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.
