Candice Bergen

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for acknowledging that he was indeed laughing. When we were talking about something this serious, laughter is not what is needed. Real work and real focus is what is required.

I am very proud of the fact that our government has increased funding to police officers. We have the police officer recruitment fund. We invested $400 million across the country. As well, we are just seeing Bill C-42 passed, getting through the Senate, no thanks to the opposition that voted against it, which will help provide, among other important things, more funding to the RCMP.

In terms of the witness protection program, it is funny how the NDP do not like the answer. When the NDP members asked witnesses directly if they needed more money, the witnesses said no, but they do not want to believe it. They would rather take taxpayer dollars and spend them frivolously instead of spending them where they are required.

If we are told by the RCMP and by the witness protection program organization that they do not need funding, I for one believe them. It is really disappointing that the member, who was at those committee meetings, is saying that those witnesses were not telling the truth.

I believed those witnesses when they told us that this is good legislation. In fact, I will read what Tom Stamatakis, president of Canadian Police Association had to say. He said:

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, [this]...legislation...will help better coordinate...[it will] promote at least some efficiencies in a system that is badly in need of reform....the Canadian Police Association supports the adoption of the bill.

We heard from the RCMP that it will not be an additional cost.

Let us get this passed. Those members said they supported it. They introduced no amendments. They support the spirit. They support the legislation. Let us quit playing games and get this passed.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly are working together and consulting with the provinces regarding their provincial programs, which is why one of the most important pieces of this legislation is allowing provincial programs to be designated so that they do not have to go through the cumbersome process, which is sometimes a very long process.

Right now, when provinces are trying to get secure identities for those involved in their provincial programs, it can take a very long time, which is obviously a safety concern. We are now allowing them to be easily designated. Upon that designation, the RCMP will then work directly. That is one aspect of the work we are doing with the provinces and why we brought this legislation forward.

We are doing a study on the economics of policing. Provincial witness protection programs work directly with the RCMP. The cost of all policing is escalating, but we are looking, even provincially, at some great examples of how things are being done more effectively.

I think the witness protection program, being a separate entity, appears to be working well. These changes would help both the provinces, and of course, the federal program. The RCMP works very closely with the provinces, and we will continue to work closely with the provinces on their programs and ours.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, to address my hon. colleague's first question, I was just beginning my speech, and in fact, there was a lot of laughter from the other side. I was disappointed, because the opposition has been very good working with us to get this through committee, and I was looking forward to it moving quickly at this time.

I will address a couple of her questions. First of all, just to clear something up for my hon. colleague, this legislation does not expand the program to include gang members. The witness protection program has always included gang members. I have heard that before, and there seems to be some misconception. The legislation would expand the program to enable referrals from national security, national defence and public safety. Certainly, gang members have always been a part of the witness protection program.

Again, with regard to cost, we heard testimony from the RCMP and others. By the way, this is a federal program, so when we were talking about cost, and there were concerns about it, we wanted answers from the organization that administers the program. They were clear time and time again. I know that my hon. colleague was not able to be at the committee hearings, and I respect that, but her other colleagues were. It was very clear that cost is not an issue.

There is a whole set of criteria set out when individuals are going to be accepted into the program, and cost is only one of them. No one has ever been refused because of cost.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak in support of Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

At the onset, I was going to thank the opposition members because up until this point they have been supporting this very important piece of legislation. However, it is very disappointing to see the games that we have just witnessed and their delay tactics in trying to stop this important piece of legislation from being advanced.

It is important that witnesses be protected. It is important that police officers and front-line officers be protected. That is why we have brought forward this legislation, and it is very disappointing and troubling to see the opposition members delay this important legislation as they have been doing.

Strengthening our federal witness protection program should not be a partisan issue. Rather, it is an issue of public safety and effective justice.

