of parties here at the table that they'd be happy to go to clause by clause for the second hour. Then hopefully we will have some time at the end to discuss the future business of the committee.

Without further ado, I'd like to welcome our witnesses. From the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Susan O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman, is here. And from the Criminal Lawyers' Association, we have Michael Spratt, member and defence counsel.

We'll go as the order indicates on our agenda. We'll have Ms. O'Sullivan start for 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

If I understand correctly, adding new obligatory conditions does, according to you, constitute a punishment as defined in paragraph 11(h) of the Canadian charter.

I have a question on the scope of Bill C-489. Does it also apply to young offenders?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you for the question.

I believe this is within the charter. The importance of allowing the courts to consider each situation and the sentencing to be on the merits of that situation would be maintained. The courts have the discretion to make the ultimate decision of appropriate sentencing. The change with Bill C-489 is that the courts would have to consider the impact on the victims because, at this point, they're not required to. That's the major change. After the courts have made those sentences, those administrative bodies would have to again consider the impact on the victims.

I think your question was whether it would withstand a charter challenge. Every piece of legislation, particularly within the justice committee, has to be looked at through that lens. This has been looked at by the experts, and I believe it's very much in line with the charter and would withstand a charter challenge if necessary.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, and the scenario you share is probably a very likely scenario. Two years less a day will be managed by the provinces. It's not federal time. For provincial governments there's consideration for the cost of incarceration and administration. The easiest way is to allow the offender to serve their sentence at home under the condition that they do not contact their victim, that they don't see them, don't phone them, don't e-mail them, that they have no contact with them. Maybe this is the reason this happened.

To have house arrest and to permit this re-victimization hasn't, I don't think, in the past been seriously considered, maybe not considered at all. The major change in Bill C-489 is that they would now be required to. Whether it's the federal parole board, the Parole Board of Canada.... If it's two years or more, it's federal; if it's two years less a day, then it's provincial, as you know. All administrative bodies would be guided by this change. It would be in the Criminal Code of Canada. They would have to consider the impacts of the sentencing on the victim and the victim's family.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

At this point in our justice system, the offender would have a lawyer, a legal counsel appointed to them, to defend them through the process. What about the victim? We have a defence lawyer appointed to protect the rights of the offender. We have a prosecuting lawyer, and we have the court system to make the judgment. What about the victim? Does the victim have any opportunity for counsel, for input? No, they don't.

With this new structure, Bill C-489 would require that the courts and the administrative bodies consider the victim. What would happen administratively is that they would be required to consider this. I think it would work itself out that they would contact the victim to say what it is they're considering and would the victim be okay with that. The victim, or the guardian or parent, if the victim is a minor, would then give their consent as to whether they could live with that.

There could be a sentencing and administrative process that works for everyone, but the consideration of the safety and well-being of the victim has to be paramount. I believe it's a good balance.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, and that's another very good question. Thank you.

When I first started working on Bill C-489 about two years ago, shortly after meeting one of the families, I came up with the distance of five kilometres. As we started drafting the bill, I found that was much too large in a normal circumstance, so it was scaled back to two kilometres. Then, as you point out, in some smaller communities two kilometres may be way too restrictive and totally impractical.

I've seen a suggested amendment to the bill that the committee will be dealing with, which is that it be two kilometres or a distance deemed appropriate by the courts. It gives the courts the discretion. They look at it. In some cases five kilometres may be deemed more appropriate by the court, or it may be much less, depending on the size of the community. Each situation is unique. The courts would maintain their discretion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm here to speak to my bill, Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders), also known as the safe at home bill, to outline the needs this bill seeks to meet, and how it hopes to meet those needs.

I present this bill on behalf of my constituents in beautiful Langley and the thousands of young victims in Canada who've lived in anguish and fear of their offenders. I'm inspired by the victims' bravery and their courage to fight for the rights and protection of possible future victims.

