There are some occasions where the issue isn't addressed. I take it that you've heard about some of those cases. I can tell you that the crown, at least in the cases I've dealt with and that I've heard of, always asks for these conditions and they're always considered by the judge. So I'd be very interested in seeing a transcript of those cases. I'd like to see if the crown attorney didn't mention it, or if there were reasons given, or why it wasn't imposed. I think that evidence should be obtained.
There are cases where offenders and victims live in close proximity to one another. In such cases, using judicial discretion to craft the conditions necessary to ensure the safety of the victim and the absence of contact requires a careful balancing. Certainly, it's in no one's interest to render an offender destitute, to put him on the streets, to remove him from his community, from his support system, from resources that could be used to rehabilitate him.
Now, there are some exceptional cases. There are cases where victims and offenders may live in close proximity. It's in those cases where judicial discretion has to be honed. We're blessed with a good judiciary and with a well-funded, competent, intelligent prosecution service. Between the submissions of the crown, judicial discretion, and a full knowledge of the offender's circumstances and the victim's input, it's up to the judge to craft the conditions necessary to make sure that the offender isn't put into a situation where he loses his home, his family, his support, or his employment. That's not to anyone's benefit. Through judicial discretion, even in those cases where they reside close together, conditions can be put in place and crafted to make sure, I submit, that there's a balance of interests.