In general, we are all in agreement on the critical role that witness protection plays in our criminal justice system. I believe that most Canadians understand that in order to give our police and courts the best chance to apprehend and convict offenders, we need individuals to feel confident in moving forward to help with investigations. In fact, protecting witnesses is vital to our justice system. These are individuals who have agreed to help law enforcement or provide testimony in criminal matters. Their input and help is vital.

The end goal is to remove criminals from our streets and indeed make our communities safer. In many cases, these individuals have inside knowledge about organized crime syndicates or the illicit drug trade because they themselves are involved in these elements. The information that they have agreed to provide to authorities may be invaluable, and it could place their lives at risk.

Witness protection is recognized around the world as an important tool that law enforcement agencies have at their disposal to combat criminal activity. In the case of organized crime in particular, these witnesses are often the key component to achieving convictions. To ensure a fair and effective response to organized crime, terrorism and other serious crimes, government and police agencies must provide protection to informants and witnesses who could face intimidation, violence or reprisals. The safer witnesses act contains a number of proposed changes to the Witness Protection Program Act that would do just this.

These changes fall within five broad areas, and I will speak on those areas.

First, the bill would promote greater integration between the provincial and federal programs by enabling the provinces to have their respective programs designated under the federal act. There would be some very positive benefits to the provinces' programs with these changes, but chief among those benefits is that the provincial protectees would be able to receive a secure identity change without having to be admitted to the federal program. As members know, under the current system, provincial witness protection programs provide a range of services on a case by case basis, including short-term protection and limited financial support. In cases where it is determined that provincial protectees require secure identity changes, they must be transferred into the federal program. That is the way the process works now. This can cause delays. It can be very difficult for these individuals to get the documentation they need and it can take a very long time.

As we consulted with stakeholders, these problems were identified and it was deemed necessary to make these changes that are proposed in Bill C-51 to address this concern. Stakeholders from the provinces indicated that the requirement to transfer their protectees to the federal program for secure identity changes was cumbersome and time consuming. With Bill C-51, we would address this concern. We would do that by allowing the Minister of Public Safety to designate a provincial program, thereby allowing the RCMP to work directly with that designated program to help obtain secure federal identity documents for a protectee. Again this would eliminate a lot of red tape and process, and instead ensure that these individuals who are under the witness protection program receive the identity documents that they need in a timely manner. We would also provide a more efficient and secure process for obtaining these documents by identifying a single point of contact for each designated provincial witness protection program, again eliminating red tape and redundancy, making the process proceed in a more timely manner.

The second change under Bill C-51 relates to secure identity changes as well. Federal organizations would be required to help the RCMP obtain secure identity changes for witnesses in both the federal program and in designated provincial programs.

To ensure a streamlined process, the RCMP would continue to act as a liaison between the provincial and federal programs. Again, it would be a better and more streamlined way to get the important identity documents that witnesses who are under the protection program require.

Third, Bill C-51 would broaden prohibition disclosures, ensuring protection of provincial witnesses and information at both the federal and provincial levels. Again, it is a very important change that has been needed. We heard about it at committee many times in consultation with stakeholders. We heard that broadening the prohibitions of information that could be released was an important part of the witness program that had to be changed. This change addresses calls by the provinces to ensure that witnesses in their programs are protected from disclosure of prohibited information throughout Canada. I will speak more to this important change in a moment, because it really is a very critical part of the bill.

The fourth change proposed under the safer witnesses act is to expand which entities are able to refer individuals to the commissioner of the RCMP to be considered for admission into the federal program. Currently, only law enforcement agencies and international criminal tribunals can make such referrals. Bill C-51 would allow federal organizations that have a mandate related to national security, defence, or public safety to refer witnesses to the federal program. These organizations may include CSIS and the Department of National Defence. This was a recommendation that came out of the Air India enquiry and the recommendation that who would be allowed or considered for this program be expanded. Our government responded by making these changes and by introducing Bill C-51.