The objective of Bill C-489 is fully in line with the desire of Canadians to keep our streets safe and to consider the rights of victims. I'm confident that all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will fully consider this bill and its operational impacts to ensure that it will function as intended and that its objectives will be fully achieved.

Bill C-489 came about as a result of victims and their families in my riding of Langley. You probably heard me share this story during the House of Commons debate, but I'll share it again. One of the brave victims' families has offered to let their story be used to help us better understand the seriousness of the problem and to better equip this Parliament to adopt needed legislative changes.

In Langley families have lived with stress and turmoil when the sex offender of their child was permitted to serve a conditional sentence, house arrest, in their neighbourhood. In one case the sex offender served his sentence right across the street from the young victim, and in the other case, right next door to the victim.

The victim of a sexual assault cannot feel safe in their home or their neighbourhood, the very place where they should feel the safest, when their offender is permitted to serve a sentence right beside them or across the street from them. Every time they saw the sex offender, not just the victim but the entire family was re-victimized. These families lived in anguish, and relived the assault, not knowing if the offender was watching them, looking for an opportunity to reoffend or possibly hurt somebody else.

We can't imagine how a parent can deal with regularly seeing the person who assaulted their child. They drive home to see the offender cutting the lawn or enjoying life by having a cold drink right across the street. How would that feel? The home and the neighbourhood they once loved was now the place they dreaded to be because their attacker was there. One family could not take the stress and turmoil that this caused anymore. They felt forced to move to a new neighbourhood. One mother asked me, “Why should we have to move from our home when we're the victims?” That's a good question, colleagues.

Everyone should have the right to feel safe in their own home. Victims of sexual assault are no exception. Victims believe that they have been forgotten and that their safety and well-being are not being considered when offenders are being sentenced. That's why Bill C-489 seeks to address this problem.

Mr. Chair, the circumstances in my riding are not isolated events. Statistics Canada last year reported that there were nearly 4,000 cases of sexual assault against children. That report also found that children were five times more likely to be sexually assaulted than adults. This is true for all types of sexual assault as well as other sexual offences. Children are among the most vulnerable members of our society and it's our role to advocate for justice on their behalf.

Sadly, in instances of sexual assault the safety of a young child is often compromised by someone from their community. In 2011 Statistics Canada found that of the police-reported sexual offences against children and youth, 50% were perpetuated by a friend or an acquaintance, and 38% by a family member. These statistics highlight the sad fact that about 88% of sexual assaults against children and youth are committed by someone known to the victim prior to the offence.

In these cases, not only is the victim suffering emotional and physical consequences, but also they feel betrayed; their trust has been betrayed. We cannot imagine the turmoil that these young children and youth and their families are experiencing.

It's no wonder that when an offender is permitted to serve a conditional release in the victim’s neighbourhood, the victim and their family will be re-victimized every time they see the offender.

One of the strengths of C-489 is that it requires the courts to consider a geographic restriction on the offender.

I have received overwhelming support across Canada on this bill.

The issue of our justice system is not that the courts do not have the authority to order non-contact restrictions on the offender. The current law already provides the courts with the authority and the discretion to require conditions, such as a child sex-offender prohibition order, a probation order, a conditional sentence order, a child sex-offender peace bond, or part of a conditional release order pursuant to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. These options already exist.

Even where such non-contact conditions are currently imposed, the need in our justice system is that the courts are not required to consider imposing such conditions. Furthermore, the courts are not required to provide reasons for not imposing these conditions. As a result, non-contact conditions may simply fall through the cracks and victims and their families are left wondering why their protection and well-being was not taken into account.

The aim of C-489 is clear: to ensure well-being and safety for victims, their families, and witnesses from convicted offenders, and to enhance the level of confidence that victims have in our justice system. This bill would help to ensure that victims feel that their concerns for safety are being heard and considered. It would achieve this objective by requiring that whenever an offender is convicted of a child sex offence, the sentencing courts must consider imposing specific restrictions on the offenders to protect the victim, the victim’s family, and the witness. They must consider it. They would not be required to impose this, but they would be required to consider this as an option. These measures would ensure greater safety and peace of mind so that the victim would not be re-victimized by seeing their offender.

