Justice Committee on Nov. 5th, 2013

[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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

It is indeed a pleasure to be here. As we all know, the brightest minds of Parliament get appointed to this committee, so it's a real treat for me to be sitting before you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

A little butter never hurts, Mr. Warawa.

The floor is yours.

[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]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

We are going to questions now. Our first questioner from the New Democratic Party is Madam Boivin. As a reminder, these are five-minute rounds.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I didn't forget.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Warawa.

Thank you also for your bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Hold on. Put in your earpiece, Mr. Warawa. This won't go against your time, Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Excellent. I was simply thanking you for being here, Mr. Warawa.

Thank you for your bill.

We, the members of the NDP, were very pleased to support it at second reading. Now we will be examining it more in depth, of course. It is often in examining the details that we see that certain small corrections need to be made.

That said, you talked about thousands of cases. Do you know what kind of impact this bill would have, and on how many files, approximately? Do you have any statistics on that? We know the statistics for offences of a sexual nature, for instance, but how many files do you think would be impacted by the bill?

Do you think that the courts have sufficient means to deal with this? Will this increase their workload? I am somewhat concerned about access to justice, because it takes time. Will this type of bill slow the process down, or will it on the contrary, fit in very well and very easily with the type of orders that were analyzed previously?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I think that's a very good and important question.

First of all, we do not have statistics specific to how often conditional sentences are being used that end up with house arrest right in the vicinity of the victim. We know that in 2012 there were 4,000 reported sexual assaults against children. Not all sexual assaults are reported. These are police-reported calls, so the number of actual assaults is much higher.

If you create an atmosphere in the sentencing and the administration of that sentencing that provides a healthy environment for the victim and the offender, I believe the actual workload to deal with that situation would be less if the sentencing is ideal. People want justice and they need justice. You need healing for the victim, but you need healing for the offender to get at the root causes of why they committed the offence and how we prevent them from committing any future offences. If it can deal with those root causes and put them in an environment where that can be dealt with appropriately, and the victim and their family can heal, I think the workload would actually decrease.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You definitely don't want the victims to be scared, which I find is one of the objectives. It's to live in peace through the whole process.

Your bill raises certain concerns with regard to the kilometres rule. This may be very practical in a large city like Toronto, Gatineau or Montreal, but perhaps not so much in certain small villages where the two-kilometre rule may pose certain problems. Did you have this analyzed, from the perspective of a person's right to live in a location of his choosing? How will this work, practically speaking?

[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.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

Do I still have a bit of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have 30 seconds.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

The term “exceptional circumstances” worries me somewhat, because it may be difficult to determine from one court to another. In a few years, we may want to make this more specific. Did you also have that concept analyzed?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Regarding the term “exceptional circumstances”, it would be up to the courts to determine what are exceptional circumstances, but I think we all agree that it's important that the courts have discretion. We cannot mandate “thou shalt” or say “these are going to be the sentences in all conditions”, so I believe we've provided the courts with that discretion.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Mr. Dechert from the Conservative Party.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Warawa, thank you for bringing this bill to Parliament.

As have all members of Parliament, I certainly have spoken to many of my constituents who constantly express a concern about confidence in the justice system. Obviously, we want all citizens to have the greatest level of confidence in our justice system, and this is a bill that I think will enhance that. Often I hear from people who don't think victims are properly protected. They feel that the system is a revolving door and that it favours the perpetrators more than it protects the victims and the law-abiding citizens. Most of us believe that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and I think this bill would help in that sense.

When I was previously on the justice committee about two and a half years ago, we heard the story which I think you referred to in your opening remarks. It was about a young woman who very bravely brought forward her story about being sexually abused by a neighbour. She went through all the difficulties of a trial and giving evidence. That person was convicted and was then given a conditional sentence. On the same day that the sentence was handed down, she came home from court and saw him out on the front lawn of his house across the street cutting the lawn.

That so devastated her sense of self-respect and self-worth—she had gone through all of this effort to bring that person to justice and there he was in the same place where he'd been for years while he was abusing her—that she then attempted to commit suicide, which I think was just devastating to all of us. Thankfully, she was unsuccessful in that attempt and is well today and able to tell her story.

I think this bill addresses specifically that type of situation, so on my behalf and on behalf of the people I represent in Mississauga, I want to thank you.

You mentioned some statistics in your opening remarks. Could you tell us about your understanding of the statistics around sexual assault in Canada, especially with respect to child sexual assault? What's happening with that? Are we seeing more reported cases or fewer reported cases every year?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Actually, one of the increases in criminal offences is sexual assault against children. I do not have an opinion on what is causing this increase, but the victims are often hesitant to report this because of a number of factors. It could be shame or guilt. It could be threats from the offender to the child that if the child tells anybody, there will be harm done to these family members.

There are a number of different circumstances why a number of the offences are not reported, but to see now a dramatic increase is quite shocking. We need to get to the root of whether there is an actual increase in the number of offences or whether there is an increase in the number of offences that are being reported. Perhaps that is an issue for this committee to deal with in a future study.

My bill is specifically regarding how we manage these offenders. I believe the safest and most appropriate way to create a just society and a safe society is to ensure that there would be a bubble zone, a restricted area so that the offender would not knowingly be going in any area where the victim is.

The time for a victim to heal can be very long. The term “very long“ is very general, but it could be years and years. The victim may never fully recover. Every time they see their attacker, the offender, it may trigger fear and anxiety. Each of us has our memories, and they last a long, long time. We need to give the victim the time to heal. That's why not only does it deal with this bubble zone during the warrant period, but possibly after, if it's deemed appropriate by the courts to have a peace bond.

Thank you for your question.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Those statistics are okay.

Briefly, tell us how this responds to the fears of victims during the parole process. How would it give a voice to victims during the parole process?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Of course, as we know, the sentencing is generally from the courts, and then it has to be administered by Corrections Canada, and then the Parole Board after that. It would be required by the courts to consider this, but also for the other administrative bodies to make sure that the victims are being considered when the offender is being released.

At two-thirds of the sentence the person will be released unless they present a very extreme safety concern to the public under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. They are getting out. They are being prepared. Corrections Canada is preparing them for that release date, that statutory release. Actually, most will apply and can apply to get out at one-third of the sentence.

This all is now being required by these administrative bodies to consider the victim and how that release back into the community is going to affect the victim.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner, from the Liberal Party, is Mr. Easter. You have five minutes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I would like to go back to that last question on the parole conditions. Are you saying the same considerations that apply to the court in terms of conditions would apply to parole conditions in terms of distance, etc.?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I do think the intent of the bill is fine.

I want to go back to the same point the NDP raised. You said in your remarks that there are thousands of victims, and there are 4,000 cases against children according to Stats Canada. Do you have any numbers on how many people who would be impacted by this bill specifically have found themselves in a situation of having the offender within two miles of their residence?