We feel it is so important that bill is passed, and we really hope that the opposition will stop playing any kind of games and work with us to get this important piece through. They are laughing, but it is really not a laughing matter at all, not when we are talking about protecting witnesses, which, in the long run, protects Canadians. We are talking about gangs, drugs and organized crime. It is not a laughing matter at all. It is very serious.

The bill addresses a number of other concerns raised by federal and provincial stakeholders, such as allowing for voluntary termination from the federal program and extending emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days, up from the current 90 days. Right now, under the current legislation, someone could be under an emergency protection order for 90 days, but we want to extend that so that they could be protected in an emergency situation for up to 180 days. This received broad support from the witnesses as well as stakeholders.

Together, these proposed changes would serve to strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the federal program more effective and secure for both the witnesses and those who provide protection. This is the goal of the program, to keep those involved and their information safe and secure.

As I mentioned, I want to go back to one of the changes that is related to the disclosure prohibitions. Before I go into that, I want to say that we heard in testimony, whether it was from the police, Tom Stamatakis of the Canadian Police Association, or other law enforcement agencies, that the protections required are certainly not just for the witnesses who are involved in the witness protection program. We are extending that to cover the law enforcement people who have been organizing and working with them. These are sometimes undercover police officers or other law enforcement individuals who currently are not protected under the prohibitions for information. Bill C-51 would give front-line officers and law enforcement workers the protection that they need. Again, the Canadian Police Association is very grateful and supportive of this legislation.

Currently, the act prohibits the disclosure of information about the location or change of identity of a current or former federal protectee. That is basically the only current prohibition. In stakeholder consultations, some provinces requested that these disclosure prohibitions be extended to include information about provincial witness protection programs and those they protect. The safer witnesses act addresses this concern with changes that would broaden the prohibitions on disclosing information in a number of ways.

We are going to extend and broaden what kind of information cannot be released. I think all Canadians, including all members, would agree that when someone's identity needs to be protected, there are so many pieces of information that, unfortunately, could tip off somebody who would want to do them harm. Therefore, it is very important that we broaden the information that is prohibited from being released.

First, the safer witnesses act would prohibit the disclosure of information related to the individuals who are protected under designated programs, and we are going to expand it to designated provincial programs.

Second, it would prohibit the disclosure of any means or method of protection that could endanger the protected individual or the integrity of the programs themselves. Again, that broadens it. The language is within jurisprudence and other language in the Criminal Code. This includes information about the methods used to provide or support protection and record or exchange confidential information as well as data about the location of secure facilities.

Third, it would prohibit disclosure of any information about the identity or role of persons who provide, or assist in providing, protection for the witnesses. That is where law enforcement comes into play. Part of their job is to assist and protect witnesses. They need to be protected too. That is why the bill is so vital and why law enforcement and stakeholders across the country have been asking for it and why it is important that we pass the bill.

Further, the bill would clarify language in the current act to ensure that these measures apply to situations where a person directly or indirectly discloses information. I want to stress that the bill also specifies that one must knowingly reveal this information for it to be an offence. This means directly and intentionally releasing information with the knowledge that one is releasing information that is prohibited. The bill specifies that if someone does it unknowingly, it would not be an offence.

As with many laws regulating privacy and personal information, there are exceptions to these disclosure prohibitions. Bill C-51 includes changes that would further strengthen the legislation in this regard. For example, as stated in the current act, a protectee or former protectee can disclose information about him or herself as long as it does not endanger the life of another protectee or former protectee and if it does not compromise the integrity of this important program. Under Bill C-51, the wording would be changed to remove the reference to the integrity of the program and to clarify that the protected person can disclose information if it could not lead to substantial harm to any protected person.

The current act also allows for disclosure of prohibited information by the RCMP commissioner for a variety of reasons: if the protected person gives his or her consent; if the protectee or former protectee has already disclosed the information or acted in a manner that results in disclosure; if the disclosure is essential to the public interest for purposes such as investigations or the prevention of a serious crime, national security or national defence; and finally, in criminal proceedings where the disclosure is necessary to establish the innocence of a person. There are some good safeguards in place regarding the prohibition of information.