More specifically, C-489 would amend section 161 of the Criminal Code to require the courts to consider restricting the offender from being within two kilometres of the victim’s dwelling house, as well as imposing conditions to prohibit the offender from being alone in any private vehicle with a child under the age of 16.

Because of Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, current provisions in the Criminal Code already prohibit the offender from contacting any person under 16 years of age. I am agreeable to removing proposed paragraph 161(1)(a.2) because it’s no longer needed.

The bill would also amend sections 732.1 and 742.3 to require the courts to impose restrictions on probation or conditional sentences to prohibit 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 would be given discretion to decide not to impose them if the victim or witness consents, or if the court finds exceptional circumstances. In either case, written reasons would be required to explain that finding and the reasons. They would be shared in a written report.

Bill C-489 also proposes to amend recognizances or peace bonds against individuals who are reasonably feared to commit a future child sexual offence. Specifically, it proposes to amend section 810.1, peace bonds, to require a court to consider imposing conditions prohibiting the offender from contacting any individual or going to any place named in the recognizance. Here again the courts would have the discretion not to impose these conditions where there is consent from the victim, or where there are exceptional circumstances.

Colleagues, last, Bill C-489 proposes to amend section 133 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require decision-makers under that act to consider similar conditions.

Currently under the CCRA, Parole Board of Canada tribunals and corrections officials are authorized to impose conditions on an offender when they are being released into the community under parole, statutory release, or temporary absence orders. As with the bill’s other proposed amendments, the releasing authority does not have to impose the condition if there are exceptional circumstances, or if the victim consents. These two exceptions ensure that the provision is flexible enough to accommodate the types of circumstances that will undoubtedly occur in practice.

Where the releasing authority does find that exceptional circumstances 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 the victims, their families, and witnesses better understand the Parole Board’s decisions.

Mr. Chair, there is no question that Bill C-489 would increase public confidence in our justice system by strengthening the tools of our courts to consider the safety and security of victims and their families. It would accomplish this by amending the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to prevent released offenders from contacting victims. or from being near the victim’s home.

I hope the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will act to enhance public safety by holding offenders accountable, by considering the impact of sentencing on victims and their families, making victims feel safe in their homes and their neighbourhoods. I ask for the support of all honourable members seated here in reviewing this bill and getting it passed into law as soon as possible so that young victims and their families will feel safe at home.

As I’ve said before, I am open to amendments. If you have any questions on the amendments, I'd be open to answer them. I've already talked to a number of you and there are some tweaks that have to be made to the bill. I am open to those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting to order. We're at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting 3.

According to the orders of the day, we're dealing with Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders).

In our first hour we'll have the mover of this bill, Mark Warawa, the MP for Langley. Then we will go in camera for the second hour to deal with the individuals here to speak to this particular issue.

Mr. Warawa, welcome to the committee, and thank you for coming here to defend your bill. The floor is yours.

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-479, An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders.

To begin, I would like to point out that this bill proposes measures for victims, among others. The bill extends mandatory review periods for parole. If an offender is denied parole, the Parole Board of Canada would then be obligated to review the case within five years rather than the current two years.

The bill gives the Parole Board of Canada up to five years to review parole following the cancellation or termination of parole for someone who, for example, is sent back to prison following bad behaviour. The bill also emphasizes that the Parole Board of Canada must take into consideration the needs of victims and their families to attend hearings and witness the proceedings.

Furthermore, it also requires that the Parole Board of Canada consider any victim impact statement presented by victims, as well as provide the victim, if requested, with information about the offender's release on parole, statutory release or temporary absence.

It also proposes that victims be given information pertaining to the offender’s correctional plan, including information regarding the offender’s progress towards meeting the objectives of the plan.

