Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to government members today. They have talked about this bill in terms of release mechanisms for offenders. We heard from the last speaker that this bill should be unnecessary because of Bill C-41 introduced in 1995. I point out to the government that the offence that prompted my moving this bill took place in 1996 and that the presiding judge in my constituency clearly did not find the provisions in Bill C-41 to be adequate to answer the problem. Perhaps the problem is best reflected in the comments that have been made by the government.
The government has addressed this bill strictly or almost exclusively from the point of view of release mechanisms for offenders. This bill addresses the rights of the victims and the responsibility of the government, the law makers of this land, to see that the people who are affected by these criminal acts are more properly protected.
I was interested in the qualified support from both the NDP and the Progressive Conservatives. I was encouraged by the NDP member when he said this is a common sense approach. That was also reflected in the words of the Progressive Conservative member.
The one problem with the bill that appears to have become clear is that the presiding judge probably would not have any way of knowing and cannot foresee what kind of progress the offender might make. The remedy to that has been proposed, particularly by the speaker from the NDP. It could come back to the sentencing court. The presiding judge who was there at the time of the conviction and the sentencing would be able to have some input. As has been pointed out by the Progressive Conservative member, the bill I have proposed would allow more flexibility within the judicial system.
I ask for unanimous consent that Bill C-262 be withdrawn, that the order for second reading discharged and the subject matter thereof referred to the standing committee on justice for further study.