Under the safer witnesses act, we would change the wording as it relates to the RCMP commissioner disclosing prohibited information for the public interest. Instead, under Bill C-51, the commissioner may only disclose this information when he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that it is essential for the purposes of the administration of justice. Furthermore, we propose a change in the wording related to disclosure for national security purposes. Under Bill C-51, the commissioner could disclose prohibited information if he or she “has reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential for...national security or national defence”.

Along the same vein, Bill C-51 contains several proposed changes that would authorize the RCMP commissioner to disclose information in specific situations. He or she could disclose information about both federal and designated program protected persons for the purpose of providing protection to federal protectees or for facilitating a secure change of identity for provincial protectees. The commissioner would also be able to disclose information about federal and designated program protectees in situations where a protected person either agrees to the disclosure or has previously disclosed information, such as if the protected person has revealed his or her change of identity to family or friends. Again, some of the same safeguards are in place.

Additionally, the commissioner would be authorized to disclose information about the federal program itself, methods of protection and the role of a person who provides protection under the program. This would only be done when the commissioner had reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure was essential for the administration of justice, national security, national defence or public safety.

This is a good and concise overview of those elements of Bill C-51 that relate to safeguarding and disclosing information that would compromise the safety of a protected witness or those who provide protection for that witness.

I would like to close by taking a few minutes to talk about some concerns raised in committee. We heard some concerns from the opposition that this would mean rising costs. However, we heard directly from witnesses, including the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety, the Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP and other stakeholders that rising costs were not anticipated.

We also heard some concern that there would be a great influx of witnesses coming into the federal program. Again, witnesses and experts told us that the prediction was that there would not be a great influx. The number of witnesses accepted into the program fluctuates from year to year, but a huge number coming in now is not anticipated. Admission to the program is based on a set of criteria found under section 7 of the act. Only one of those is cost.

Todd Shean, the RCMP Assistant Commissioner, stated, in his committee testimony, “since my time in the chair, never have I denied an entry because of costs”. Therefore, we were able to clear up the concerns some opposition members had. It was clear that no witness has ever been denied access to the program because of cost. Costs are not expected to rise under this new legislation.

Regarding who would be administering the program, there were some concerns about whether it should be the RCMP. There were some recommendations that it could fall under the Department of Justice. We looked at this recommendation and conducted extensive consultations. It was determined that the RCMP was best suited to managing the program.

There would be a clear distinction between investigative and protective functions to ensure objectivity with respect to witness protection measures, so there would be two separate organizations within the RCMP. One would manage the actual witness protection program and decide who should be involved in it, and one would be the administrative part, which would be completely separate.

As I said at the outset, a strong federal witness protection program is critical to keeping our law enforcement and justice systems working effectively. We need to take these steps to ensure that individuals are protected and that our communities are safe. That is why our government is committed to strengthening our federal witness protection program. That is why we are committed to doing this to address the threat of organized crime and drugs in our communities and to make sure that informants and witnesses can collaborate with law enforcement. As such, it is vital that we pass this piece of legislation in a timely way so that it can become law and we can give law enforcement organizations the tools they need to keep Canadians safe.

[Criminal Code, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to rise today to speak in support of private member's Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders), introduced by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Langley.

I want to begin by congratulating the bill's sponsor for the work he has put into this very important piece of legislation. I believe it is entirely consistent with our government's commitment to making our streets and communities safer for Canadians and to better meeting the needs and concerns of victims.

The bill's objective is clear. It proposes to enhance the protection of victims and witnesses and to prevent their re-victimization when an offender is released into the community. It addresses concerns expressed by victims and witnesses across Canada that they should not have to feel threatened by the prospect of an offender watching them, following them, phoning them, or attempting to contact them in any way once they are released into the community. The bill meets this objective by targeting existing provisions that currently provide authority for conditions to be placed on offenders after they have been convicted of a criminal offence, or in some cases, if there is reason to believe that they will commit a child sexual offence.