First, I would like to talk about the weakness of the Conservatives' approach in general, since they chose to address this issue using a piecemeal approach. They did so by mentioning victims' rights in a number of small private members' bills, such as Bill C-479, which is before us today, and Bill C-489.

In my opinion, we need to take a much more comprehensive approach in the form of a charter for the public and victims in order to better meet victims' needs overall. It would be much more effective to address the problem in a comprehensive rather than a piecemeal fashion.

It would be better to address this issue in a government bill than in a number of small private members' bills. That is one of the weaknesses of the Conservative government's approach to protecting victims and the bills that address that issue.

From an ethical standpoint, criminal sciences professor Robert Cario has said that it is important to take into account three fundamental rights when talking about fairness and effectiveness. These rights have a dual purpose: to protect the individual's dignity and human rights and to solidify the victim's position as a stakeholder in the criminal justice system. What we must do is acknowledge the victim's suffering, provide support for them and help them heal.

Sometimes, acknowledging the victim's suffering goes beyond the pain inflicted. It may be a matter of someone telling the victim that he understands the distress the victim is experiencing as a result of the crime. Sometimes, it could be a matter of the criminal truly understanding the extent to which he hurt a family. This can help victims feel that their suffering is acknowledged.

Since I am out of time, I will finish my speech during the next sitting.

Private Members' Business

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business.

As hon. members know, our Standing Orders provide for the continuance of private members’ business from session to session within a Parliament.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 41st Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

As such, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the Order Paper at the conclusion of the previous session are automatically reinstated to the Order Paper and shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

All items will keep the same number as in the first session of the 41st Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the Order Paper but had not yet been introduced will be republished on the Order Paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be recertified by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

Of course all items in the order of precedence remain on the order of precedence or, as the case may be, are referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

Specifically, at prorogation there were three private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to committee.

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, Bill C-458, an act respecting a national charities week and to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable and other gifts) is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders) is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, committees will be required to report on each of these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, prior to prorogation, nine private members' bills originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bills are deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House: Bill C-217, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials); Bill C-266, an act to establish Pope John Paul II day; Bill C-279, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity); Bill C-290, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting); Bill C-314, an act respecting the awareness of screening among women with dense breast tissue; Bill C-350, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accountability of offenders); Bill C-377, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations); Bill C-394, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment); and Bill C-444, an act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer).

Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted these nine bills.

Consideration of private members’ business will start on Thursday, October 17, 2013.

As members may be aware, among the items in the order of precedence or deemed referred to committee, there are four bills standing in the name of members recently appointed as parliamentary secretaries who, by virtue of their office, are not eligible to propose items during the consideration of private members' business.

Bill C-511, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (period of residence) and Bill C-517, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons) were awaiting debate at second reading in the order of precedence at the time of prorogation.

Bill C-458, An Act respecting a National Charities Week and to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable and other gifts), and Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), were in committee at the time of prorogation and, as stated earlier, have been returned there.

This is in keeping with the principle expressed at pages 550-551 and 1125 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which provides that bills remain on the order of precedence since they are in the possession of the House and only the House can take further decision on them.

These items are therefore without eligible sponsors but remain in the possession of the House or its committees. If no action is taken, at the appropriate time these items will eventually be dropped from the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(c).

Hon. members will find at their desks a detailed explanatory note about private members’ business. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in this session. The table officers are available to answer any questions members may have.

I thank all members for their attention.

Criminal Code

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to speak to the bill.

I want to share with the House how the bill came about. About two years ago, a constituent visited me in my office. She was a mom and she told me the story about her daughter who had been sexually assaulted by the neighbour right across the street. That was a horrific experience for the whole family. Then the horror continued as the courts permitted the offender to serve a large portion of the sentence at home.

The family lived in terror, keeping its blinds closed. The members of the family were afraid to go out because they might have seen the offender. Every time they would return to their neighbourhood and home, a home that should be safe in a neighbourhood they loved, from work or school, the whole family, the mother, the father, the siblings would have this horrible feeling in their gut of whether they would see this person and how would they respond to the person.

It was a very friendly, close-knit neighbourhood, with neighbourhood barbecues on the street, and that all ended when the courts provided the offender the opportunity to serve the sentence at home, which was right across the street from the victim.

I appreciate my colleagues across the way expressing concern that this may be a knee-jerk reaction. I can assure them this is not. Shortly after reviewing this horrific story, I contacted other members, including the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca. I knew of his legal experience. Through the consultation process, even talking to members across the way, Bill C-489 was developed.

I thank all members of the House for indicating support for the bill to go to the next step, the justice committee. It is important we develop something that will consider the victims and the impact of sentencing on the victims, and I believe the bill does that.

I thank the legal experts from private members' business. I thank the Minister of Justice and the minister's staff, particularly Dominic. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, the member for Brampton West, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, the opposition members and the critics. I would not have been able to move forward without their help.

The duty of each of us is to make Parliament work. We are doing that with Bill C-489. I look forward to critiquing it, amending it, so it makes it even safer.

On behalf of all Canadians, I thank all members of Parliament as we work to make all Canadian homes safer.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to Bill C-489. However, I definitely do not share the enthusiasm of my colleague who has just spoken.

I will explain that. I have had the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and having the opportunity to examine various private members’ bills brought forward by Conservative members. I will not pretend that it has not been somewhat dismaying to see the Conservatives’ remarkable talent for transforming gold into lead, using some process of alchemy that completely exceeds my powers of comprehension.

I sound like I am teasing or trying to make a joke about it, but we must always be very careful when we embark on amending the Criminal Code. This is fundamental, because the Criminal Code is very complex and has very wide application. Amendments can sometimes create more complications than solutions, at least when they are made without due care and attention.

However, I have to say that the bill introduced by the member for Langley is in fact very important. What is particularly worthwhile about it is that it potentially offers some real measures to protect and support victims of crime. That is what my New Democratic colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be looking at very closely. I have absolutely no doubt of that.

We cannot deny that the bill is relatively promising. What concerns me, first, is the marketing job being done by the member for Langley and his colleagues. By focusing attention on the protection of minors, they are pandering to their political base. They are tugging at people’s heartstrings and then trying to score an easy goal in an area like this.

This is a very debatable approach. However, compared to a number of bills proposing Criminal Code amendments that were very punitive and went down the road of lengthening sentences for criminals, without a thought for victims, this is something innovative and different. As I said, it is promising, from what I have been able to see of it.

First of all, we will have to see what the effect of this bill is and what problem it will remedy. I am going to cite a case in Quebec City that received a lot of media coverage, the case of police officer Sandra Dion, who was a victim of a violent crime. She was assaulted with a screwdriver and was very traumatized. The worst thing is that Ms. Dion learned that the offender who had savagely attacked her, and who has psychiatric problems, was potentially eligible to live in a halfway house in Quebec City near her own home. This distressed her enormously. She reacted by moving to Ottawa for a few days. In fact, she came to try to meet with members and make them aware of her case, particularly members of the party in power. Her efforts met a somewhat disappointing fate.

However, based on her testimony and her case, and other similar cases, we can perhaps hope to improve the bill or at least determine whether it covers her situation. If not, we should improve the bill so she will have a way of getting what is needed so she can have some assurance of her safety and some influence over the situation and the release of the assailant who savagely attacked her.

I should note that Ms. Dion was in fact able to use the existing system to ensure that the authorities who supported releasing her assailant did not send him to the halfway house that had been planned, because it was not equipped to handle him, given his very significant medication needs.

As I said, I will support the bill at second reading because I have confidence in the work that will be done at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I would nonetheless like to share some concerns with my colleagues. When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I observed the Conservative members' very bad knee-jerk response as they sought to limit the powers of the judges and other authorities who carry out decisions.