Generally speaking, the purpose of these types of existing conditions is to ensure public safety and the successful reintegration of the offender into the community. They are imposed at various stages of the process, such as at sentencing; for child sexual offender prohibition orders, probation orders and conditional sentence orders; just prior to release from prison on parole or conditional release orders; and before someone is charged, but there is a reasonable belief that he or she may commit a child sexual offence while under a peace bond.

Statistics Canada data indicates that about 105,000 or more orders per year may be affected if Bill C-489 becomes law. Our government will be supporting the bill while proposing amendments to ensure clarity and consistency and to take into account recent Criminal Code amendments.

I would like to take a few moments to consider the first order Bill C-489 proposes to amend, section 161 of the Criminal Code prohibition order. Under this section, at the time of sentencing an individual convicted of a listed sexual offence against a child under the age of 16, the court must consider imposing listed prohibitions, such as not attending public parks, school yards and other places where children are often present. While the current provision makes it mandatory for the court to consider these conditions, the court retains the discretion not to impose the order. The prohibition order takes effect upon the offender's release into the community and can last up to the lifetime of the offender.

First, the bill would require the court to consider imposing a geographical condition restricting the offender from being within two kilometres of any dwelling house in which a victim could reasonably be expected to be present without a parent or guardian. Second, it would require a court to also consider prohibiting the offender from being in a private vehicle with any child under the age of 16 without a parent or guardian.

It is possible, however, that this two-kilometre limit may be challenging to implement, something I believe the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights should consider when it studies the bill.

I also agree that a child sexual offender should not have unsupervised access to a child. In fact, members will recall that the Safe Streets and Communities Act amended section 161 of the Criminal Code by adding two new conditions: prohibiting the offender from having any unsupervised contact with a child under age 16 and prohibiting the offender from having unsupervised use of the Internet.

The bill before us would also amend both the probation and conditional sentence provisions of the Criminal Code by prohibiting the offender from communicating with the victim, witnesses or any other person identified in the order or from going to any place specified in the order.

These proposed new conditions would be mandatory whenever a sentence included a probation or conditions sentence order, with two exceptions. First, the court could choose not to impose the condition if the identified person in the order consented. Second, the court could decide not to impose the condition where it found that exceptional circumstances existed. In the latter case, the court would be required to provide written reasons explaining this decision.

This proposed approach would provide the court with some flexibility, which I believe is needed. It is possible, however, that requiring written reasons for declining to make the order in exceptional circumstances may have some impact on the day-to-day operations of the courts. I am also aware that similar provisions exist elsewhere in the Criminal Code and instead require reasons to be stated on the record. This, too, is something I believe the justice committee will no doubt take into consideration and look at when it is studying the bill.

The bill also proposes to include similar conditions for section 810.1 of the Criminal Code, recognizing orders often referred to as peace bonds. These are imposed where it is reasonably feared that the defendant will commit one of the enumerated sexual offences against a child under the age of 16. The bill proposes to amend this provision to require the court to consider imposing a condition prohibiting any form of communication between the defendant and any individual named by the court, or prohibiting going to any specified place, unless the named individual consents or unless the court finds, as I mentioned, exceptional circumstances exist to permit such contact.

I agree that the court must consider these types of conditions, and I look forward to this proposal being reviewed in more detail at the committee to ensure that the provision will function as the sponsor of the bill has intended.

Finally, the bill would also provide the authority for imposing specific types of non-contact conditions under conditional release orders pursuant to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which includes parole orders, statutory release orders and orders for temporary absence from federal penitentiaries. Specifically, the bill proposes to amend section 133 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require the Parole Board of Canada or other releasing authority to impose conditions that prohibit contact with a witness, victim or other specified person, or from going to specific places unless there is consent or there are exceptional circumstances for not doing so. For the same reasons I have already mentioned, I do support the proposal in Bill C-489.

The sponsor of the bill, the member for Langley, has explained why he introduced the bill, namely because the safety and well-being of victims in his riding were not being taken into consideration. Indeed, if it is happening in his riding, we know it is happening in other parts of the country.

The victims were not being taken into consideration when decisions were being made regarding the release of offenders into his community. I agree that Bill C-489 responds to these concerns and would help to enable victims, their families, witnesses and other individuals to feel safe in their homes and in their communities when these offenders are released back into the community.

Moreover, the bill is consistent with our government's commitment to make Canada's streets and communities safer by holding violent criminals accountable and by increasing the efficiency of our justice system. It is also very consistent with our government's commitment to giving victims of crime a stronger voice, one that can be heard, listened to and given consideration in our criminal justice system.

We support Bill C-489. I look forward to other members of the House supporting it. We can study it further in committee.

[An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to rise and speak in support of private member's Bill C-479, which was brought forward by my colleague, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

I want to thank and commend my colleague for his strong commitment to placing the needs, rights and interests of victims ahead of criminals and for introducing this bill that would further strengthen victims' rights in this country. The bill includes measures that are in keeping with our government's strong commitment to support victims of crime and ensure that they have a strong voice in the justice system.

While we have made some very good progress over the past seven years to meet these commitments, we know that more work needs to be done. That is why the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada recently outlined the next phase of the Government of Canada's plan for safe streets and communities.

Through this plan, our government will take further action in the following areas:

We will tackle crime by holding offenders accountable for their actions. This includes bringing forward legislation to further toughen penalties for child sexual offences and to better understand the risks posed by known child sex offenders.

As well, we have introduced Bill C-54, not criminally responsible reform act, which would better protect the public from accused persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Such legislation would ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in these cases.

We also moved ahead with further measures to enhance the rights of victims by introducing legislation to implement a victims' bill of rights. This legislation would serve to further enhance the government's commitment to victims of crime by entrenching their rights into law at the federal level.

I want to again thank my colleague, because he mentioned this important piece. It is one thing to talk about victims' rights, but they need to be enshrined in federal law. My colleague's bill will move forward on this as will what our government is doing to support victims of crime.

Finally, we will increase the efficiency of our justice system by looking at measures to make our justice system more efficient through the “Economics of Policing” study.

Members may recall that the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale introduced a similar bill in 2011. He has been very committed to this cause and continues to be.

Since 2011, we have passed into law the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which included these important measures to enhance the participation of victims in the justice system and to increase offender accountability. As such, Bill C-479 proposes some important changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, also known as the CCRA.

I will now look at how Bill C-479 would amend the CCRA. First, private member's Bill C-479 proposes to extend mandatory review periods for parole. For example, if a violent 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. Again, we have heard today the impact that would have on victims. Rather than having to come back every two years and relive the horror and tragedy of what they or their families went through, the bill would extend that period to five years.

The bill also proposes to hold detention reviews every two years rather than annually. Again, this considers the rights and interests of victims and what they go through when they are unfortunately re-victimized every time they have to go through this. This would not only affect offenders who are not ready to be released into the community at their statutory release date, at two-thirds of the sentence, but would also put victims' interests into the equation.

The second set of changes to the CCRA proposed in Bill C-479 relates to the attendance of victims and members of their families at parole review hearings.

There is no magic formula for healing from the traumatic experience of violent crime. There is no single set of counselling, time or things that can happen after one is victimized. There is no magic formula that can fix the pain and tragedy victims have gone through. Each victim, each family member, is affected differently and will cope in a unique way. With this in mind, Bill C-479 proposes to give more weight to the needs of victims in the justice system.