I understand that some decisions made by the courts can sometimes be difficult for the public to understand, and decisions can seem out of sync with the media reports of a case, which unfortunately often do not tell the whole story.

Our justice system is predicated on the presumption of innocence. Obviously, it then provides for justice to be done, both for the complainant and for the defendant. If we do not maintain that balance, what confidence can all of the parties involved, not to mention the general public, have in our justice system?

When we too readily do an injustice, and do it repeatedly, it may offer a false sense of security, and that can lead to a great many problems in our society. There is nothing worse than an innocent person having to suffer the stigma associated with a charge and the impossibility or serious difficulty of restoring their good name or being able to shed all of the suspicion they have been tarred with.

To come back to the accused persons who are affected by the bill, we must never forget that every case is unique, although the law tries to cover all cases. One of the ideals is to make rules and provisions that apply generally and allow for some individualized interpretation or involvement by judges, with the help of the justice system and the lawyers, both for the Crown and for the defence. Instead of easily applying a strict rule that is inappropriate in some cases, the judgment of justice system experts can be applied in an individualized manner.

That is something that will have to be investigated and ascertained when the bill goes to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I cannot emphasize that enough. I am in fact confident that my colleagues on the justice committee want to take a good look at this aspect, and I am going to watch the proceedings very closely.

To conclude, I cannot emphasize enough that, as I said at the outset, what is most worthwhile about the bill brought forward by the member for Langley is that it opens the door part-way to concrete measures that will potentially assist victims of crime in order to provide them with support. I think this is really the point we have to focus on. We have to hold onto that so we can find common ground, so we can propose a bill that will amend the targeted provisions in fairly and efficiently and genuinely protect the public interest.

I will hold onto that thin ray of hope.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like so many of my colleagues, I am happy to be able to speak today with respect to my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders).

I am proud to support this bill. It is another great piece of legislation that has been brought forward either by our government or members of our government who bring forward what I like to describe as, in many cases, common sense and practical solutions to some of the issues that are facing our criminal justice system today.

It reminds me of a couple of other pieces of legislation that we have brought forward, for example, when we brought forward the issue with victim surcharges. Part of the problem in that case was that judges were not imposing the surcharge, and when they did not, they were supposed to give written reasons. We found out that 90% of the time that surcharges were not imposed, the judges did not actually give written reasons. We made it mandatory that those victim surcharges would be put in place.

This bill would continue to support our agenda to make sure that our streets and communities are safe for all Canadians. It does it in a couple of meaningful ways, and I will go into that as I speak about it.

In a quick summary, the bill would ensure that sentencing courts and parole boards more regularly impose conditions when appropriate to prohibit specific types of contact between offenders and their victims. It proposes that such conditions be imposed to protect witnesses and other individuals who need similar protection.

Again, I say these kinds of things that are being brought forward just make sense. If we asked the average person if there should be conditions to prohibit types of conduct between offenders and victims, people would say, “Yes, that makes sense”.

I am not surprised that in many instances the opposition and opposition members would suggest this bill is not necessary, because the current law already provides that this could take place, but that is the problem. These conditions are not being put in place in many circumstances.

That is the same issue as the victim surcharge issue. For example, in this case, prohibition orders always include three mandatory conditions. These conditions are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, of course the promise to appear when required, and to notify the court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, or any change of employment or occupation.

A sentencing court may also impose any of the optional conditions that are set out in subsection 732.1(3) of the Criminal Code, which includes drug and alcohol prohibitions, restrictions against travel, weapon prohibitions, requirements to support dependants and community service conditions.

The list of mandatory and optional conditions does not include conditions that restrict contact between offenders and victims. This is what I go back to when I say these reforms are such common sense things. One would think that would be at the top of the agenda, restricting contact between the perpetrator of a crime and the victim of a crime. Sentencing courts are also not required to provide reasons when they do not choose to do that. I would submit that makes absolutely no sense when we take a moment to think about it.

Lastly, subsection 732.1(g.1) provides a residual condition under which a court may impose reasonable conditions that are desirable for protecting society and for facilitating the offender's successful reintegration into the community. It is only pursuant to this residual provision that a sentencing court has the authority to impose a condition that would limit contact between the victim and the offender, or prevent the offender from moving across the street from the victim. It is a residual provision.

This is why a reform like this is so absolutely necessary. There are some examples in the case law where sentencing courts have imposed conditions restricting contact between offenders and their victims. For instance, in the case of R v. Horton, the offender, a G20 demonstrator, was made subject to a condition of non-contact with a named police officer who was a victim of the offender's actions.

That said, the appellate decision on the use of this provision underlined the problems with respect to its use in limiting contact between offenders and their victims. Specifically, the courts may refuse such conditions if by their nature they act against the successful reintegration of the offender. This is upside down. This is topsy-turvy. This is what we are talking about. We are putting the rights of the person who perpetrated a crime ahead of the rights of a victim. These imbalances need to be addressed in our justice system.

The Supreme Court of Canada stressed that in order for the probation order conditions to be lawful, they must not offend the objectives of protecting society or the successful reintegration of the offender. It is saying both are important and have to be given due consideration. Two Supreme Court of Canada cases, R. v. Proulx and R. v. Shoker, were very clear about this principle. There must be a nexus between the condition imposed, the offender's behaviour, the protection of society and the successful reintegration of the offender into society. We are trying to reinstitute that balance to make sure that the victim and protection of society is going to be back in that equation. However, as I said, the offender's interests supersedes the rights of the victim and the protection of society, and that is exactly what we are going to address with this legislation.

A good example of this can be found in the decision of R. v. Rowe, where the Ontario Court of Appeal found that a condition directing a repeat domestic violent offender to stay out of the province of Ontario for the duration of the probation order would be an obstacle to the successful reintegration of the offender, a repeat domestic violent offender. That kind of an order is an obstacle to reintegration. What about the obstacle to the victim? That is what we are trying to put back into focus. This is a problem that makes relying on the existing provision difficult and why we need this reform.

As I stated before, the courts are not required to provide reasons for not imposing such conditions, so we do not even know if that condition was considered by the judge or why the judge considered it and did not impose it. These are the kinds of problems that we have with the existing legislation. As a result of this, non-contact conditions simply fall through the cracks, and victims are asking why no one thought about them, why are they falling through the cracks? These are important reforms.

Bill C-489 proposes a real sound solution to the problem that we are talking about. I go back to this again. What I say often is that it is common sense. When explained to average people on the street that we are making this kind of a change, they are shocked that the law did not provide for this before. They cannot believe it. The justice committee is studying some of the changes to not criminally responsible, and we let them know what some of the changes are. People cannot believe that the changes that we are proposing are not already in existence now.

Bill C-489 proposes to amend the probation provisions to make it mandatory for the courts to impose non-contact conditions, unless there are exceptional circumstances not to do so or unless the victim or other individuals mentioned in the order consent. This is going to give more protection, more mental protection as well, to victims. Imagine that a perpetrator continues to be in contact with a victim of domestic violence. The victim will ask why some kind of prohibition order was not put in place.

Many of the concerns I have identified are applicable to other orders. This is why Bill C-489 proposes that the same types of conditions be mandatory for conditional sentence orders imposed by sentencing courts and for all conditional releases imposed by the Parole Board of Canada.

This bill would also require courts to consider imposing such conditions in all child sex offender peace bonds. This just makes sense. It is a reform that we absolutely need to move forward with.

Victims, their families and witnesses need the protection of the courts and parole authorities when an offender is released into the community. We have to get this done; it is going to provide more safety and ensure that witnesses and victims are protected.

This legislation is consistent with our government's commitment to putting victims' rights back on the agenda. That is why I am proud to support the bill.