Specifically, Bill C-479 proposes that if victims are denied the opportunity to observe the hearings in person, they could follow the hearings by teleconference or one-way closed-circuit feed, again another way that the government and the Parole Board could show victims that their voices matter. Currently, there can be distance and time and it can be very difficult for victims to attend hearings, yet they want to see it or be a part of it. This bill would give them the opportunity to follow hearings by teleconference or one-way closed-circuit feed.

The bill would provide useful tools. However, we need to strike a balance between theory and practice. Therefore, there are some minor amendments to make it easier to implement this and we expect amendments would be required for this part of the bill.

Currently, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act gives victims the right to certain basic information about offenders and criminals. At the same time, it gives the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada discretion to provide additional information if the interests of the victims clearly outweigh the privacy concerns for the offenders.

Bill C-479 proposes to expand the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals in order for information to be shared about offenders. Specifically, it would make the release of certain information mandatory rather than discretionary. This information would include the date, if any, when an offender would be released on either unescorted or escorted temporary absences. As well, a victim would be informed of any of the conditions attached to an offender's unescorted temporary absence, parole or statutory release and the reasons for any unescorted temporary absences. In addition, a victim would be informed of the destination of an offender when released on unescorted temporary absence or parole or statutory release. Again, one would assume this has already taken place, but it has not, and those are some of the provisions that the bill would provide.

Obviously, it is important for victims to have all this information well in advance of an offender's temporary release. Bill C-479 proposes that the chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada discloses this information at least 14 days before an offender is released. The bill would further provide victims with information about offenders' correctional plans, including progress toward meeting their objectives and providing transcripts of parole hearings, if they are produced. Should the bill be referred to committee, we would again seek to move certain amendments to ensure that any necessary public safety safeguards would be in place for the sharing of this information.

Again, I would like to commend my colleague for his strong commitment to victims and for introducing this bill to further strengthen the rights of victims. The changes proposed in Bill C-479 bring greater fairness to the justice system for victims. This is in keeping with our government's commitments and I am proud to indicate that we will be supporting this important legislation.

[An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for introducing this bill and for being the kind of member of Parliament who stands up for his constituents and does not just talk about it. He really has put action to his words.

I want to follow up on my colleague's question on the issue of offenders cancelling their hearings. Could my colleague address how his bill would deal with that and what the problem has been? I think many Canadians do not know that offenders can cancel their parole hearings on very short notice and that it can have a horrible effect on victims. I wonder if my hon. colleague can explain that situation and why his bill is going to address that.

[Public Safety, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2012 annual report on the RCMP's use of the law enforcement justifications provisions.

This report addresses the RCMP's use of specified provisions within the law enforcement justification regime, which is set out in sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the Criminal Code. The report also documents the nature of the investigations in which these provisions were used.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Auditor General's report and we appreciate it. We have taken those recommendations and we will follow through because we believe the Auditor General is there to give advice. That is why I would encourage the opposition to support and to respect the office.

While I am on my feet, I have a question for the member from the Liberal Party. The Gomery Commission asked where the $40 million were, $40 million which were clearly missing. We have never heard that answered.

Could one of the Liberal members stand and answer where the $40 million are, which the Auditor General and the Gomery Commission clearly said had gone missing? It has never been paid back.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member reading that quote from the Auditor General.

Any Canadian listening, other than one with an NDP mindset, would understand that what the Auditor General said was the money was accounted for. It was horizontal money and there were better ways to report it. We agree with the Auditor General and we agree with the quote that there are better ways to report it. That is exactly the recommendation we will take.

It is very troubling that the opposition would purposefully mislead Canadians when it knows what it is asserting is completely false.

I would like to read what the Auditor General said again. He said, “We didn’t find anything that gave us cause for concern that money was used in any way that it should not have been”.

Here is another quote. This one is from committee when he was asked directly if he could confirm there was no money lost or missing. He said, “It means that we didn't see anything in what we were looking at that put any red flags in front of us that said we would need to do a lot more work on this”.

The Auditor General has said the case is closed.